Loading...
03-13-12KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13, 2012 CALL TO ORDER AND The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and ROLL CALL Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were: John Hinchey, Chad Graham, Bryan Schutt, Rory Young, Phillip Guiffrida, Richard Griffm and Blake Sherman. Tom Jentz, Sean Conrad, and P.J. Sorensen represented the Kalispell Planning Department. There were 8 members of the public in attendance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Schutt moved and Guiffrida seconded a motion to approve the minutes of February 14, 2012 as submitted. ROLL CALL The motion carried unanimously on a vote by acclamation. PUBLIC COMMENT No one wished to speak. FARNHAM ANNEXATION, A request from Joshua and Shelby Farnham to annex 3.5 acres of INITIAL ZONING & land and zone the land B-1/PUD (Neighborhood Business/Planned PLANNED UNIT Unit Development) upon annexation. The property is located at the DEVELOPMENT northeast corner of the intersection of Three Mile Drive and West Spring Creek Road. STAFF REPORTS KA-11-04 & Sean Conrad representing the Kalispell Planning Department KPUD-12-01 reviewed staff reports KA-11-04 & KPUD-12-01. Conrad apologized for the technical difficulties which will prevent staff from using the monitors for a power point presentation. Conrad continued before the planning board is an annexation request into the City of Kalispell with the initial zoning of B-1, Neighborhood Business and a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The property is 3.5 acres in size and is located at the intersection of Three Mile Drive and West Spring Creek Road. Farm -to -Market Road and Mountain Vista Estates Subdivision is to the east of this property. The location of the property falls within the Annexation Policy boundary set by city council and the property owners can request direct annexation into the city. The Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map designates the 3.5 acre project site, as well as the surrounding corner at West Spring Creek Road as a neighborhood commercial land use which anticipates zoning such as the B-1 that is proposed. The purpose of the annexation/zoning request is the applicants would like to operate a coffee stand currently on the property. The Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 13, 2012 Page 1 of 13 current zoning is AG-20 which prohibits that type of commercial use so they are seeking annexation into the city. The reason for the PUD is when the Fire Chief reviewed this application he had concerns, not with the existing house and coffee stand on the 3.5 acres, but with a B-1 zoning coming into the city where there is the potential for additional commercial development to occur in the future. Although the Fire Chief wouldn't require any hydrants on the property at this time he wanted to be sure the city would have the ability to require that a water main line be extended to this property and a hydrant be installed with further development. There are currently water lines to the east of this property but to extend them would cost the property owner well over $100,000. Staff talked with the Fire Chief and it was decided that the best avenue to address the fire safety issues and the need for hydrants was to propose a PUD overly zoning. Conrad noted in the conditions of approval staff added the requirement that a master site plan be submitted when future commercial development occurs on this property. Also at that time improvements to Three Mile Drive and West Spring Creek Road will also be required. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KA-11-04 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property upon annexation be zoned B-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KPUD-12-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council the PUD overlay zoning district for the subject property be approved subject to the 6 conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD QUESTIONS Schutt asked if the owners of this property own any other adjacent property and Conrad said no. Guiffrida referred to the Cost of Services Analysis (COSA) and asked if the Planning Board should consider the financial aspect of annexations and Conrad said yes. Conrad added when the city council adopted the Annexation Policy boundary they directed the Planning Board to consider not only the initial zoning but all aspects of annexation and to make recommendations to the city council. Graham referenced the COSA and noted under the staff s conclusion it states the board and city council should consider the short term costs with the potential for increased revenue to the city in the future, and he asked what potential development would offset the cost of services so that it would at least break even. Conrad Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 13, 2012 Page 2 of 13 responded possibly a convenience store/gas station or a small office complex. He added along with that development the water and sewer lines would have to be extended and the upgrades to Three Mile Drive and West Spring Creek Road would need to be completed. When that will occur Conrad didn't know. Graham asked if the annexation is approved would Three Mile Drive and West Spring Creek Road also be annexed into the city and Conrad said yes and the city would be obligated to handle the maintenance, repair, future overlays and anything else associated with the portion of these roads that are adjacent to this property. Hinchey thought the city would only annex one-half of the roads and Conrad said state law now requires that the city take on the maintenance of the entire width of road as it fronts this property. Griffin said he still doesn't understand why the city would charge stormwater impact fees. The city tells people they have to take care of their own stormwater on site yet they are charged stormwater impact fees. It is an unnecessary assessment of taxes. Graham said he agrees with Griffin and quoted the memo from the Public Works Director which states "Stormwater is assumed sufficient via maintenance of existing roadway ditch absorption fields." Graham noted this shows there is no stormwater impact. Conrad said the Public Works Director is referring to the stormwater from the roadways and that curb and gutter