Loading...
07-11-787 11 78 Minutes not available.. A regular meeting of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board was held Tuesday, July 11, 1978 at 7:30 p.m. in' the Flathead County CourthouseFast Community Room, 723 5th. Avenue East, Kalispell, Montana. Members present: W. J. Lupton Dale W. Haarr Bob LeD.ut Jim Thompson Dorothy Garvin Fran 011endike John Kain Others present: 1 APO Staff Representative Approx. 17 Guests .President Haarr advised that the minutes were not yet available from the last meeting so hoped that everyone had a good recollection. `Communications: I Steve Petrini just indicated that there was a APO to. Brd.'of communication regarding Silver Shadows Estates, County Commissionersindicated that a final plat had been submitted dated 6-14-78'. Board of County Commissioners on June 14, 1978 I(copy attached). Public Hearing: Continuation of Buffalo Head Subdivision. which to the President Haarr explained that this subdivision was tabled and Steve Petrini explained that the subdivision had been tabled in order to clarify items that had been noted by Walt Griffin for 1. acceptibility and qualification of 24' wide streets, with City Street and Alley Committee, 2. lack of homeowners responsibilities, obligations and duties in the Covenants submitted and the architectural controls are too unlimited, and 3. City Park Committee's approval and possible cloud on the title for the park property. Steve Petrini then passed out a two page Rationale report for implementation of the 24' road and the park (copy attached). Steve explained that there has been one change in the preliminary plat over what was reviewed, 4 single family lots in the original plan have been changed to 3 single family lots, 5,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size is now 7,200 sq. ft.+ in the three lots. President Haarr requested that the developer address those items in the tabled motion and then reopened the hearing for public discussion. Stan Pine said he met with the Street and Park Committees, who were both reluctant to give final approval, and the basic conclusion of the Street Committee was repairs, due to the fact that they are looped and private streets. The primary question on the Park was what Walt Griffin said that Forrest Daly felt that there should be a park on top, and after the meeting with his committee, the final conclusion was that the City would be interested in taking a portion on top with the homeowners association taking care of the greenbelt, where the 1. youngsters could be -seen by their parents. They indicated that if the homeowners association wished to pay for the equipment this was fine, but felt some property should be dedicated to the city that they could control and as far as the balance of the park down below, they.didn't care that could be for adults and older children. There was no final approval but were agreeable. The third point was with regard to the Covenants, and .these were not satisfied with respects to the homeowners association and they were agreeable to adding that. Mr. Pine indicated that he had secured a copy of the covenants and except for leaving out the homeowners association, they were very similar. The new covenant's are not yet redrafted, but they would be after the meeting. Mr. Pine then read part of the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants(taken from the Hartt Hill Estates:)Article I. "C. Homeowners Association,. "the residents of Buffalo Head Subdivision shall form, when a majority of the residence are occupied, an organization known as Buffalo Head Homeowners Association, which may be unincorporated or a non-profit corporation, whichever the residents elect. The Homeowners Association shall have the authority to levy assessments against the lots in Buffalo Head to provide necessary funds to maintain and improve said areas and such assessments shall be enforceable as a lien against the lot if not paid when due". He indicated that he had deleted one sentance which regarded "the authority to make rules and regulations regarding the use of the Park and Buffer areas so long as such rules and regulations are not in conflict with any rules and regulations adopted by Flathead County or its park board". Mr. Pine then indicated that on Page 5 of the Buffalo Head Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Buffalo Head, Article III. Park Area Covenants was included which was more extensive than Hartt Hill and he found no problems with including homeowners association formation into these Covenants. President Haarr questioned the change in lots and Stan Pine stated that the lots were designed with the concept in mind and the desire was to have multi -family throughout the development. Detached single family units are put in to be adjacent to lots that they don't own in Parkview Terrace, 0 lot line lots have never been done in Kalispell, makes them a little more compatible with the area. Looking into Parkview Terrace, what has given multi- family housing a bad name is putting that into a single family development where lot sizes are 7 - 9,000 sq. ft. geared for single family development and these lots were sized for 4 to 6 detached