Loading...
Planning Board Minutes of 2/9/99OPPONENTS I i-io one spoke in opposition. BOARD DISCUSSION Gardner answered, when asked by Brenneman, that they were comfortable with the conditions in the staff report. MOTION Heinecke moved to amend condition #3, to include "and rear" and #9 changed to "all street addresses", Stevens seconded the motion. On a roll call vote: Greg Stevens, Keith Brian Sipe, and Rob Heinecke voted Aye; Don Mann, Joe Brenneman, Jean Johnson, Don Hines and Don Garberg voted No. The motion to amend the conditions failed on a vote of 5-3 against. Sipe moved and Stevens seconded to adopt staff report FPP-98-13 as findings of fact and recommend that the Flathead County Commissioners approve the Amended Plat of Lot 1, Ashley Business Park, subject to the 10 conditions as listed in the report. On a roll call vote all members voted Aye. None opposed. The motion passed on 8-0 in favor. WATERFORD A request by the Waterford of Flathead Valley, LLC, represented by ANNEXATION & ZONE Joseph Billig, for annexation, initial zoning of R-4, Two Family CHANGE Residential, and RA-1, Low Density Apartment Residential and a planned unit development on 22.91 for the purpose of developing a 292 unit senior housing facility. STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, Senior Planner, gave a detailed presentation of staff reports #KA-99-1 and #KPUD-99-1 in which staff recommends that the Board adopt the reports as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that upon annexation the property be zoned R-4 and RA-1 with a PUD overlay subject to 20 conditions as outlined in the report. Staff recommends that in condition #6 MT Dept. of Transportation be stricken and leave in Flathead County Road Department. Heinecke asked about extension of services, and Wilson explained that through condition #2, there is flexibility by the Public Works Department to adopt a design that works. Johnson asked about the need for 2 zone designations and Wilson explained that R-4 was chosen for the duplex area of the project to better match the proposed development. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak in favor of the application. PROPONENTS Mark Fisher, representing Waterford, gave a presentation of the planned development, explaining that the Waterford is a Congregate Care Retirement Community, and that this is for the Kalispell City County Planning Board 0 Minutes of meeting February 9. 1999 Page 3 of 13 ,ourney of aging for the elderly wit.. -, a community, complete with a special care unit, (Alzheimer's unit). They have chosen this area because of it's proximity to the college and the ball parks as wen as being within a quiet community. The PUD will not create a lot of traffic or increase the number of children in the neighborhood. They, after a year of research, believe that this is the best area of the city to build this community. The Waterford feels very strongly that this needs to be a gated secure road, because of the residents' needs for a secure area with limited traffic, and for the neighborhood's desire to not have this become a connector road. They provide transportation internally, there is no need for county buses, Eagle transportation would only be used secondarily. The plans are for a very nice rock front building, with a small area exceeding the 44 foot height and the problem will be mitigated by the excavation for grade taking off about 10 feet of grade. They put the buildings in an area that would not restrict views of glacier, but will only be seen by homes that are currently only seeing the hill and sky, and those will now only see their roof and highest floors. They are working toward being a good neighbor. They are aware of the potential run off problems and have made and continue to plan for the best solution to the problem. The "what ifs" (in regard to the run off) are being addressed by their engineers and they want to find the best possible solution within their abilities. Dan Eigeman, CPA representing the property owners, spoke in favor of the project. He explained that he has seen the Waterford development in Helena and it is an excellent facility. The owners, as well as himself, are in favor of the proposed planned development and do not believe the closed road would cause any traffic problems for the community. His home is in the area and he isn't concerned over the height of the development because between the trees and a few homes he can't see the top of the hill anyway. Believes they will be a wonderful neighbor. Jay Billmayer, project engineer for Waterford, spoke as a proponent of the project. He addressed the issues of the conditions, and the PUD concept by putting the zoning, annexation and PUD all in one application. The 292 units is care for individual units not dwelling units, therefore he feels they fall well within the density requirements. The Planned Unit Development gives the specifics of this plan in advance, so that the community knows what the outcome will be. The phases then give an up front plan as well, so there are no surprises later. Waterford has concerns over being burdened with a more than fair share portion of the extension of services and roadways. in going over the conditions