Loading...
08-22-780 8- 22- 78 Continuation of. Public Hearing: Glenwood Addition #92 to Kalispell. Tract 5BBB,NE4, of the NE-, of Sec. 12, T28N, R22W, PMM, Flathead Cty, Mt. v (Proposal was denied as submitted.) A regular meeting of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board was held Tuesday, August 22, 2978 at 7:30 p.m. in the Flathead County Courthouse East, Community Room, 723 5th. Avenue East, Kalispell, Montana. Members Present: Others Present:- W. J. Lupton 2 APO Staff Representative Walt Griffin James E. Mohn Ray Lybeck Robert LeDuc Approx. 15 Guests Dale Haarr James J. Thompson (came in late) President Dale Haarr indicated that because.the Board did not have a quorum.that perhaps this is the way the recommendation would be submitted to the Kalispell City Council and recommended that the Board proceed taking testimony for the public hearing. The Council could be advised that this was not official but was the consensus of the group assembled. President Haarr indicated that the Board had reached an impasse and what they were now looking at was uses on adjoining properties, and requested a map and therefore asked Jim to give a little of the background and explain the existing land uses in the area. Jim Mohn then proceeded to pin -point the proposal explaining ..the various land uses now existing in and around the immediate site, suchas Valley View with 52 apartments, a townhouse project with 16 single family units proposed, and the first structure to go into Hawthorne West was to be 6 single family units and 56 represented the new Gateway Apartments, the Mall, the vacant land, the Truck -Stop, the 20' green strip which is the drainage ditch, open area, Jim also indicated the original submittal which had been presented several months previously. Jim then explained the color codes on the map as they related to the various residences. Jim Mohn indicated that the only action that the Board had taken at the previous meeting was the proposed road extension of Rosewood to Glenwood. Jim stated.that the only new item to add was that the( Zoning Commission, in an unofficial capacity a week prior, tentatively recommended all the property in the area for a Zone of R-5, which would permit duplexes on each lot. Jim stated that this submittal represented a total of 36 units and when applying the R-5 densities the maximum units to be achieved would be about 23. The R75 does allow for the flexibility of attached dwellings, but.the overall density would still remain about the same,roughly_(1)30 unit. for every 5,400 sq.ft. There is no allowance given for public r/w or streets. I 1, Jim indicated that the 3 lots indicated as four plexes assuming that the cul-de-sac is taken out of that end, could achieve a density of 9 dwell.unitsOne four plex could be achieve from each trio of lots and on the east side -the 3 lots could also achieve 5 dwelling units. By wiping out all the lot lines you get 23 dwelling units. Jim indicated you could have single family, detached, with a minimum lot size of 5,400 sq. ft. You could have duplexes with the same ratio, needed was a 10,800 sq. ft. lot. The way the zoning law is worded, if you had the ground floor area to work with, you could have 8 detached single family units, if you had the open space around, a story and half would be the maximum height. The Board questioned whether these 8 units would be considered a clustered development and were advised it was. The Board asked if the developer had anything new to offer. Mr. Hanson indicated that on the bottom half the cul-de-sac was done away with. ` Mr . a.j.rr r�onf irmed that on Lots 1, 2, & 3 there would b�_Lour plexes, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11 & 12 would be six plexes, and on 7, 8, and 9 (3) four plex. - 36 units.. Mr. Hanson said they did some rearranging, with the duplexes all on the north and the four plexes to the south. It was confirmed however that it was the same number of units. Mr. Hanson advised that the west end of the property was left as it was, with removing the cul-de-sac, to make the lots bigger. The Board requested that Mr. Hanson place his map on the board and explain his proposal, which he did, and explained that there were the same number of lots, just somewhat rearranged with a buffer. They ran a road around the perimeter. The Board had no questions as to what was proposed. President Haarr then opened the meeting for the audience participation. Questioned was what type of zoning would permit that amount of people into such a small area and were advised that an RA-1 District, strictly an Apartment Zoning District, with no other type of commercial development. D.I�7an from the audience indicated he didn't know how anyone could put any development in without planning for the water, flooding, and if later, who will pay for it. The storm drain would have to be thrashed out later, and advised it was all financed EDA and something like that would probably have to be done to the northside. EDA