Loading...
Planning Board Minutes - June 13, 2006KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMSSION NOWTES OF REGULAR. MEETING JUNE 13, 26 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The regular meeting of the us e . City Planning Board and CALL Zon�r g Commission was called to order at . o o p.m. oard members present were: Timothy Norton, Bob Albert, Rick Hull, John Hinchey, and Robyn. Balcom. Ka.ri Gabriel and Bryan Schutt had excused absences. Seams. Conrad, P.J. Sorensen and Toni Jentz represented the Kalispell Pla nm* Department. There were a. ro=*a.te y 30 people in the audience. Vice President Norton welcomed the new member of the Kalispell City Planru'ng Board, Robyn Bad. om. ELECTION OF OFFICERS - Hinchey moved and Hull seconded to elect Timothy Norton PRESMENT as President of the Kalis eU City Planning Board. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a. roil call vote. ELECTION OF OFFICERS - Hinc .ey moved and Alpert seconded to elect Rick Hull as VICE PRESM NT Vice President ofthe KalispeH City Planning Board. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll calf vote. APPROVAL OF NOWTES Norton moved and Balcom seconded to approve the minutes of the May 9, 2006 regular~ planning board meeting. The motion passed unarfi ously on a. roll cad. vote. HEAR THE PUBLIC No one wished to speak.. HIGHWAY 3 NORTH A request by the city of Kalispell to amend the Kalispell GROWTH ► C Groff Policy 2020 by expanding the ]ol, nda-Hes of the AMIENDMIENT Groff Policy northward using the Stillwater River as the western. boundary, Church and Birch Dfives as the northern boundary and generally following U.S. Highway 2, south. to Rose Crossing. The Growth Policy amendment is intended to give broad policy direction to growth in this area. should property owners wish to annex to the city. The policy anticipates the extension of urban services including sewer and water into this area over time and is designed to give guidance to this associated growth. STAFF REPORT KGPA-06- Tom Jentz, representing the Kalispell Planm*ng Department 2 presented Staff Report KG -06-02 for the Board. Jentz described the Highway 93 North Groff Policy .Amendment Ma.p for the Board and members of the audience. Jentz revIeweC the process of review and the meetings that Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes f the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page I of 21 were held regarding the growth policy amendment. .dment. Staff is recommending that the Kalispell City Planning Board should take public comment at the public hearing. Based on that comment and additional board discussion, the board should make changes as they feel appropriate. Staff recommends at that point the planning board should, by resolution resole to recommend. the Highway 93 North Growth. Policy Amendments is to the City Council for final actlon and. adoption. QUESTIONS BY THE In Noe. soaRn UBC HEARING Rolland Andrews, has owned his property for 28 years, and noted that the location of the government offices was incorrect on the map. Andrews said he hkes the idea of getting ahead and planning but he questions the 150 foot buffer and asked were that came from. Norton said the 150 foot buffer was for aesthetic purposes and is a number that they proposed during their discussions with. he County board* Andrews said rear the neighborhood commercial is the Decorator Warehouse who just got approval from the County Board of Adjustment to expand their business and e noted they built right on the highway R/W. dentz said the proposed buffer has no impact on existing development just new development that would be annexing into the City. dent added the buffer would be more problematic when the property is a small 1 acre piece of land on the highway. if it is 400 acres on the highway it is a significantly different issue. The goal was to create a highway that showed well for generations to come and yet at the same time alloy for development off of the highway. Andrews ors said. 150 feet is a. lot of property, 93,000 square feet or 2*9 acres. Andrews said that if you are talking about an access road or frontage road that ro ldn"t take 150 feet and added that aesthetics can be achieved with far less than 150 feet. Norton asked, if they were considen'ng the buffer area as contributing to the subdivision as park. Jentz said no, it is intended to be where a. frontage road would be located, for be='g and landscaping and a. pedestrian trail. Jentz added that the buffer was are issue with the planning board because this is a. significant highway for the valley. Mayre Flowers, Citizens for a Better Flathead walked through the policies and goals and her comments were as follows: Goal. #1 Gateway Entrance standards. They support the development of the Gateway Entrance standards and feel that is very important not only aesthetically but to the economic future of the KallspeR area. Kalispell City Planning Board mutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 2 of 21 Policies 3.b The policy states that access should be coordinated to allow only collector and arteriai streets to intersect and it says that the judicious use of right-of-way approaches, frontage roads, and good interval street development should be the rule. She has a concern about the excessive use of frontage roads. She realizes that they do lay a role but suggested using wording that sees them as a lover riority option and as much as possible encourage traffic to be funneled with interior roads. i. iv. Four sided architecture is referenced and should be the no= for development adjacent to the impacted area. She thinks it would also be appropriate under g. 8& h. 3. i. to add "applications for development abutting or Within the gateway entrance corridor shall be submitted as a PUD with a sunset clause to discourage speculative and leap frog development." She also suggested that this could be a. stand alone policy. Add a Policy #7 " Phasing wi'11 be established to provide for groom from the city center outward to prevent premature leap frog development and to ensure that neighborhood residential development isn't placed to justify development o neighborhood commercial areas." Goad. 2. Covers the KN- 1 area on the ma., and in the Ka .is e l Groff Polley under the land use and business chapter on page 14, issue #7 notes that there has been a question about the need and amount of commercial mercia.l and hght i.d.ustrial property that is reed.ed for future groom but no quantifiable information is available to assess the market absorption and vacancy rates. Ten 'age 19, S. says "when large scale development may have significant impacts on the community, studies should be provided to assist in assessing impacts including analysis related to traffic, infrastructure and the cost of providingservices." o be in accordance with hose policies within the Groff Policy Flowers recommended adding a section that would. establish Economic and Community Impact Review and she provided the model for that language. e. Goal 2, 3. Flowers suggested that the percentages sold be looked. at. 25% general commercial equates to ,5o acres o the 600 acre site and she noted that the downtown Kalispell area is about 60 acres and the Kalispell Mall sits on about 13 20 acres. 