single family houses together. Being that the Board had no comments to make on what was stated, the public hearing was turned over to the audience. Pieter Drent, was disappointed in the fact that there were considerable people and time spent and very little attention was paid to the remarks and requests, and he 2. that -the problems still involved the fact that the single family residences were not going into the area where they should and multi -family were butting single family, and also the density of 6.6.d.u.p.a., was higher than the recommended density than the 4.6 that Jim had come up with. This was explained as gross or net density. He stated that the area which was for the church site, and it did not become a church site, and if this was zoned for 6 plexes there was no guarantee in the future that it wouldn't be 4 plexes; and -there should be some guarantee when this plat was accepted. The Covenants are proposed so that anything can be changed at any time, and also they, the landowne-M, brought up the spoiling of the view and the fact tha.tthey would like to see single family residences in back of single family residences and if this property didn't go for a church site it should go for single family. Pieter Drent also said that as for the park area, it could some day be a beautiful one but it would take thousands of dollars and would like to see an area of 100 x 200 for basketball courts and tennis courts, such as there is in Northridge. He did not feel that the any.of these things were answered.) David Logan, 119 Indian Trail, Parkview Terrace indicated that he was opposed to the entire development because of the location of the multi -family. The multi -family should be on land that won't support singlefamily, and you don't put them on the edge.of town. Four plexes do have an effect on the resale of existing.single family homes. Mr —Logan also stated that if the motion was tabled and the individual that tabled it did not bring it up then the.Board had nothing to discuss. Although Ray Lybeck brought up the motion, and he was not available, President Haarr wished to know whether they were there to follow the'Roberts Rules or were they there to find out what was best for the community, and they could always get Mr. Lybeck in and have him bring the question up and have everyone come back in two weeks. The motion did postpone it and did bring it back up at this meeting. Steve indicated that you could table it indefinitely or for a certain period of timas as this was. Fran 011endike said she didn't believe there was anything in their rules about using that procedure. As to being defined loosely, they were conducting a public meeting, if that would satisfy that requirement, and it is on the agenda and the Board did intend to conduct it and should it be postponed for the future, the time would be shorter. Stan Pine indicated to Pieter Drent that single family left a greenbelt around that multi family to make it its own complete concept, the idea.was not totally desirous in that if they owned -the lots surrounding the balance 3. then they could perpetuate this on and on because you have to have a border, and then went on to explain the various single family and multi family concepts. Tt was stated that you don't put multi family on a fringe area, the sprawl that way eats up more land. Stan Pine stated that he wasn't the developer that built all the four plexes that people were showing pictures of. He said when you are talking about high density housing, you are talking about 4 - 5 story downtown areas and this is not designed :for apartments around shopping or downtown centers. Mr. Pine once again stressed that the density was only 4.6 d.u.p.a. considering all the open area, and even at 6.6 d,u.p.a. there was a mild density for this type of area, with large lots, lots of green area and lots of park, and it is 4 times the park area required. With respects to the church site, Stan Pine didn't know what guarantees could be put into this and didn`'t know if anyone else ever had to guarantee anything like it, but if necessary he guess he could and not trying to deceive anyone and once the project is approved would place them were stated with the church site basically verbally committed. Pieter Drent wished a guarantee for the land use that the people who come in and not put in 14 duplexes, which is not what the board approved. Bruce Lutz indicated that on the final plat it indicates the exact designation of those lots. Steve Petrini explained that in the Staff Report it requested a R-4 PUD zone and a PUD zone would basically do exactly what they are saying with each lot being used for this many units and not subject to change. Bruce Lutz wished to have an RA-1 rather than the R-4 PUD, as the developer has to have a little economic opportunity to change and don't want to be tied down to all 12 story units with any covenants having height restrictions in the single family detached. President Haarr wished to know what zone was being requested and Bruce Lutz indicated that they were requesting RA-1 and Steve says nothing that he noted, but Fran 011endi,ke. stated that Jim Mohn's Staff Report indicated that the request should be