separately, it was requested that it be determined how much the Waterford is impacting the roadway and services and how much is due to the cities venture in the ball Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999 Page 4 of 13 ,,.trks, by generating a study to u- -ermine a prorated share of cost. The privatizing of the road will give more security and less impact to the communities, and the elimination of solicitors that cause the elderly a number of problems. The Waterford asks for the following condition changes: #6 Eliminate the Dept. of Transportation. #8 Eliminate the condition in its entirety. #9 Modify to a prorated share after a traffic study is completed. #14Ehminate, because it is within the plan in condition #12 and they, based on studies and experience, would not have a use for an internal park area. #2 Change to include more latitude in conjunction with #9 and a prorate of cost. John King, 134 N. Haven Drive, spoke for the proposal stating that this would be an improvement to Kalispell, with no impact to the schools, and that he believes that it would be less of an impact than other potential projects. Johnson gave a 5 minute break and the meeting reopened at 9: 15. Wayne Worthington, 365 Summit Ridge Drive, voiced several OPPONENTS concerns over drainage, water and building height but his main concern is over the roadways. He does not want any kind of connection between 4 mile drive and Summit Ridge Road, or extending Sherry Lane into North Haven Drive, and does not want the sporting event traffic coming through the communities, but would not have a problem with a gated road for development use or emergency traffic only. Carol Burt, resident on Summit Ridge Drive, has 4 major areas of concern. Concurs with Worthington's assessment of the roads and traffic and wants improvements to 4 Mile Drive first and then have a gated road open to emergency traffic only within the development. She does not understand the residential zoning (rather than commercial) for a development this extensive and with this density and that will make $600,000 per year, and that will exceed the zoning height by 21 feet. Water run off - extreme concerns over the run off, leaving too little open space to pile snow, and with the buildings and asphalt there will be no place for the water to go except to flood the lower communities. Continuity - the very size and location of their complex discredits the Waterford's statement that they wish to blend into the community. Only with the 35 foot height limitation and modifications to their current plan could their impact to the community be minimized. She asks that Waterford be held to the same landscaping requirements as the homeowners in the same area. Lori Smithwick-Hann, 435 Summit Ridge Drive, agrees with the Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999 Page 5 of 13 -'revious speakers against the pro� al. She feels the community was bulldozed by the Waterford Company because they were notified such a shor-t period of time before the meeting, even if the legalities were followed. Cited regulations about the mile and one half distance of the development from the fire station, causing regulatory problems as well as serious safety issues. Wants to see a specific site proposal. And stated concerns for the need for such a facility, and the possibility that the facility would not be able to fill to capacity based on the high costs of staying at the facility. Devaluation of property, and the lowering of the quality of life in the community were other concerns. Sandy Streit, 340 Summit Ridge Drive, (gave out a letter, attached), spoke against the Waterford Development and for children in the area and their safety. There are no sidewalks in the area and the increased traffic will be a serious safety concern. Wants children's safety issue to be heard loud and clear. Gloria Marin, 121 N. Haven Drive, had concern over the impact on wildlife in the area, construction problems, and asking that the zone change be denied based on MCA 76-2-304 Purposes of Zoning, with regards to item 1, to prevent overcrowding of land and to avoid undue concentration of population, and all of item 2 in the above code. She believes the proposal is contrary to the comprehensive plan for the area, and oppose the road from 4 Mile Drive to Summit Ridge Drive, and wonders about the other 70 acres and the potential congestion that would come with a zone change. Anthony Abeson, North Haven Subdivision, spoke against the proposal, and noted that he was not contacted by the Waterford Company. He is opposed to the development and did not envision traffic, street lights, storm water retention ponds, etc. when he purchased his home 6 years prior. Concern over the height of the structure. Luann Metcalf, Country Estates, concern for the need for the facility and cost at Waterford, market research should be done, no guarantees that the facility won't go bankrupt due to the inability to fill the facility. Scott Williams, 1 week in the area, concern over being annexed in conjunction with the project which would increase the taxes and devalue the property. His biggest concerns are traffic and density, and that Waterford does not fit within the Master