would not be required at this time. Conrad added the stormwater impact fee is based on impervious surface which includes the coffee shop and the areas that have asphalt. Guiffrida noted council is reviewing impact fees right now and they have separated stormwater impact fees from the rest because they have the some of the same concerns. APPLICANT/TECHNICAL I Josh Farnham, owner of this property said they are excited to open a SUPPORT coffee shop and he would answer any questions. Griffin asked what is the purpose of the other buildings on this property including the addition to the garage and the other building that is adjacent to the garage and Farnham said originally what they wanted to do was to bring his business from Center Street to their property and also open a coffee shop. They started to build them both with county zoning but unfortunately they misunderstood the county planners or something changed after they started the work. At this point they just want to get the coffee shop open. Whether or not they will move his business there will be decided at a later date. noted it is his understanding that the business cannot be Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 13, 2012 Page 3 of 13 moved there without significant upgrades to the water and sewer services and the roads. Schutt asked how many days a week will this business be open and Shelby Farnham said six days a week. Guiffrida asked when annexed into the city what happens if their well or septic were to fail and Conrad said if their septic or well fails they have the option to apply to the county health department to see if they would be able to put another septic site, drain field or well. They would only be required to hook up to water or sewer if he couldn't get another drain field site or couldn't drill a well and Conrad added the county also takes the cost to the property owner into account. Griffin said when and if the property is annexed does it come under all the inspections and permitting of the city and Conrad said yes for the coffee stand because it is a commercial building but if they finish the garage before the property is annexed into the city the building department would not require a permit. Graham asked if they are planning to move their business out to this property and Farnham said that would be ideal but they already broke the bank on the coffee shop. Graham asked if there would be additional costs if they were to move the business onto the property and Conrad said the B-1 zoning would permit the business but the Fire Chief would then require that the water main be extended to the property and the cost would be considerable. Conrad suggested the board could amend condition #5 to clarify at what point in development the improvements outlined in condition #5 would be required. Graham referred to the timeline of events that the Flathead County Planning & Zoning Office forwarded to the city and he asked Farnham if the coffee shop is finished and if construction started before March 28, 2011. Farnham said the coffee shop is finished and they started construction last summer/fall. Farnham reviewed the timeline and discussion he had with the county planning office. PUBLIC HEARING I No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Schutt moved and Graham seconded a motion to adopt staff report KA-11-04 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property upon annexation be zoned B-1, Neighborhood Commercial. BOARD DISCUSSION Griffin said there are a lot of questions that have not been adequately answered, such as the water, sewer and road issues, and he doesn't think he could recommend approval to the city council. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 13, 2012 Page 4 of 13 Griffin said he doesn't want to pass an insurmountable financial burden onto an owner of property and the city needs to be consistent with their standards for annexation and PUD's. Graham said he has concerns about the COSA. He looks at the $2600 a year that the city will have to make up to provide services to this property and to him it is a road block. There is the possibility of future development that would at least break even but no one knows what that timeframe is. There was discussion regarding past annexations and Schutt felt that most residential annexations do not break even or make money for the city and Graham disagreed and added just because other annexations didn't make money it isn't a good reason to approve this annexation. Young said staff indicated there isn't any guidance for the board or the city council on whether the cost of services is something that the board can even take into account and he asked if the Montana Code Annotated (MCA) addresses this. Conrad said the MCA doesn't mention a COSA, our growth policy requires that a COSA must be prepared but there is no threshold that indicates when an annexation should not be considered if the cost to the city exceeds a certain amount. Young asked how can the board use that information especially if there is nothing they can do about it and Conrad said the board can use the COSA as a basis for their recommendation either to approve or deny the annexation request. Guiffrida said with the property on South Woodland the COSA was initially negative and the board questioned the validity of that plan because it was basically a mathematical formula and not really clear what the actual impacts would be for police, fire, etc. Staff recalculated that analysis to make it more specific which resulted in at least. breaking even and now that is the formula that is used today. Guiffrida agreed there are some fiscal ramifications with this annexation. He thinks the best alternative would be a waiver of right to protest annexation. Then in the future as the subdivisions develop around this property the cost of services on this parcel will go down because the city would already be servicing the surrounding the properties. Guiffrida added he can't ask the citizens of Kalispell to make up for the costs to the city. Conrad said the difference between the South Woodland property and this property is South Woodland was essentially already surrounded by city and the police and fire and parks were already being impacted for that area. This property tonight is more on the outskirts of the city. the waiver of