means, Economic Development Act, federal funded, applied for a grant, second grant and this should.take the City over into the east side of town, which was explained by W. Grif- fin. The street damagewould be paid for by the tax- 2. payers. The best that can be done is to patch what storm drains in the area they can do through funding, they can rebuild some of the streets that desparately need it from some of these funds, but basically the taxpayers are paying for the repaving of the streets. Probably be difficult to put in a storm drain system for this area as would have to hope that it was of a. sufficient size to carry future needs because there are no plans to look at engineering needs but eventuall would probably tie into the area south of Roy Stanleys. Walt Griffin then explained some of the areas that had storm drains; and indicated that this area had not yet been designated for this. Questioned was what zones would allow convalescent or nursing homes. Jim stated RA-1, RA-2 and RA-3 and then the audience wished to know what other things could be incorporated under the RA-1 zone? Walt Griffin stated; a parking lot, drug store which is for use of a clinic or hospital or doctor; boarding house; church; clinics, medical.& dental; docks and piers; single family; two-family; multi -family is a conditionz use, cluster development is not allowed in an RA-1 zone; fuel oil and kerosene for domestic heating purposes; lodges_, fraternal, & social org; lodging houses; mobile home parks is a conditional use; offices for .home occupations is a conditional use; orhanages a conditional use; parks; public transporta�­:_ tion shelter and public utility service installations; sanitarian, etc. The gentleman felt that it would open it up to a broad spectrum. Jim stated that a lot of -the conditional uses that Walt was referring to were conditional uses in a lot of other districts also, such as R-4,.R-5, etc. Questioned also was whether it would be.any benefit to the city if it were allowed to go RA-1? President Haar indicated he couldn'.t answer that but it would be forwarded on to the city: The gentleman explained that he was from Butte which was made up of a bunch of mixed growth sprawl every which way and this city is starting to grow by leaps and bounds and unless some thought is: given to the areas over the next ten years you would have more or less of the same type of non -regulated disorganization, he also felt this was an ecnomical venture to get the most out of it financially. President Haarr indicated that the Board through a work session had recommended an R-5 designation. and at this point it hadn't been approved by the entire board but it was .pretty well thought out by the existing uses around the area, and indicated that it would be zoned. A man from the audience indicated that as landowners they could not only look.at the zoning as it applied at this time; but what would be done with the area from 2 Mile to 3 Mile to North Ridge, what type of mixedhousing and what areas designated commercial and what type of commitment was made to the people.who bought in the.X subdivision. The people in the Adams Addition have a tight code governing them, then there is.the.traffic, large block of apartments with pressure on all the roads and changing the whole area 3. as to single family desirability. and think we all agree that there should be mixed housing and now if you take the entire area between Liberty and 2 Mile and designate it as an R-5 you are looking at a complete multi -family, and changing the character of the neighborhood, and reducing the value of the property evaluation. Can see a good need for a good mix but reached a point where the ratio of single family homes, the one which,pay the backlog on taxes, the ratio is turning to a majority of multi -family units and changing the character and tax structure. Traffic then becomes a problem and a traffic access should be to that separately. Suffering from too much traffic now, and if you are committed to the R-5 then you need a separate access to Meridian. The Board was advised that there was a map sitting on the table that did relate to the area south of there. Jim advised that this was done as part of the justification for extending two streets south. The current zoning along both sides of Hawthorne is R-2 which would fit into theRA-1 category. Some of existing owners, Jim Mohn said, would consider the RA-1 type zoning for apartment use. It was felt with what had been heard so far that one of the first priorities should be what would be done with the water runoff and should be good look at before the start development. Woman didn't feel that the water that is on Two Mile and up there should be dumped on the people down here. The Board was advised there was no easement through the three acres, the ditch was south of there, and was County owned, and should be widened out and in the spring of the year there is a lot of water. The Board felt that they could address that