150 acres of just commercial with another 25% of office and high density residential creates a significantly large area that needs an impact study. She also suggested in the future tiring in the percentages to a study that looks at hat the general need is. Ames, Iowa has a good model to look at in analyzing the percent of commercial that is needed. ire an area to serve an existin o .la.tion. Recognizing that Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the Meting of ,dune 13, '2006 Pate 3 of 21 Kalispell is a commercial hub for our County it takes those figures into account. nt. Flowers added t.hat there needs to be some real basis for the percentages that are beffig recommended and she would not support the percentages as presented. Flowers suggested that the board create some standards for a Town Serving Zone. The board has identified that the core for this axea should serve that area and yet there are not any standards for that zone. With the scale of commercial that may be proposed in this area she feels they need to cool at the policies within the Growth. Policy that requires the City to establish standards and to protect the integrity of the e�dsting downtovm business core. Flowers encouraged the board to look at the entire amendment area as a. potential area for a Transfer Development Rights Overlay Zone and consider are inter -local agreement with the County. She said people who live in the City are actually doing a favor for the rest of the population y ling in a more compact area. They chose that for a variety of reasons but they can also benefit from the open space and agncultural lands that can be preserved by transferring density rights into an area that can protect waiter quality, be on city services and various benefits to City residents that could be gained through a Transfer Development Rights program in conjunction with the County. Flowers said she has questions with the map regar �r� g the neighborhood commercial at the intersection of Rose Crossing and Whitefish Stage Road. It seems redundant ant with the policies for the KN-1 Center. She also questioned the spacing of the commercial development at Reserve and suggested neighborhood commercial at Tronstad might adequately serge that need. Flowers suggested neighborhood commercial at one of the intersections of Church Drive and . S. Highway 93 Now may be all that is necessary. ar'y. With a bypass there neighbors from both sides of the highway ro l have easy access to commercial on one side. In to=s of the ffer'.g proposed, Flowers feels it is rea .y important, enhances the value of the u.s�.r esses, attracts people to businesses that are located in the corn'dor, enhances the value of the residential development in those corridors, and she strongly supports them. Flowers noted that they have a. comprehensive resource book on Transfer Development Rights that they would make available to the board for heir discussions. Carol Knotts — 12 10 Birch Grove Road asked why Birch Road was chosen instead of Shrade Road since Sh a .e was are. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June , 21006 Page 4 of 21 emstmg road. K.otts said that considering the congestion and the safety factor with the traffic that Raceway Farb and Majestic Valley produce a service road between Church. Drive and Shra.d e Road would help to funnel the traffic to other alteratives emits instead of just coming out on 93. From Church Drive over to Whitefish Stage there would have to be propel bought and an entire road would have to be put through there. Jentz noted this was just a boundary that was chosen, It is not intended that a major road system go through. there. This boundary coincides with the one selected for the Transportation Plan area. It also buts up against the airport which is are area where growth will not occur. Norton read a. letter from Sharon DeMeester that was sent to the board for the record. (Copy attached) Norton said that the board is seeing the City growing in this area and they want to have some control over how It grows. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. BOARD DISCUSSION Jentz distributed copies of the revised goals & policies for the Highway 93 North Groff Policy Amendment, based o public comments tonight and comments & communications over the past month �r cluing the open house and he reviewed them for the beard. The revisions are as follows: Goal 1, Policy f.Add: "Where development entrance siMage or monument siglages proposed It should be done so as part of a unified planned unit der to ment cono7 Goal. 1, Policy g. & h. Add: iv. Four sided architecture would e the norm a.d'aee .t to gateLa entrance." Goal 1, Policy h. in". Amend to read: "A pedestrian trail or sidewalk should be mco orated into to landscaped buffer area �7 Goal 1, Policy it ll. Amend to read: "Within* this impact area, a combination of terming, landscaping using lyre materials and trees as well as grass, a. pedestrian trail system, limited p Ukin and frontage roads sold be incorporated."' Goal 1, Policy in". Amend to read: "Primary buildings should not be located in this iM act area."' Goal 1, Policy 1. Add: "iv. Whenever pang or sig a e is proposed in the impact area, It shall only be done under a. PUD process where the impacts of these actions are anticipated and provided for." Kalispell City Planning Board M mutes of the meeting of J un e 1, 2 006 Page of 21 Hl e ey suggested incorporating the amendment to h. iii. mto g. iii. which will read as follows: " pedestrian tram or sidewalk should be meor orates into the landscqped buffer area . oars sta'l` agree.. Goal 2, Amend to read: "the development of an integrated residential/ commercial neighborhood (Designatec KN-1 on Growth ol1e r Mbetween US 3-Reserve Drive and Whitefish stage. Goal 2, Policy 1. Amend to