Loading...
Planning Board Minutes - October 10, 2006KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMSSION NMMTES OF REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 10, 2006 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and CALL Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were; Timothy Norton, Rich Hull, Bryan Schutt, Robyn Balcom and Bob Albert. John Hinchey and Kari Gabriel were absent. Sean Conrad and Tom Jentz represented the Kalispell Planning Department. There were approximately 15 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF NMWTES Schutt moved and Norton seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the September 19, 2006 regular planning board meeting. The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. HEAR THE PUBLIC I No one wished to speak. MATT WAATT1/ THE A request by Matt waatti 1 The Villa's, LLC for a conditional VILLAS, LLC use permit to allow a 2-unit townhouse to be located on a lot CONDMONAL USE PERMIT zoned R-3 (Urban Single Family Residential). The R--3 zoning district requires a conditional use permit be secured for townhouse dwellings with a configuration of 2 or more attached units. The property is approximately 8,8 10 square feet in size and is located at 374 6thAvenue ]Vest North. STAFF REPORT I CU--06 -10 Sean Conrad, representing the Kalispell Planning Department presented Staff Report KCU-06 W-10 for the Board. Conrad noted in the staff report the requirements in order to create sublots are listed and the request before the board differs slightly in that there are 2 existing legal lots on this property. Conrad stated the property owner could construct a single family dwelling on each one of the lots. However the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to create. townhouses that would have a common wall between the 2 units and allow some flexibility in his design. Conrad said the Public Works Department has recommended some street improvements be included as part of the conditional use permit request. Those would include installation of a sideway along the frontage of the property as well as some street trees. In addition the planning staff is recommending that a condition be placed on the permit requiring either landscaping or some alternative design or both to minimize the prominence of the garages from the street. Conrad said the planning office received a letter on the requested conditional use permit from Eloise Hill who noted Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 10, 2-006 Page l of 1 I that their R-•3 zone has no other multiple unit dwellir gs and this would be a precedent that will change the character of the neighborhood. She also had concerns with the increase of traffic and off-street parking. The multiple driveways in front of the property will reduce the open yard space and not be in character with the other residences on this street. Conrad said the property owner does not have a recorded alley easement and that is why they could not place the garages to the rear of this property. In order to construct the townhouse units the developer will have to provide adequate off-street parking and the site plan does show that there will be a one car garage and have space between the garage and the edge of the property to accommodate parking for another vehicle. Staff is recommending that the Kalispell City Planning Board adopt staff report KCU-06-1 O as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the 7 conditions listed in the staff report. QUESTIONS BY THE Schutt asked how, under Condition #4, they would judge BOARD that the prominence of the garages was minimized. Conrad acknowledged that this condition was ambiguous because he noted it is a small site. Conrad suggested that the board discuss other alternatives or perhaps require that a landscape plan be submitted for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. APPLICANT/ AGENCIES Mark Waatti, 15 Vista Loop stated when they originally bought the property there were 3 lots which were too small to build a house so they did a property line adjustment and created 2 lots. They had a house designed with the garage placed on the alley until they found out that they did not have legal access to the alley. Then they came up with the plan for a townhouse as being the best application for this lot. This way they would only have one garage visible from the front instead of 2 garages with 2 single family residences. Waatti said that he spore to as many of the neighbors as he could or dropped a letter off explaining the plan. Waatti said that most of the people who he talked to didn't have a problem with this project and he added the neighbor next door was in favor of it. Waatti also noted that he spoke to Eloise Dill and he told her that they would be required to provide 2 parking spots for each unit. Another neighbor was concerned about the alley and he told her they would not be using the alley for access to this property. PUBLIC HEARING Elden Marvel, 605 west Oregon street stated they had some concerns about this project. They have lived there since 1973 and this has always been a single fancily residence area and now they have someone trying to change the neighborhood. Kalispell City Punning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 10, �006 Page "ofII The property was originally advertised as constructing a single family residence and now they are changing their mind. The streets 'n the area are narrow and Oregon Street is two-way but should only be a one-way street because it is very narrow. The increase in residences will also cause problems with more traffic and parking. Marvel said they are not in favor of this plan as submitted. Mason Riley, 1110 - 3rd Avenue west in Columbia