part but if the street is given to the city then the responsibility of that should be that the street isn't too high and isn't full of.water. The Board is looking at a whole bunch of land that belongs to the county, and certainly can't address their 18 acres. From the audience they felt if it was made all single family they'd have it made, and the Board reiterated that then they wouldn't care where the water went, and they said they'd hatch that out later. Jane Lopp stated that most of the lots in the Adams Addition were over 9,600 feet, ranging from 8400 8500, immediately adjacent, to as much as 2,000 sq. ft. on the lot size, and if you are looking at. 5,400 feet you are looking at lots half as big, as the majority of the lots in the Adams Addition. Questioned was whether there was any traffic count for other than Main, such as Meridian? 4. Jim said handy but not current and said -the only figures for Meridian immediately between at Idaho and 2 Mile Drive and 1974 counts were about 13,000 v.t.p.d. and how much was through traffic onto Hwy 93, was questionable. Jim believed that at Main and Idaho -J approaches somewhere around 25,000 v.t.p.d. Couldn't think of any other street that handled that kind of traffic,2nd St. could carry a close volume but no idea what it is. Questioned was the capacity of the Russell School and j it was advised that they were at capacity and bussing now, and only one elementary school in the.city that wasn't bussing. Elrod was not bussing and was being bussed to, according to Walt Griffin. Walt Griffin stated that what planning is.saying to the school system is you.better start planning for the future which don't feel that they are doing throughout the county. Jim stated that there is a big study going on now where sites need to be acquired to determine a point at which a school should be built, and Jim said so you can't see that they aren't planning,) Jim didn't feel that you could use schools as a justification, as there is capacity in the system, just' not always in the right place. It is not automatically that just by saying there is a large development doesn't mean that there will be a lot of children for the school system. Walt Griffin indicated that is mostly new students and first graders who are being bussed. Discussion then continued on the capacities of the various schools and where to put students when capacities were filled in June instead of August at registration time. Jane.Lopp said that all the landowners bear the burden for whether the school is at capacity or children are being bussed and what proportion is the owner of the complex, in the terms of services that the schools and city must provide compared to single family residences. The Board stated that this was all taken care of in your tax evaluations, under State Law. Jane stated that it was common knowledge that single family dwelling generated more tax dollar per student at school than multi -family which could be checked in Valley View and the Adams Addition. The response was that you couldn't deny them an education because they happen to live in a unit that doesn't pay as much taxes as a single family. Jane said she was suggesting that single family was ^� much more appropriate in their area, for ihany reasons =- and this was one. Then .the meeting was turned over to..the Board for their further discussion with President Haarr stating that the first consideration should be the zone in order, 5. to determine the density. Start with the proposal which requested and had density for an RA-1 zone as compared to a preliminary plan of an R-5 for the area and sizeable public input for an R-3 or R-4 single family type zone. Jim Thompson apologized for being late and stated that at a work meeting, that what was studied for the area with Hawthorne West with another 12 units called the Pines, which affects this property and all those will be of higher value because they will be of individual type ownership and they are multi -family buildings but they are condominium townhouse type bldgs. and definitely of a higher caliber and have Ia higher resale unit value and the justification to have it all single family is there and how much will be single family townhouses, just a zero lot line situation. By making this an R-5 that would be about the right mix to put with that, which is single family, individual houses and duplexes, and that usually means the owner living in one side and renting out the other side. Would like to defend the R-5, all the way from the Adams Addition to 2 Mile Drive over to Meridian Road. Walt Griffin missed the meeting and he would have been on Jim's side because this is what he had discussed the previous hearing and prior to the Glenwood Addition always looked at the direction it should go, this area has it's fair share of multi -family and what Kalispell needs. Lends to being good development area for single family applications. Didn't think you have a total of duplexes: throughout but rather a mix. As for