read: "Development will be wed use in nature creating an overall integrated neighborhood with a town center as opposed to hnear seon-unercial development ro .t ng the gateway entrances." The final amendment would be to change the defmition of Urban Mixed Use Area on the land use ma.p to (offices, residential 7 commercial & industrial). Jentz addressed the request by Citizens for a Better Flathead for an e onor ' e study for this area stating it would not serge a. beneficial use noting that currently a ]prwdmately 300,000 square Feet/year of commercial is being r g ilt in the city and we have room for 2-3 years of commercial development before the cur -rent sites are full.. MOTION Norton roved and Hint ey seconded a motion to adopt Staff Report KG -o -o2 and Resolution KG -o -o2, and recommend to the City Council that the Highway 93 Now Growth Policy Amendments be adopted. BOARD DISCUSSION Hull asked for clarification regarding the 150 foot buffer, which was provided. Hurl.11 said he was brought into the Church r ve boundary kicking and screaming because he wanted the boundary closer to tow., M - GROWTH FROM Hull moved and Hinchey seconded motion to respire that:. THE CITY CENTER, the groom be approved in phases from the city center OUTWARDS outwards. BOARD DISCUSSION Balcom questioned how that could be enforced. Hull said that the argument was made with sewer and that i why the boundary was drawn at Church Drive. The idea is if the growth gets beyond more than a mile from the City we should ask for less dense development. Jentz said there are several dffferent models in planning and the model that Hull talked about is a good policy for a. very slog growing community. unit . However, it doesn't work so well i a faster growing area because the dense areas overrunthe less dense areas then here are newly platted rural Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Faze 6 of 211 subdivisions next to urban subdivisions. e t said he would speak against that motion and he provided the board with the statistics of significant groom in Kalispell and the County. ty. Nor -ton said growth is market driven. You cannot enforce, r .sh or restrict those who wart to develop further out from. the City because someone is closer who sn" oyet. What that does is inflate land values and restricts growth. The neighborhood commercial nodes will increase those property values �r� that area. He does agree that he would like to see density closer to theCity though h board could handle that through the PUD process or subdivision review. ROLL CALL - GROWTH The motion failed on a. roll call vote of I in favor FROM THE CITY CENTER opposed. OUTWARDS BOARD DISCUSSION Hinchey said he likes the concept of the Transfer Development Rights (TDR) overlay Zone and asked if there was some why to encourage 's within the County. dentz said it is a great concept butis not sure where it fits in this amendment. Jentz suggested discussing TDR's with the Flathead County Plannffig Board next time they meet. Hinchey said the neighborhood commercial .t Rase Crossing and Whitefish Stage does seem a bit redundant and thought neighborhood commercial should he somewhere else. Jentz or said this intersection will probably become a major intersection and businesses would easily locate there and would create a bier from the traffic, noise, etc. Jentz added the KT-1 portion of the map WIR not he entirely commercial but if it was he would agree that the neighborhood. ROLL CALL - ORIGINAL The motion passed unanimouslyon a roll call vote. MOTION BOARD DISCUSSION Norton talked Jentz for all his work on the amendment and noted that there were several hours put into the amendment y staff and the board holdffig several work sessions and an open house. RIIIEE 'VIESTER INITLkL A request by Allen and Virgm'ia. Rie e, William and Cindy ZONMG UPON Riebe and Polly Webster for annexation, it tird zoning and "NEXATION AND subdivision of approximately 12.8 acres located at 386 and DLAMOND RMGE ESTATES 394 Three Mile Drive, Kal s e . The properties are currently REIAHNARY PLAT zoned County R- (ore acre mm* u* n m lot size). The owners have petitioned to annex into the City of Kalis aeH and have requested. the City R -2 ,boo square loot r .ir��.mum lot size) as well as proposing a 23 lot residential subdivision. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 �ek -7 ST F REPORT KA- - Sean Conrad, representingthe I s ei� annm' KP- 6- 3 Department presented Staff Report KA-06-- & KPP-o -o3 for the Board. Conrad noted the developers requested Paying a cash -ire -lieu fee to meet the parkland requirements of % based on the fact that the lots wiH be relatively large, 15,000 - 27,000 square feet, and the developer felt that i en the large lot size and roxirrr'ty to the park that is now in the Empire Estates subdivision that a. cash -in -lieu fee would be appropriate. The Parks 8& Recreation Department upon reviewing the subdivision recommended that the parkland be dedicated on site somewhere M the vio* it of lots 6, 7, parkland requirement would be approximately 1.1. acres. This parkland would then be taken over, 'improved and maintained by a homeowners association. Staff is recommending that the Pia .nr� Board adopt Staff Report KA-06-04 as findings of fact are.d recommend to the Kalispell City Council that upon annexation the initial zoning of R-2 Single Fanffly Residential be approved. Staff is also recommend That the Planning Board adopt Staff Report KPP- 0 -- 3 as findings of fact and recommend to the rasel. City Council that the relim.ary Plat for Diamond Ridge Estates be approved subject to the 20 conditions listed in the staff report. QUESTIONS BY THE Norton asked about other subdivisions in the area. that have BOARD parks and Conrad noted that those were homeowners" parks and not City Parks. The nearest City park would be in Empire Estates and is 1.7 acres and being developed with a. field and some playground equipment. t. Hull noted that the area recommended for parkland appears to be a hill. Conrad said it is a. slight hill approximately 15% slope and added Parks was looldng for a. central location. alcorn asked if Parks in subdivisions are geared more for the residents in those subdivisions and. Conga.d said yes. aicom said that safety and whether the park is within wing distance is important. t. Hinchey asked if a. homeowners association would be created to maintain the roads in this subdivision. ivision. Conrad said no the roads will be taken over by the City. The only catalyst for creation of the homeowners