for R-4 PUD, which .would set the design criteria, four plex on this lot, six on this lots, etc. Steve explained that the City could not condition the RA-1 zoning, stating that you put this on this lot and this on that lot. Tf the City is made a part and party to the Covenants then they can not be changed without the city approval, but Steve indicated that the,City might be a party to some parts of some covenants, but not necessarily to all of them. BM President Haarr explained that the problem with this property is no reflection on the developers and it is one of creditability and the fact that there is housing that looks down on this property and any other place there probably wouldn't be any questions raised, but a lot of people feel that they have been hurt in their present development and this is what is being heard now and as a planning board have to acknowledge and pass on to the City Council, without having to bring it back two or three times. Stan Pine indicated that he didn't want to get stuck with R-4 land, but if there was a guarantee to get the PUD if would be different. Everyone tries to protect their own property;. and if you have to meet the market at that particular time, and everything is zoned down so fine, you are locked in. President Haarr asked Steve Petrini to explain the procedures and Steve explained that you take an existing zoned piece of ground and then petition for a PUD zone, so first you have to annex this as an R-4 PUD and then you do stand a chance that the Council would reject it, but first you would petition for the R-4 zone and then PUD overthe top of it. Jim Thompson indicated that you have to show a site plan for every lot, along with design, etc. and that plan may or may not be built that way at the end of five years. Parkview Terrace,, he indicated, has a lot of problems when it comes to multi -family because it had nice clean lots just made for multi -family and the fault was with the city in that R-1 permitted it and there is a lot of multi -family in R-1 all over town and zoning was the culpert, and he didn't feel that this was a PUD. Pieter Drent reemph asized the fact that they didn't want another Parkview Terrace problem. Jim Thompson stated that if there is a land use pattern for the ground then the city will know what is there, and the landowners will know what is there and each will know what the end product will be and this is what Stan wants, a guarantee. If it can be put into the Covenants, then the city can be a part and party to those Covenants and any changes. Mr. Bangman indicated that he would like to see Lots 14 .and 15 turned into single family because they are adjoining. Stan indicated that these lots would not be cheap, but expensive and what was going to go down there would be quite expensive structures, and he also didn't feel that he should have to guarantee a single family lot adjacent to a lot that he owns, as everyone wanted guarantees on everything, which was an impossibility, specially seeing as he wasn't responsible for what happened in the other subdivisions, but now is responsible for guaranteeing everything in his. Stan indicated that they -were -trying to maintain the concept and give the people as much.as they could, but not trying to bring in something that is incompatible. 5 Attached single family is very compatible with detached single family. Pieter Drent wished to know if he was going to build it or sell the land. Stan said he probably wouldn't built it, but that the Architectural Controls would govern what went on those lots, with the city and planning board having control over the basic concept, and the developer should have a little control of what type of units go on there Mr. Logan stated that when financial problems become involved, as in Parkview Terrace,then the lots are sold at a ,premium and then approved with something that isn't in the concept. Mr. Lutz indicated that perhaps one way that would help this situation would be to include some of the people in Parkview Terrace on the Architectural Committee so that they could see what was going on. Mr. Logan stated that one individual built against the architectural control. and by the time he was threatened with a court suit, because what he was doing which was contrary, his project was almost finished and then nobody wanted to have him tear it down, so this building exists and it is not in compliance with the Covenants and so that is no guarantee by a Architectural Control Committee, if somebody ignores it. President Haarr asked for comments and discussions fro._ the Board. John Kain wished to know if Stan felt it was good residential land use, to which he responded it was exceelent, and John Kain said with a 51.6% of the land involved in a nebulous land sprawl, he didn't see it. Stan Pine restated that the acres given as park were not suitable for building and the church site was suitable and more or less verbally sold. John Kain said alright that was about 30% and would have to go along with him to a point, and again he said there still was fractured land sprawl. John Kain then proceeded to illucidate on the features of a tennis court, base and water problems involving the