Plan of the area. He does not want the area of his home annexed into the city, does not want the Waterford project to go through. Kalispell City County Planning Board I�Enutes of meeting February 9, 1999 Page 6 of 13 — ,de Luman, 169 Trail Ridge Road h- ;ountry Estates, agrees with those previous to him. Entered a letter signed by the 7 members of the Country Estates Homeowners Association in opposition to the proposal. Main topics were visual impact, and that the zoning request is marginal in compliance and this facility would be best located in a different area. No one else spoke against the project and applications. BOARD DISCUSSION Garberg asked Billmayer about conditions 6 and 9, and it was explained that the Waterford project wants a traffic study a fair prorate of the financial burden to the 4 Mile Drive improvements. Wants the city to pay their fair share of the improvements. Mann asked about the height regulations and Wilson explained that the height limit in that zoning district is 35 feet. The 44 feet as proposed does not include the chimneys, so there would be 9 feet over the current zone regulations. It was noted that the Board should look at this under a Planned Unit Development, and therefore there is more flexibility for uses, and height, and should look at this very specific development, and make recommendations about the project specifically. When asked Staff explained that the numbers on density marginally comply with master plan, and the impact associated with this type of plan are in reasonable compliance with the plan. Stevens liked the project, believes the problems could be solved by gating the roadway. Understands opposition, but feels this is a good project. Believes that the board can rely on the public works department to deal with the drainage problem. Heinecke spoke in support of the project, believing the cluster development does mitigate the increase in density, and believes it will help the lower subdivisions on storin water drainage rather than causing more problems, and noted #14 on the landscaping issues. On the fire issue he believes that the fire suppression system within the building would mitigate the possibility of fire being an issue. Brenneman is not in favor of the proposed project as he sees it as failing to meet 6 of the criteria as submitted and in light of the community opposition. Brenneman moved to adopt staff reports #KA-99-1 and #KPUD- 99-1 as findings of fact and recommend that the Zone R-4 and RA- I and PUD overlay be denied. The motion failed for lack of a second. Kalispell City County Planning Board Nfinutes of meeting February 9, 1999 Page 7 of 13 .he Board went over the conditik. , and made amendments as follows, based on the public input and the requests of the Waterford Company and staff recommendations: #2 The extension of all services and facilities be done in accordance with plans approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department. #6 include "and the City of Kalispell"; "and source of traffic generation and that appropriate share of cost and upgrade be determined prior to construction"; and delete "Montana Department of Transportation". #8 Change to: That the proposed new roadway be private and gated to use as an emergency access route only with sole access from 4 Mile Drive, and upon completion be signed in accordance with City standards. #9 Include "and that a prorated cost be shared based on the results of the traffic study and agreed upon by all parties identified". #14 Change to: "The park area designated as the courtyard on the site plan be developed which provides amenities such as tables, walkways, landscaping and trees. MOTION Garberg moved and Hines seconded to adopt staff reports #KA-99- 1 and #KPUD-99-1 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that upon annexation the property be zoned R-4 and RA-1 with a Planned Unit Development overlay, subject to the conditions as amended. On a roll call vote: Don Mann, Jean Johnson, Don Hines, Greg Stevens, Keith Brian Sipe, Don Garber and Rob Heinecke voted Aye. Joe Brenneman voted No. The motion passed on a 7-1 vote. 5 minute break at 10:38 and resumed 10:45. UNICORE ANNEXATION Request by John &, Brenda Vincent for annexation and initial & ZONE CHANGE, zoning of 2.6 acres located on the north side of California Street CONDITIONAL USE AND between 5th and 6th Ave. E.N. PRELIMINARY PLAT STAFF REPORT Tom Jentz gave a thorough presentation of staff reports #KA-99-2, #KCU-99-1, and #KPP-99-1. The staff recommends that the Kalispell City -County Planning board and Zoning Commission adopt the staff report and recommend to the Kalispell City Council to adopt P-1 zoning on the land proposed for dedication as a city park and R-3, single family, with 7000 square foot minimum lot size, zoning on the remainder of the site, as described in Exhibit B. In addition, he recommended approval of the conditional use permit and preliminary plat to allow 10 condominium units to be constructed on the site. Jentz noted however, that parking was deficient as 25 spaces were required, but only 18 met zoning standards. He stated that to meet the staff conditions the site Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999 Page 8 of 13