right to protest annexation is a good Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 13, 2012 Page 5 of 13 idea however it doesn't really help the applicant because he needs the annexation in order to open the coffee shop. Hinchey added the board can't look at every annexation as a money maker because cash flow isn't the only issue to consider. He agreed this is an ideal commercial spot that may not pencil out today but eventually he sees a convenience store/gas station sitting on those 3 acres. He thinks this property is right for annexation. Griffin said this landowner at some point in the near future may be required to run sewer, water and improve the roads and if that happens he is concerned about what would happen to the landowner. Schutt said that will be triggered only by large future development and Conrad agreed. If the property is annexed the conditions in the PUD is telling them they can continue to live in their house on the property and operate the coffee shop, however they will need to get a building permit from the city and approval for the water & sewer for the coffee shop from the county environmental health department. Then when more commercial development is proposed for this property it would trigger the requirements for city water & sewer, and the road improvements. Further discussion was held. Graham clarified his statements and noted he in no way feels that every annexation into the city has to be a money maker nor does he think they all have to lose money for the city either. Graham continued there is a line at some point and it is up to the city council to determine what that line is. Graham said in this case he does not feel comfortable recommending approval of this annexation. Sherman said if this annexation is approved council should take a look at boundaries for annexation. When he looks at the map he wonders if this business will even be able to survive. ROLL CALL I The original motion to approve annexation ailed on a roll call vote of 3 in favor and 4 opposed. BOARD DISCUSSION Conrad noted the recommendation to the city council would be to deny annexation of this property and for the benefit of the applicants and the city council the major issues were the cost of services/road maintenance if the property were annexed and the lack of taxes and assessments to make up that difference. Griffin said this request for annexation, in his opinion, doesn't come within what he would consider a clean annexation. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 13, 2012 Page 6 of 13 Clarification of the next phase of development in the PUD is missing which leaves many raveling ends. They want to help the applicant but at the same time he has to look at what's in the best interest of the city and the applicant especially down the road when changes to this property are proposed. Conrad requested that the planning board act on the PUD & initial zoning in the event council decides to annex this property. MOTION — INITIAL ZONING Schutt moved and Young seconded a motion to adopt staff report & PLANNED UNIT KPUD-12-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell DEVELOPMENT City Council that if the annexation is approved the B-1/PUD overlay zoning district for the subject property be approved subject to the 6 conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Hinchey said B-1/PUD overlay zoning seems like a good fit and the PUD gives the city some control for further development of this site in the future. Schutt said he likes the fact that there would be neighborhood commercial zoning in this area since it is quite a distance to any other services and considering the plans for future residential development of the area. Schutt added the B-1/PUD overlay zoning is appropriate. Guiffrida also thinks the B-1/PUD overlay zoning is appropriate and if the Fire Chief signed off on this first phase he is ok with it too. Guiffrida said he does wish there was a better definition of additional commercial development. Guiffrida said if they are just looking at the development that has been discussed tonight he is fine with it. ROLL CALL — INITIAL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. ZONING & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NORTHSTAR ASSOCIATES A request from NorthStar Associates to annex 1.35 acres of land ANNEXATION, INITIAL and zone the land R-2 (Residential) upon annexation. In addition to ZONING & CONDITIONAL the annexation the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit USE PERMIT to convert and expand an existing building on the property into a residential care facility. The property is located at 3201 Highway 93 North on the east side of the highway approximately %2 of a mile south of the intersection of Highway 93 and Ponderosa Lane (formerly Montana Homefitters). STAFF REPORTS KA-12-01 & Sean Conrad representing the Kalispell Planning Department KCU-12-01 reviewed staff reports KA-12-01 & KCU-12-01. Conrad said the property is approximately 1.3 acres in size and they Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 13, 2012 Page 7 of 13 have requested annexation, initial zoning of R-2 (Residential) and a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow a residential care facility to occupy and expand the existing building. The property is well within the city's Annexation Policy boundary and they are requesting direct annexation into the city limits. The Growth Policy Future Land Use Map designates this property as suburban residential and the R-2 zoning is consistent with that land use designation. The CUP for the residential care facility will allow them to treat up to 20 patients with eating disorders. They will employ 10 staff members during the day and one or two at night. Patients will stay from several weeks to a couple months so there will not be a lot of traffic in and out of the facility. The developer had already received a CUP from the county to operate this facility last year but they are now looking to annex into the city because there is a sewer line immediately adjacent to the property and a water line on the west side of the highway and they would prefer to hook up to city services. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KA-12-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property upon annexation be zoned R-2, Residential. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KCU-12-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council the conditional use permit be approved subject to the 13 conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Hinchey asked why they would be considering R-2 residential when there is commercial building on the site and Conrad said that is covered in the CUP. The R-2 allows several non-residential uses such as churches, community centers and residential care facilities with a CUP. Guiffrida asked if the R-2 zoning would create problems for them in the future if they want to expand their business and Conrad said if they want to expand this facility by 25% they can apply for an administrative CUP; and to expand by 50% it would require a regular CUP and would have to come before this board and city council again. In addition with the current expansion their lot coverage will be approximately 30% and the maximum is 35% so to expand further they may have to build up instead of out. Young noted that both of the application forms requested R-1 zoning and Conrad said after talking with the applicant and Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 13, 2012 Page 8 of 13 architect the R-2 zone was discussed since R-2 zoning is already to the north and east of this property. Perhaps the applications were not changed to reflect those discussions. Conrad added residential care facilities are allowed in both the R-1 and R-2 zones with the application for a CUP. Griffin again said he is concerned with the $9,000 fee for stormwater impact on this project too. They are required to develop a stormwater management plan on their property and at the same time the city is charging them the impact fee which is an extra tax, not necessary, and wrong. APPLICANT/TECHNICAL Ken Williams, Architect, P.O. Box 1046, Whitefish stated he is SUPPORT representing the NorthStar Associates on this project. He provided a history of the property and noted this is a former commercial use which is vacant and has attracted the attention of the counseling and medical fields in this area. What they see is an opportunity to take this piece of property and not convert it to back into a retail property but create a nice quiet use or for a treatment center for eating disorders which is one area of counseling and therapy that is not significantly addressed in the western part of the U.S. Williams said they plan to improve a property close to the highway and replace it with a residential care facility with two wings, one for adults one for adolescents. In the core of the facility they will add a series of meeting rooms used by both the community and on a day-to-day basis by the patients and staff. Williams continued this project will create some fairly high -quality jobs, a nice facility, be able to help a large population of people that will be coming from the northwestern and western part of the U.S., and also from the western portion of Canada. This will improve the valley's health care facilities and professional job environment. Williams said this use will not generate a lot of traffic on highway 93 and the property will be well cared for. The intention of his clients is to be good neighbors, noting the close proximity of the residential neighborhoods of Ponderosa Estates to the immediate east and the golf community across the highway. This strikes him as a win -win proposition for our community. The impacts to the immediate area will be reduced by the construction and operation of this facility. Williams stated they are in general agreement with most of the conditions. Williams reviewed the site plan and said they are working on a stormwater management plan and he acknowledged the comments by Mr. Griffin and said they will be spending as much if not more money on developing that plan and they will also Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 13, 2012 Page 9 of 13 have to pay stormwater impact fees. They are asking for some relief on condition #7 which requires they extend sewer and water from the highway to the eastern edge of the property. That, Williams continued, puts a burden on the property owner and creates a conflict with a natural drainage swale which will have unknown effects to the south, east, and west of the property. Williams asked that the condition be amended so they can create an easement and then extend sewer and water when that need is defined. It doesn't make sense to extend sewer and water to the eastern edge of the property line and then find out that the adjacent property owner needs sewer and water in some other location. Regarding the revised landscaping plan a preliminary plan has been submitted to see if it could work. Williams concluded by saying they have no problem with the waiver of protest with respect to a bike path. They want to work with the City of Kalispell to maintain and develop a greenbelt along that highway and they understand the city's long term goals. The developers agree with the condition and will participate in the SID when there is sufficient property to tie the path in. Williams reviewed elevations drawings of the facility for the board. Griffin questioned the requirement to run sewer and water lines to the eastern edge of the property and asked about hydrant placements on the property. Conrad said when he talked to Public Works they said a hydrant can be run on a 6" water line, depending on the length so they will either have to run a 6" or 8" water line. Conrad said the condition was written according to Public Works standards for extension of utilities. In this case this property is adjacent to the highway and the property immediately east of this property has an easement already in place to the highway so it is not landlocked. Conrad suggested the board consider amending the first sentence of condition #7 to read: "The developer shall extend water and sewer mainlines in accordance with the standards of the Public Works Department." That way they can work this issue out with the city. Williams added he has some suggestions for hydrant location. Griffm asked if this facility will be licensed and certified by the State and Williams said yes, they have a whole series of regulations that they have to meet beyond the city regulations for building and development of the site. Guiffrida