association would be a common park. Balcom asked if the homeowners didn't have an interest in maintaining inin a park could it just become a weed. patch. Conrad said yes it could. Albert asked if here is any kind of buffer between lots 9, 10, 11 & 12 by Big Sky Boulevard. Conrad said no just larger lot sizes. In this case vou would have single faml lots adjacent Kalispell it Planning Boar minutes of the meedng of June , 2006 Paw 8 of 21 to single family lots, like uses, so there wouldn't be any reed for a buffer. APCANT G.ENCEES En'ca Wir-tala, Sands S rve m' representing the applicants stated Diamond Ridge Estates was first submitted with 2 cul- de-sacs thatdidn't quite go all the way through and proposed a. cash -in -feu of parkland payment. Site Review thought that a. better design would be to continue that road through and make it more of a transportation rote as it lined up better with the Bowser Creek Roads and provided better traffic flow. Wir ala noted these lots are �/ acre and would allow for swing sets and sandboxes. When the homeowners association maintains the roads, open space, common areas or parkland they have more glue to hold that association together and it tends to be more proactive. Here when the City will take over the ownership and mamtenance of the road system the Fate of ahomeowners' association park, being one acre in size, could lapse into the predicted weed patch. A cash -in -lieu of parkland does go to the purchase o new parkland or playground equipment for City parks. Wirta a stated that they concur with the staff report with the exception of Condition 5, and they respectfully request that the board either remove or reword the condition so that a cash-in-Ueu of parkland would . e required instead of an actual parkland dedication. ii asked how they would be aisle to put in a 1. 1 acre park. Wirta a said they would have to decrease the lots in size, or reconfigure the subdivision by eliminating lots. she added the applicant would prefer to keep the lots larger. Norton noted the developer needs to provide evidence that lots 19 & 20 have been Mcluded in the road maintenance ance agreement ent for Wyndover Hill Drive and asked if it was paved. Wirtala said it is paved and the developer will petition. the Wyndover Hill Subdivision to create are addendum to their property owners association which would then allow those 2 lots to be assessed at the same rate as the Wyndover Hi residents are for road maintenance. ce. Norton asked how lots 19 & 20 would ld access their mail. Wirtala said that they would work with the Post Office to see if they would require individual mail boxes or if they already have a. cluster location if they could add those lots to the cluster site. PUBLIC HEARING Jim Florman - 145 Brook Drive, lot 15 in Big Sky Homesite might bellow this property, asked how this subdivision will affect his property and property varies. Florrnan added they would not want to use the lots proposed for parkland because it is a significant slope. He asked if there were are. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes f the meeting of June 1, 006 'e studies conducted relating to drainage and water and how it will affect the properties down below. Flo=an also asked what the City plan is for getting sever up to Three Mile Drive from. a. 5 grace. Florman said lots 9 - 12 seem like they will e on a hillside and hedoesn't know how they would build on the hiU. With the property currently being farmed they reallydon't have are issue with water, although in 1997 there may have been some water from the huge amount o snow and rain that year. Regarding the buffer you would have to have a. 50 foot buffer because of the slope, so it is impossible. Jim Bryer - I 11 Brook Drive motel that Florman had covered his questions but added it is a delicate situation tying in dense population or housing with those of them who have been out in the country for a while. Bryer said that this is not representative of the typical housing in the area now other than north of Three Mile Drive. He said that they now en oy deer, grouse, and even a. skunk and a raccoon once in a. while in their backyards. Bryer said that when they bought their property the realtor said don't worry Jim you won't have 15 people iooldng in your back door because it is zoned for one house per acre and that is all you are going to see. -r er said that is why they bought their house in this location. Bryer asked. the board to answer lorrnan-s questions about the affect on their houses and their property values. He asked if the roads will provide ra-i a.ge or will it e runn g down the hill into their as ements , Davy Hoag - 85 Vest View Drive in the Two Mile Tract Subdivision said it was stated that over half of the lots m the proposed lots are over -1 of an acre and y his count he only sees 6 out of 23. Basicafly he viers this proposal as a blatant attempt to make money at the expense of the e .sting homeowners it this area. Hedoesn't believe that, the development t as proposed is consistent with the existing density out there now. In the absence of some compelling reason for this high density development, other than. greed, he would suggest that the board reject this proposal.. Erica. Wirtala, Sands Surveying explained ned the preliminary plat process and said that they worked with an engineering fry., Carver Engineering on this project. Montana State law requires that when you create a. development all runoff stays on that property and can not impact your neighbor's property. Carver Engineering has devised a series o retention and detention ponds, and she noted heir locations on the plat map. Wirta.la said that detention ponds are temporary and retention ponds will hold the water until it evaporates or soaks in. The plans are there scat to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality where they will be reviewed. A lot of the runoff will also be caught by the curb, gutter and sidewalks and directed to stormwa.ter drains and fed through the municipal syster. . The sever will be Kalispell City Planning Board ll4i nutes of the meeting of .dune 13, �00 Paw 10 of 21 reviewed by the Public Works Department and if a lift station is required the developer will bear that expense. The subdivision regulations read that a aside cannot be developed if it has a greater than 30 slope and that slope i not exceeded on this property. They wiH have to work with the Pubhc Works Department to ensure that the hiEside standards are adhered to and that they have a good base for the