site. Jim Thompson refreshed the Board with the knowledge that the Comprehensive Plan proposed this type of high density urban residential for this area immediately south. John Kain understood that immediately to the south it was basically commercial, what with the hospital, doctors, and single family residential. Jim Thompson indicated that this was detached single.family and basically the density was the same, whereas Kain indicated it was a checkerboard pattern. Mr. Lutz once again quoted figures from all the surrounding subdivisions and compared them with the proposal Then discussed at great length was what made-up good land use and urban sprawl, as defined. Q President Haarr inquired as to whether the Park option with Dr. Wildgen had been resolved and Mr. Pine indicated that as best as possible and that Dr. Wildgen planned to at the meeting tonight but hadn't. Stan's attorney indicated that the parcel had been sold twice within the last 17 years and that Dr. Wildgen hadn't done anything about it, but he was still going to visit with this attorney about it. President.Haarr indicated that they would have to presume that there would be no problem with the park property. Also discussed was the fact that there were water rights running through there that were made. many years ago. Pieter'Drent felt this might. make problems for the city, but Stan Pine said that it was used for irrigation by Mr. Richards for his orchard which was old. 'Fran 011endike indicated that she had to make a comment about all these required guarantees and felt that it was knatpicking, that nothing could be guaranteed except death or taxes and you couldn't even guarantee what your neighbor would do and felt that everyone was too demanding. Also felt that the 5 acre park would be an invaluable asset to the city in the future, even if it took a long time to raise money to fix it up, the land was still there. Dorothy Garvin wished to know if they could live with the R-4 PUD and Stan stated that he couldn't live with that, as a process 'as didn't feel that that was what was planned at the time, and didn't want to end up with R-4 land, but if this could all be done at the same time, then he would go along with it. H e would like to live with that as an end product but not as a beginning. Then discussed was 'the fact that it could not be instituted at the same time but would have to be two separate steps, and President Haarr advised Dorothy Garvin that it would have.to be brought in as an R-4 and the PUD would have to be applied for and this was discussed before, and no way that a condition could be placed that one would have to follow the other. .Robert LeDuc felt that something should be done so that Mr. Pine could do his building and something to protect these people, and wished to know if there was anyway that the Covenants could have this written into them. Steve Petrini advised that the Covenants could be written to incorporate the fact that Lot 14 shall be a 3 plex and Lot 15 shall be a 6 plex... etc. The land use could be tied down in the Covenants to limit the number of units on each parcel and if the city is made a part and party to them, the city could enforce them and would have to"be contacted with regard to any changes. Steve stated that when reviewing the zoning ordinance with the city they discussed the possibility of taking out the conditional use permit on multi -family dwellins in the RA districts but they didn't and left them in and even though the,covenants would allow a 6 plex, he would have to go before the Board of Adjustment for a conditional use permit and supply a drawing at the.time 7. for each unit in that RA district, because that site plan review `is in all RA districts, a.nd that puts the city back in a review process, and there is a process where the public becomes involved and do have that in between step, in a typical RA district. President Haarr felt% ,, that was a good guarantee. This was discussed at some length. B. J. Lupton wished to get it off center one way or another. Robert LeDuc felt the park was super but unable to address it a number of years from now and irrelevant to discuss the long or hard time understanding of the attached single family on Lots 14 and 15 as the same man owns the single family lots next to them, this could be used as a buffer zone without the knowledge that they would have this single family buffer already there. Felt that there had been some excellent concessions on the part of the developer to make a good border and felt badly that all .these people have been burned in the past and that Lot 21 would be a likely piece of ground for a 4 plex, but that is an area of interpetation and advised John Kain that he did not agree with his observation that this was and didn't now how he arrived at the fact, that it was fractured land use., because the park land couldn't be developed into anything, siting a number of thin-s that could happen to it, and urban sprawl makes more sense to talk about density in dwelling units per acre, than it does percentage of open space by acreage. Pure optimum land use would be high density, and not encroaching on good agricultural use, and the density was excellent