asked if the licensing requirements are renewed annually and Williams said yes. Graham asked if the location of the sewer line has been determined Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 13, 2012 Page 10 of 13 and Williams said they are in the process of making that determination. They don't own the property to the north but they do have an easement for parking in place. Williams discussed locations that they have been considering and will work on final location with Public Works. Further discussion was held. Young said if condition #7 remains as written are those main extensions to the east boundary and Conrad said yes. Young continued couldn't we say that provision doesn't apply and they would just have a service as opposed to a main. Jentz said it would be logical to run the line along a city street to serve the next property but in this case it is a private easement and a parking lot which creates a gray area. PUBLIC HEARING Sharon DeMeester, 415 Chestnut Drive stated she lives in Ponderosa Estates. The staff report has addressed her concern that a change of use to, for example, a drug and alcohol treatment facility in the future would negatively impact their properties. DeMeester said she also agrees with Mr. Williams in regards to the water in the swale because today you would get to see Lake Ponderosa and how the water drains needs to be considered in the development of this property. MOTION — ANNEXATION & Guiffrida moved and Sherman seconded a motion that the Kalispell INITIAL ZONING City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KA- 12-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property upon annexation be zoned R-2, Residential. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. MOTION — CONDITIONAL Guiffrida moved and Schutt seconded a motion that the Kalispell USE PERMIT City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KCU-12-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council the conditional use permit be approved subject to the 13 conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Griffin wanted a discussion regarding condition #7 and he isn't clear if a sentence should be added that states instead of having to extend the main all the way to the eastern boundary of the property an easement may be acceptable if approved by Public Works. Conrad suggested the following change to condition #7 which would read: "The developer shall extend water and sewer main lines in accordance with Public Works standards. The plan for the extension shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to construction." Further discussion was held. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 13, 2012 Page 11 of 13 MOTION TO AMEND Schutt moved and Griffin seconded a motion to amend condition CONDITION #7 #7 to read as follows: "The developer shall extend water and sewer main lines in accordance with Public Works standards. The plan for the extension shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to construction." ROLL CALL — AMEND The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. CONDITION #7 MOTION TO AMEND Guiffrida moved and Graham seconded a motion to amend CONDITION #4 condition #4 to read as follows: "The facility operator shall receive an administrative conditional use permit prior to changing the nature of clients the facility services. Proof of licensing must be submitted to the City of Kalispell and annual proof of renewal must be submitted to the City of Kalispell within 15 days of the renewal." BOARD DISCUSSION Jentz noted from a staff standpoint, since there is the potential for numerous licensed facilities in the future, what will be accomplished by this requirement. Guiffrida said the way that he looks at it and the way the council voted on this the last time a CUP was reviewed for a group home which had this condition, is to ensure there is oversight and consistency. Guiffrida said if the zoning was anything but residential he doesn't think it would be needed. Jentz said as they get into day cares and all the other types of licensed uses in residential areas he is concerned that this would create a policy that makes the Planning Department the policing agency and, he asked, is it necessary. Guiffrida added he doesn't believe day cares and other uses are licensed under the Montana Department of Health and Human Services and he understands the issue with becoming a police force but, when you are dealing with these types of facilities in residential zones he thinks it is needed. Jentz noted the staff will comply with the direction of the board but he wanted everyone to understand what is being asked of the city. Griffin said he will argue against this amendment because he thinks the CUP significantly covers any significant change in the character of the facility. If they lose their state license they will be either out of business or will want to change the character of the facility and in that case the CUP already addresses the fact that they would be required to come back for another administrative or regular CUP. The regulation is in place. ROLL CALL — AMEND The motion to amend condition #4 ailed on a roll call vote of 2 in CONDITION #4 favor, 5 opposed. ROLL CALL — ORIGINAL The original motion, as amended, passed unanimously on a roll call Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 13, 2012 Page 12 of 13 MOTION vote. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: Core Area Revitalization Plan Steering Committee Appointments MOTION: STEERING Hinchey moved and Graham seconded a motion to appoint the COMMITTEE APPOINTEES following citizens to the Core Area Steering Committee: Blake Sherman Joe Matulevich Pam Carbonari Kellie Danielson Tom Lund Mike Mower Jim Ness Matt Springer Diane Yarus ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:02 p.m. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board scheduled for Tuesday, April 14, 2012 has been cancelled due to a lack of agenda items. However, a work session will be held on that date beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the city council chambers located at 201 1"Avenue East, Kalispell. Presides/ APPROVED as corrected/submitted:/% /12 &;L& 6A40-9��. MAnderson Recording Secretary Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 13, 2012 Page 13 of 13