the storm runoff do think that the residents should get the Commissioners over to see it to widen and deepen and taken care of and then the drainage could be improved and making them aware and didn't think it is the developer's responsibility and this is not within the city so therefore not their responsibility. Don't think the Board can do anything about it, but perhaps it could be mentioned that the county look into doing soma work on it to assist the residents and hope- fully something will come along and take care of it. Essentially the area lends itself to single family and a better designated is R-5. This is a 2 6 d.u.p.a. area, if the Compr. Plan has any value at all, although not that it is capped in concrete, but it is a guideline and sometimeshas to be subjectively. 36 units does not fit the Compr. Plan and per- haps it could be changed to get a modified plan, and with Jim's 23 it probably would be very close and lends itself to more single family and duplexes. President Haarr asked for more comments and 6. B. J. Lupton stated that no matter what is done is wrong because he had a developer tell him the Board employed Gestapo tactics because his subdivision was disapproved and if we approve one that the neighbors don't like then it is poor planning and we're a bunch of idiots but we are all subject to things like that, and then, Don, from the audience asked the question, if there was anything we could think that was good about this and I suppose it is how big,.a geographical area we considers If we talk about that immediately to the north there isn't much but the nation as a whole, the consumption of farmland the higher the density we can put on this the better, if we talk about Flathead Valley, it would apply to some extent, but just the City of Kalispell it would be true to a lesser extent, so who are we trying to make this a fine community for. and, there are a lot of things good for the city, an increased tax base, a good place to live that can't afford a single family residence, and some things wrong with it, the -more asphalt on the ground the more water problems and perhaps the first thing, would be to get the water problem taken care of which is very difficult, who has the responsibility, perhaps this hasn't been addressed to the right person; and as far as the zoning is concerned, I think R-5 would be the way to go. Not convinced that four plexes are needed, and would probably 'be too much saturation. The people in the.neighborhood deserve the consideration and can't be convinced that two family units are all that bad, some are more attractive than a single family and go along with some of the thinking which is several months old, which is with single family and duplex. Wish to ask the developer how committed he is to four plexes? In an R-5 zone it would be fine. This was explained to the 'developer explaining he would have to get a variance for anything else, or overlay the area with a P.U.D. If he goes cluster he can go up to an 8 unit structure if each unit is owned separately, and would have to come in with a totally different subdivision and not an R-5, and predicated on.single family ownership. As for density same amount just different lot configuration. PUD is supposed to be 5 but Jim explained that you could have a cluster plan on 2.5 acres, which is strictly an if -y thing with being up to approval again with the city. Thompson.stated that the approach should be to deny the request but that an R-5 proposal would be acceptable to the Board but we would have to see what the R-5 proposal was.. Would have. to resubdivide the lots to put the cluster on it. Mr. Hanson said that if ,they want to subdivide later on they could always come back, as he was in favor of the R-5. Would like to leave the plat as submitted and zone that piece of ground R-5 and then determine if he can work something into that. We can make the recommendation to the City that it be resubmitted under R-5 guidelines and then we can have you come back. Walt Griffin stated that if the 7. ity looks at it it would be from an annexation iew and then would come the subdivision pproval. The public hearing would be on the nnexation, not the subdivision. The 3.717 Acres ould be annexed and zoned as one lot and then he subdivision could be done at a later date r coincidentally, but not necessary. Jim Thompson moved that the Glenwood Addition No. 92 be denied as submitted and requested because it is not compatible with the surround- ing neighborhood and the nature of the neighborhood as it relates to zoning and density and if the development is resubmitted under an R-5 zoning guidelines, it would receive favorable consideration once it was resubmitted. B. J. Lupton didn't feel that at this point that could be guaranteed. Jim Thompson said yes he knew that there was no guarantee, that it would be approved, but should be resubmitted under R-5. B. J. said he should not lead the developer to believe that the decision would be favorable and did not