and open space is irrelevant. John Kain restated some of his previous percentage opposition and statements on urban sprawl and denstty. The Board and John Kain along with Stan Pine then discussed the density and sprawl and percentages at length, including the church site, which mit not remain as a church site and then it wouldn't be the concept that the Board was reviewing now, and John Kain felt he wasn't getting his point across to the balance of the board. Fran. 011endike felt that. with the cost of living, that there probably would be more and more multi -family and felt that possibly Mr. Drent couldn't sell his house because people within that price range were rather going into multi -family. Then discussed was the comment of one of the gentlemen in the audience who stated that the hotest thing on the n.rket was the single family detached, 1/2.acre pieces, but which the Board did not feel was good planning of the land, and then felt that the Board was getting just into too much detail about this. A woman in Adjustment noticed in and could. Questioned it was 13 always the error. the audience wished to know if the Board of was a public meeting and whether it could be the newspaper and was advised that it was also was the difference or 14 four plexes and was same on the plat and was between whether advised it was a typographical President Haarr indicated that they were prepared to accept a motion, and felt that those lots designated single family should remain unchanged through Covenants. The Board felt that it was necessary on behalf of the community, and that legally and officially tie this final plan into the governing body and should they want to change all the community should have the opportunity to re- view what was being proposed, and indicated that it should be .the governing body, which in this instance was the City Council, as a part and party to them.The Board of Adjustment would•then be looking only at each individual site planin order to grant a Conditional Use and the City Council was to be involved in any changes in the Covenants. The Board then discussed once again extensively the fact that 24' streets were proposed in place of 38', with all the pros and cons, access, chuck holes, city street standards, private maintenance and garage -driveway approaches. They also discussed multi -family as it related to individual lots. President Haarr wished to know what type of study had been done regarding the storm drainage'. He indicated that he didn't feel he could. address this and the developer didn't feel that in the preliminary stage he should have to completely engineer out this portion until l he received preliminary approval. J Jim Thompson stated that in the conditions for preliminary approval that it he stated that the city grant variance to the 24' wide private roadway and that they become a part and party to the covenants. The Board didn't feel that they were in a position to grant a variance on the street width, as none had any expertise in that field. President Haarr and the Board then discussed those conditions to be submitted prior to the motion being made. Fran 011endike moved that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board recommend preliminary approval to the Kalispell City Council with the following conditions: 1. That all water, sewer and storm drain systems be approved by the State Dept. of Health and the City of Kalispell, 2. that the developer limits the units within the existing plan to single family detached and single family "Townhouse" units in the design concept as submitted; and petition the City for RA-1 zoning in accordance with the new City Ordinance, 3. that in addition to the covenants submitted, the developer prepare for recording; the homeowners association documents to provide for exterior maintenance of grounds, open space, structures, private roadways, and garbage collection, 9. Proposed Public Hrg. for 7-25-78: Glenwood Addn #92. ee/8-31-78 4.. a variance be granted to the street design standards of the Subdivision Regulations to allow a 24' private road and,that the design of intersections and turning radius on private roadways be coordinated with the Kalispell Fire Department to facilitate equipment and, 5. that the land use section of the covenants specially state the number of dwellings permitted on each lot and whether detached or attached as per approved preliminary plat and that the City of Kalispell be made a party to the covenants. Dorothy Garvin seconded the motion. The Board then discussed the differences between townhouses -condominiums, single family dwelling units, attached and detached. The motion carried with 4 ayes and 1 nay and one abstention that being Jim Thompson. Data was passed out to the Board Members relative to their next public hearing to be held July 25, 1978. Being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. President Dale Haarr 10. Secr. We the undersigned, members of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board, do hereby wiave notice of meeting of the Board held Tuesday, July 11, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. in the Courthouse East, 723 5th. Avenue East, Kalispell, Montana.