foundations. She noted iLn addressing the property value questions there is nothing in Flathead County at the moment that is decreasing in value and because the property is closer to town the property value would go up considerably, especially with the new developments that are bringing duality homes to the area. Regarding the question of similar types of development - they felt that the -2 zone would be a good buffer M relation to the R-3, R-4 and even R-5 zoning .nearby and it will bring some diversity in the housing market. For a.an asked if that would mean they would have standing gaiter at the edge of their property. Norton said that in the plan -provided., yes that is a possibility but it would depend on the rainfall and the runoff for that year. Anna. Bryer, I I Brook Drive said with the waiter sitting there who is going to take care of the mosquitoes. Norton said that there is a County -wide Mosquito District, and with the number of retention .. and detention ponds in the City he is not aware of any major problems with mosquitoes in the City as opposed to other areas of the County. `lorman noted he and other properties erties around him are on septic systems and wells and asked if there have been any impact studies donne regarding waiter duality. Norton said that the developer would be responsible for any impacts to other properties and it would be taken care of. To one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION - INITUL ZONING Hi the r moved and Hull seconded a. motion to adopt Staff Report KA-06-04 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalis efl City Councfl that upon annexation the initial zoning of R-2 Single Family Residential be approved. BOARD DISCUSSION Hull noted this is logical. fill M for the area. Norton said this is a great irifill project with almost -1/2 acre lots. Wyndover Hill also has larger lots and this would be a natural. progression. from larger acreage parcels to what has already been approved with Empire Estates and Blue Heron, Bowser Creek, etc. ROLL CALL - INITIAL The motion passed unanimously on a roll caH vote. ZONING Kalispell Cltv Planning Board Minutes of the meed n a of June 13, 21100 YPageI I of'1 ................ MOTION - DILAMOND RIDGE H chey moved and Balcom seconded a motion to adopt Staff ESTATES PRELIMINARY Report KP-o -o3 as findings of fact and recommend to the PLAT Kalis efl City Council that the preliminary plat for Diamond Ridge Estates be approved subject to the 20 conditions listed in the staff report. BOAR DISCUSSION ull said the board has been through a number of meetings were the neighbors eom lam'd about subdivisions popping up next to therm. There could be as may as 5 homes on a acre and the density here is 2 homes per acre. The board sympathizes with the neighbors but there is �t much that the board can do. The area is developing with City sewer so it is logicad that the area will continue to develop. Hull said the Park issue would require redesigning of the subdivision. Conrad said that the Parks & Recreation. Director brought up the issue of a parkland dedication instead of cash-m' - eu of parkland can the day that they packets were being mimed. Hull said that he is opposed to adding the parkland dedication at this late date. Balcorn suggested that they dedicate one of the lower lots where the retention ponds and detention basins are located. Conrad said that the Parks Department does not like to take parkland that also functions as the detention basin unless is a very large park. Albert said that he feels it definitely needs a park but it was late in the game when it was realized that there wasn't one provided. Should we make them put one in Albert said probably not. alcom suggested using a portion of lots I I & 12 seems like a win -win situation to her, if It would be possible. inchey said that he agrees with Balcom that a portion of Lots I I & 12 could be used for a park. Although he sympathizes with the fact that it was late in the game and Parks Recreation should have been more on the ball, he feels that a park is necessary and maybe the developer can work with Parks to determine a better location. Norton said that he agrees with Albert and Hull that Parks Recreation dropped the ball on this one. He would hate to have the developer- go back and incur costs by red esl gnmg the subdivision this late in the game. Norton said that he totally disagrees with the recommended location of the park. The more natural area for a park would be along the southern border. MOTION Hull moved and Albert seconded a motion to amend Condition #5 to require cash -in -lieu of parkland instead of a parkland dedication for Diamond Ridge Estates. Kai is t City P lann i ng Board M mutes of the meeting of June 13, .200 Paec 12 of 21 BOARDDISCUSSION Norton asked .f $25,'000 was adequate for cash -in -lieu o parkland, because in his opinion it is not. The cash -in -lieu amount should be based on when the ro oms is developed and not on raw land. However, since he coot change that he agrees with the motion. al om said that they are serving on a .annm' g" board and looking at a plan. It is not something that is already established and she added, yes the parkland dedication was missed but the staff and the board caught it before the fmal decision was ma. o. ROLL CALL - AND The motion to amend Condition #5 as stated above passed CONDITON #5 on a roll call vote of 3 in favor and 2 opposed. ROLL CALL - ORIGINAL The original motion passe. unanimously on a roll call vote. MOTION AMENDED AT of A request by Wayne Turner to amend Empire Estates Phase EM[PIRE ESTATES PHASE 5 5 and add 7 lots to the approved prehminaxyplat. Phase mcludes 2.3 acres with preliminary plat approval for 64 lots. Due to a charge in access to Phase 5 and a. redesign o the subdivision roads and lots the owner was left with additional al land outside of the 64 preliminary approved lots. t is on this additional land the owner is requesting to add lots. STAFF REPORT KPP-06-04 Scan Conrad, representing the Kalispell Planning Department presented Sty` ' Report KPP-06-04 for the Board. Conrad stated rh n Empire Estate's was given preliminary plant approval in 2003 there was a. proposal to run Temp Drive (now referred to as Barron Way in Phase 5 on the southern end of the subdivision across the Kalispell Bypass and MDT will not allow that road to go through. The developers .a ow came M are.d amended the plat that adds sublots with a cul-de-sac at the junction of Barron Way and the bypass and have eliminated the park at the southem tip of Phase 5. By in large, the addition of 7 lots will not impact the roadway access or water and sewer facihties for this phase of the subdivision. Conrad said with the addition of 7 lots there is a regulation m the Subdivision Regulations that requires .03 of an acre for parkland per dwelling unitwhen you go to a density higher than 11,880 squaresqua-re Feet per dwelling. This proposal. .far exceeds that. The developers have come M and requested additional lots which requires parkland dedication of about 9100 square feet or cash -in -lieu of parkland. In addition to that, because the previous homeowners' park on the southern erg.d of the preliminarily plat i-s no longer being proposed, the Site Review Committee discussed making ._.