believe that this should be part of the proposed motion. Jim Thomspon agreed with B. J. Lupton's suggestion to strike the word favorable. President Haarr requested that Jim Thompson repeat his motion and Jim Thomspon stated that the proposal be denied on the grounds that it is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and to disregard the.R-5 resubmittal, which falls within the guidelines of the Board's guidelines. Jim Thompson was asked to be more specific in his motion for denial. Jim Thompson indicated that what was being suggested was: 1. expressed public opinion against multi -family type proposal, 2. disagreement with four-plex, 3. sewer problems with storm drainage and run- off, 4. effects on adjacent lands, 5. traffic, 6. basis of need, 7. doesn't meet the compre- hensive planning. Walt Griffin moved that in using the Subdivision Checklist more specifically, that the basis of denial, should be based on, 1. effects on existing facilities, schools, 2. community response, 3. zoning proposal as this Board has been looking at the zoning regulations for Kalispell, 4. the land use density and the need for this dense of a subdivision in this area and the adjacent areas 5. public opinion and comments expressed by adj acent landowners 6. as to the water runoff problems and lack of drainage maintenance, 8. 7. too heavy density and non-compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Jim Thompson seconded the motion. President Haarr asked for the question, and Walt wished to know if they were. discussing the motion for denial of the subdivision request and was advised that was correct. Walt Griffin wished to know whether this planning board's recommendation of denial was forwarded to the City Council, as a negative recommendation, not coming back to thi planning board. Jim confirmed this and further action would before the council. Or the developer could pull.it out of the works and start over again if he wished. Jim Thompson felt that it would be a wasted motion to go before the City Council with a negative. recommendation. Paul indicated that as a governing body they had.a right to accept or reject the proposal. Jim Thompson stated that he was hoping to have an opportunity tolook at the R-5 proposal. Jim indicated it was the developer's discretion, and if he wanted to pull it out he could and if he wanted to go the coucil he could. Walt Griffin stated that basically if this motion for denial was approved it just says we looked at it and here are our reasons for denial and we are recommending denial and if you propose to look at it and do otherwise or deny it, that is your choice. Jim stated that the standard letter goes to the Council and states that if they take action contrary to this Board's action and recommendation that the Board would appreciate a joint meeting to discuss the differences of opinion. Questioned was whether it had to be approved by the city regardless of what the Board ruled and.Walt Griffin said they could disapprove the 36 units as proposed on a multi -family lots and it could go with this denial and be approved as it stands. Jim Thompson stated that if he wanted to argue it with the City Council he could and Walt stated just becaus( this Board denied it, they were the recommending body only. and Jim Thompson felt that it would come back with the R-5, and it would not have to necessarily. President Haarr called for the question and the motion carried. Mr. Hanson wanted to know why the Board couldn't recommend what zone they preferred R-5 zoning. The Board's work study group states that, but the Board didn't think the plat was right for R-5. The city. doesn't have it now, they would have to annex it first as a lump, and not subdivided.. The other approach is go to the County Commissioners and have. it zoned R-5. President Haarr could ask Jim as a sub paragraph to 9. ee/10-13-78 jto the letter that the Board was looking at that 'entire area as becoming an R75 zone. I don't think that we have to take any action on that but that we as a group agree that should be an R-5 zone. The Board does not have the ability to zone that land. The developer felt that one of the reasons that it was turned down was because of the number of units and a letter to the city should indicate this. Presdient Haarr indicated that the basis for any future plan should be around an R-5, and asked Jim to include that. It was hard,in the past to come up with a quorum and apologized for the length of time it took to come up with a response to this subdivision. Audience felt that they were glad the Board was looking at the problems of the area and consider- ing the public input. Being no further business, the meeting adjourned. Dale W. Haarr, Pres. Secr. 1 p. We the undersigned, members of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board do hereby waive notice of meeting of the Board held August 22, 1978 at the Courthouse East Community Room, 723 5th. Avenue East, Kalispell, Montana on Tuesday at 7:30 p.m.