+ for at least part of the homeowners' park. This discussion Kalispell City Planning Board M mutes of the meeting of June 13,-.2-'006 'age 13 o1 4 mcluded possibly creating a. 16,000 square foothomeowners' park along the bypass. However, at the Site Review meeting the Assistant Police Chief thought that an �r�terior park near lot 11 would serve the subdivision better. The owner agreed to that but where the City went a bit further is instead of just requ=g a 9 100 square foot park, the City asked for a. 16,000 square foot park to meet the Subdivision Regulations for the 7 requested lots and secondly to compensate for the homeowners' park open space that was eliminated on the southern tip of this phase. Conrad said the la nm*g Department is also recommending that a concrete bicycle pathway be constructed somewhere in the vicinity of Lot 7B to correct the future sidewalk along Barron Way to the future bike path along the bypass. Conra.d note. that Condition refers to thehomeowners" park designation and Condition #7 refers to the bike/pedestrian pathway. Staff is recommending that the Kalispell City Planning Board adopt Staff Report KPP-06-4 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Co .cil that the amended preliminary plat of Empire Estates Phase 5 be approved subject to the 17 conditions listed in the staff report. QUESTIONS BY _.. HE Norton asked for clarification on location of the bike path BOARD and who would be responsible for mai t aini both the bike path and the park. Conrad said at the Site Review meeting they proposed the park by the bypass and felt that the City could take over the maintenance of the park since they would be already maintaining the bike path but since it was decided to move the park to the i.teor of this phase, the park would then be maintained by the homeowners". -- --- - --- - "PLICANTIAGENCIES Hubert Turner, 3300 Highway 2 West restated the reasons that they were before the board with a revised preliminary plat of Empire Estates Phase 5. Turner said with the elimination of the connecting road through the bypass they determined they had unused real estate and in an effort to provide affordable housing they needed to increase the lots. They submitted a. plat with no parks proposed because they had just gore through the process of turning over the homeowners' association of Phases 1 - 4 and he noted there has been little to no interest in being involved in the homeowners' association for Empire Estates to maintain any of the common areas of phases -. The bike path buffer area that is supposed to be mamta.ine y the homeowners is not being maintained. Tumer added in their defense they have only been in control of the homeowners" association .for about 10 creeks. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the mecting of June 13, 00 ppe, 14 of 21 Turner continued that in consultation With staff they realized that parkland was more important than they had ors gM*a thought and they agreed there should be a centralized zed park somewhere in the vicinity of Lot 11. However, he thinks that asking for 16,000 square feet is too much since the Subdivision Regulations would only require approximately 100 square feet for parkland. Tuner said this would require a major redesign of the middle section of the subdivision. Turner said that he doesn't think that the City or the homeowners are iosfg a great deal of recreational opportunity due to the fact that the park isn't there anymore. He thinks that they are gaining something because they don't have a .6 acre weed patch chattering up their subdivision. Tree years ago the City deemed the homeowners park as having no recreation opportunities and was not accepted by the City but they were still charged cash -in -lieu of parkland. In fact what ended up happening was they purchased that real estate once to subdivide it and them again from the City. .r er said he has no problem providing a homeowners park but they are proposing a. smaller park, the required 9 100 square feet with $10,000 dedicated to develop the park so that it would be established and the homeowners would he more wing to take over the maintenance of are established park. He added there was small homeowners' park at the southern end of Phase 4 and soon after taking over the association one of the new board members of the homeowners' association called the planmng office and asked if they could sell it because they had no use for it. Turner said another issue is he has no problem With connecting their subdivision with the proposed bypass bike path but suggested that the bike path be constructed between lots 11 & 12 along the 1 ' easement for the surer Me. In addition, staff is asking for a. concrete hike path, which Turner said that he has never seem and added that concrete breaks and asphalt is more flexible and can stand up to abuse. He also noted it would be safer for the children in the subdivision to construct the bike path between lots 11 2. PUBLIC HEARING I No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Hull moved and Hinchey seconded a. motion to adopt Staff Report KPP-06-4 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the amended preliminary plat o Empire Estates Phase 5 he approved subject to the 1 conditions listed in the stab' report. ►1W DISCUSSION Hull said that he is in favor of a park but thought it could be smaller — 14,000 square feet. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2-o 6 Page 15 of 21 Hinc ey asked staff to review for they arrived at 16,000 square feet for the parkland requirement. Conrad responded, Hinchey said that he is M favor of the 16,000 square foot park because the lots are small. alcom said that she agreed with the applicant that the location of the bike path. along the sewer hne makes more sense because it would be safer for the kids . Norton said that he agrees with Balcom. Hinchey asked if the current bike path is concrete and Jentz say d that t eras a.s ha.lt. Bentz added that asphalt hasa. life span of 0-20 ears and concrete has a hfe span of 50 years. Concrete cracks and stabilizes and with asphalt weeds pop , it erodes and alligators. Jentz said that the current bike path is invisible because the homeowners butt up against it and have fenced it and if located near the park people will see it and use it. Norton asked if the City has any ability to enforce the maintenance of parks by the homeowners associations. Jentz said that the City has not taken that approach but if weeds are a. problem it is the planning department's responsibility to enforce the weed ordinance after July I st. a.lcom said that it would make e sense for the homeowners to take care of the parks to protect their property values. she said that she hopes that affordable housing doesn't mean a price so low that people wouldn't care about their property and subdivision. Balcom added she has a. City park in her neighborhood and they got involved as a. neighborhood and got the Parks Department to work on the park. It works but it takes some initiative on the part of the homeowners. H cheer agreed. Albert tanks that the requirement t should be 9100 square feet and not 16,000 square feet, As far as taking care of the park whoever ma-r tail s it should be required to maintain nta.in it. Hull said that the he accepts the 16,000 square feet for the park but felt that the bike path location should be changed. Turner said when they developed the bike path on another portion of Empire Estates it was the perfect place to pile dirt that was dug out of a foundation. The material was then retrieved by a 950 front end loader in a. fashion that tore up the asphalt and he had to replace it. Turner er said that he has never seen a. bike path built of concrete here m Flathead Valley. Turner said as far as the easement ent location for the bide path the public safety issue still stands because when cars are parked along both shies of the street it doesn't matter how fast you are going children can get hurt. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13. 2006 Page 16 of 21 MOTION - AMENDMENT TO Hull moved and Norton seconded to amend Condition #7 to CONDITION read that bike/pedestrian path easement, 20-Feet wide, shag be shown on the finalplat." And "The bile pedestrian. path shall be constructed and paved and be a minimum with of 10 feet." BOARD DISCUSSION Norton said that he agrees with HuH on the amendments to the bike path and disagrees with Jentz regarding the location of the bike path. Norton inks that the recommended location would be dangerous and the placement of the bike path on the sewer easement wi make the path safer, more visible an therefore ere ore will be used more. Jentz said that when you have a City bike path you have the City putting it M and maintaining it. When you have a homeowners' bike path your are giving it to the homeowners. y requiring concrete . tea . of asphalt it would lessen the burden on the future omeowner . AMENDED MOT - Hull suggested amending his motion to read "Me CONDITION bike/pedestrian bath shall be constructed out of concrete a.n.d be a minimum width of 10 feet.' ROLL CALL - CONDITION The motion as amended a. e on a. roll. call vote of 4 in 71 AS ENDED favor and 1 in opposition. BOA DISCUSSION Hull said that he noticed that the construction has already started and Conrad said that they already had approval o the preliminary plat of Phase 5 and the addition of the lots and sublots W.11 not impact the infrastructure which 1s being installed. Norton said that if they are co . eme i. that the homeowners' park will be a weed patch, they could require t.a.t the park e improved with benches and recreation amer tie , etc. Especially in a subdivision where no one wants to be part o a. homeowners' association and at least 0% of these lots will e renters and not owner occupied properties. Turner said he disagrees that that 0% of the lots will be renters. a.lc m asked for clarification on how far the City could go in this regard. Norton said they can include the improvement o the park with recreational amenities in the conditions. Balcom asked who would l enforce the covenants. Norton said that the homeowners association would enforce the covenants to ensure that the properties are kept up. ROLL CALL - ORIGINAL The motion passed unanimously on a. roll call vote, MOTION DOWNTOWN PARKIWG A request by the City of Kalispell to amend Section. .TEXT MENDMENT 2 F .2 , l the Kalispell Zoning r inanc specificgy Kaiispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting June 1, 200 Page 17 of 21 to allow for required parking within the Special Parking Maintenance District No. 2 (Downtown Kalispell) to be met by a cash. -ire -lieu of parking payment. In addition, it is proposed that Special Parking Maintenance District .ct To. 2 boundary (Appendix B, Figure 2) be expanded to include the Kalispell Center Mall bounded by Center Street, Fifth Avenue West, the BN RR Tracks and North Main Street. STAFF REPORT'S KZ - - P.J. Sorensen, representing the Kalispell Planning 3 Department presented Staff Reports KZTA-06-03 for the Board. Sorensen stated that this amendment deals with parking relations in the downtown area. {there are general parking ratios that go with Mdivid al use through the city such as single familv residences have 2 off-street parldng spaces, offices have I parking space for every 400 square feet o gross floor area, and restaurants are 1 space for every 100 square feet of gross floor area. In the downtown core area uses can come and go with an existing square footage without having to provide additional parking. New developments or additions onto existing buildings have to provide additional parking. He said in practice that is verb' difficult, if not impossible to come up with because everything in downtown is already developed. Most of the towns in Montana that they looked at have a cash-in-heu payment if someone should fall short of parldng spaces. The cash -in -lieu payments would go into a fund that would be used to develop common public parking in the downtown area. They also looked at the Groff Policy which specifically recognizes the special parking considerations for downtown and encourages innovative parking management and provision of public lots and structures. After further review and discussions, the city council directed staff to bring forth this amendment, which states that a cash -in -lieu payment ent may be paid as an alternative to providing required arldng spaces on site. The money s ,adl be paid into a. fund established by the city council and m an amount to be set by city council by resolution. Sorensen said that the second part of this amendment deals with expanding the downtovm parking area to include the Kalispell Center Mall site. With what is here right now once they build the bank off of Highway 93 their parking would e maxed out at the site and they would not be able to expand the mall or put in any other ildings there. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City PlannjLng Board adopt the findings in staff report =A-o -3 and recommend to the Kalispell. City Council that required parking within the Special Parking Maintenance District No_ 2 may be met by a cash -in -lieu payment and that the Special. Parking Maintenance District No. 2 bound!aa be. expanded to include Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June , 2006 'age 1 '2 1 the Kalispell Center Mall property bounded by Center Street,, Fifth Avenue West North, the BN railroad tracks, and North Mai. street. QUESTIONS FROM THE Hull asked if the Parking Coma ss .on was pn-vatized. BOAR. HMc cy said that the Parking C numlssion works autonomously omous and is entirely supported by permits and fines. HuH asked about the akin lot across the tracks that the City provided for the expansion of the mall. Sorensen said. that no City owned parking structures or lots in the nearby area would support additions to the ma .. Norton said in other Fiords the mall .l wns land north of the railroad tracks. Further discussion was held regarding the area across the tracks from the rah. PUBLIC HEARING No one wished to speak and the public hean*ng was closed. MOTION Hinc ey moved and , alc rrr seconded a. motion to adopt staff Report KZT--3 as fmains of fact as recommend to the Kalispell city Council that required pang within the Special Parking Maintenance District No. 2 may be met by a cash -in -lieu payment and that the Special arking Maintenance District No. 2 boundary be expandedinclude the Kalispell Center MaH propel bounded by center Street, Fifth Avenue West North, the BN railroad tracks, and North Maim Street. BOARD DISCUSSION Hull asked what the parking situation was downtown. Hinchey responded s bleak. Hinchey said they have had businesses leaving downtown for the express purpose of fmding more available parking at a. different location. This has caused downtown to be status quo. They feel that removing this parking requirement � 1 a i r � us�r� ss sto expand, however it wiH create a short-term rt-terra. parking problem that will have to be addressed in a. different way. Hull noticed that downtown was tuming into office space and those people are .a �. trouble with the 2 hour parking limit, Hinc cy said there is no solution and a. lot of those businesses are leaving d. wnt vm. They are wing to manage the parking for the clients of these businesses and wing t discourage people from parking all day. Hui asked what this money wiR be used for. Hinchey said it would be put into a. fund heldthe Parking Commission for future parking requirements. Sorensen said that council rud need to set up a plan to determine the amount of cash -in -lieu that would be required and these funds would be used for a parldng study to identify ca. ns, to purchase property, ty, and to develo public parking facilities within the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 1 x 2W Pane IQ of I downtown. area. aleom suggested that if there is a trend that businesses are leaving because of the lack of parking the money could go into efforts to lure businesses back on to Mam* Street. Hi hey said one reason this came up is First Avenue Ca.si o/ Restaurant on Ist Avenue blest and 2nd Street West wanted to expand and because they were expanding they had to have 2 additional parking spaces. This perpetuated the discussion to encourage expansion i . downtown but they are hampered by the current ar ng requirements. Sorensen said there are at least 4 projects out there that are -impacted by the current parking requirements. Norton said he totally understands that there is no parking downtown and that if the City is going to get any type o groom or redevelopment downtown something is going to have to be clone. Norton said cash-in-heu is a logical war to handle the problem. Norton was concerned that Kalispell Center Mall is being considered for inclusion in the parking district. He feels the .all and their parking is a totally dffferent issue than the downtown parking issues. The mall has land north of the railroad tracks and they should. do something with the land that they own n to provide parking for their future expansion. The mall could be handled as a separate issue. He added that he will vote no if the mall is included. Jentz said he is responsible for suggesting including the mall in the parking district, the mall did not ask to be a part of the district. The concept was to include the mall and now there is a larger group of business owners involved in the solution. inc. ey said that it seems to him that if they .ave a. problem .ov,rntown with parking they need all the players they can get on their side and that is why he is in favor of keeping the mall in the district. Albert said that he agrees with Hinc .ey that they need t keep the mall in the district. ROLL CALL The motion passed on a. roll call vote of 4 JLn favor and opposed. OLDBUSINESS: I CASINOS EX MENDS T MOTION Norton moved seconded .l ert to postpone the work session on the Casinos Text Amendment until the July 11, 2006 meeting date. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of J un e 13, 2006 a o '0;1 1 TRI-OLL CALL The motion Passed unanimouslY on a roU ea. vote. NEW BUSINESS: Norton noted that Kann Gabriel was involved in faU froma horse and broke her back. He seat a card areal for everyone to sir- . ADJOURNhWNT The meeting was adjourned at approximately : 2 , m. The next regular meeting of the Ka is efl City Planning Board and Zoning Commission will be held on Tuesday, July 1 2. Work session held after the rear meeting on the fallowing item: . Preliminary discussion and review of a proposed development ent at the comer of Church Drive and Highway 93 North, no application has been submitted fret. Timothy Norton Michelle Anderson President Recording Secretary APPROVED as submitted/ corrected: /_/06 Kalispell Cit r Planning Board Minutes of the m eti cy of June 1, 200 Page 21 of 21