Falls stated he lived in this area from 1963 to 1965 and his mother moved into the little house on the northwest corner of this lot who left it to him and he has been fixing it up. Riley said that they don't like the idea of the 2 - unit townhouse. Riley said he is opposed to the townhouses and wishes it were being proposed as a single family residence. Mark Waatti said that there are 2 lots and they could build 2 single family residences now, without a conditional use permit. He said that it would look better to have the townhouses there than to have 2 single family residences with 2 garages in front of the properties. The project would not increase the traffic by any more than if they built 2 houses there. Riley added the 2 single family residences would have to be pretty small in order to fit on those small lots. BOARD DISCUSSION Balcom asked if there was a single family house on the lot before. Conrad said it is a vacant lot right now and he is not sure what was on the lots originally. There are now 2 legal lots that are 31 feet in width and 142 feet in length. Conrad added the zoning code allows for townhouses with a conditional use permit however, they have to meet the density of the zoning district. As was stated, since there are 2 legal lots the applicant could build a single family residence on each lot right now. Albert asked how they get around the setbacks if there are 2 legal lots. Conrad said the building code allows for townhouses to be built on the shared property line. Norton asked if the Site Review Committee approved the creation of 2 lots from 3 small lots. Conrad said that the County approves boundary line adjustments. He added that the County usually notifies him with boundary line adjustments to make sure that they meet the zoning code requirements although he was not notified on this property. Conrad continued the zoning code, although it recognizes smaller lots that are under the minimum lot size, allows boundary line adjustments to take place between non- conforming lots as long as they maintain their size or get a bit larger. In this case they took 3 lots down to 2 which made the remaining 2 lots larger. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 10, 2006 Page.3 of I 1 MOTION Hull moved and Balcom seconded a motion to adopt staff report KCU-06-10 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell city Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the 7 conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Schutt said his concerns are the Issues the board has discussed before regarding townhouses. The whole style of townhouses has gotten a black eye because there are subdivisions where 20 townhouses are lined up in a rover with the garages in the front of the property. Whitefish calls this type of design "snout houses". He understands where staff' is coming from with the requirement of trying to minimize n i m i ze the prominence of the garages, but how far should they take that. Norton said these lots should not have been created. They are non -conforming to the neighborhood and are only 31 feet wide. Norton suggested the board should pursue gays to prevent lots this size from being created in the future. However, Norton continued, the board's hands are tied in this case. They can either limit Mr. Waatti to building a narrow house, or they approve a townhouse, which are the only 2 design elements that can be utilized on these lots. He knows the neighborhood and he wouldn't want a townhouse next to him but he doesn't like to restrict a property owner from developing on his own lot. Hull stated that he is caught in the same paradox and noted this is a case where the lack of an alley is part of the problem.. The board should encourage more alleys in development. Hull said that it would be an acceptable design if the garages were in the back. Norton said the board could deny the proposal and Mr. Waatti could build 2 narrow single family homes with garages facing the street; or Mr. Waatti could pursue a boundary line adjustment and build one single family residence. Schutt said a third option is to break the townhouses up with more design work to get rid of the `snout house look." Schutt noted the board has discussed the need to work on the design standards for townhouses and this is another example where those standards would help this situation. ROLL CALL The motion passed on a roll call vote of 4 - 1. CAHILL -- ANNEXATION A request from Janet Cahill for annexation and initial zoning of R--4 (Two Family Residential) on a 4 acre property located at 60 Denver Avenue. STAFF REPORT IKA-06-10 Sean Conrad, representing the Kalispell Planning Department presented Staff Report KA-06--1 o for the Board. Kalispell City Planning board Minutes of the meeting of October 10, ?006 Wage 4 of 11 Conrad said that the property is located on Denver Avenue north of Stratford Village on both the east and west sides of Denver Avenue and is approximately 4 acres in size. There is an existing duplex and some out -buildings on the west portion of the property. when the application originally carve in they had requested R-4 -- Two Family Residential and that is how it was advertised, however after discussions with the applicant staff recommended that they request R--3 which is more conducive for the overall neighborhood. The applicant agreed and changed the application to request R-3 zoning. Conrad added the zoning is also consistent with the Growth Policy. Staff is recommending that the Kalispell City Planning Board adopt staff report KCU--06-1 o as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the initial zoning for this property upon annexation be R--3, Urban Single Family Residential. BOARD DISCUSSION Hull asked for clarification on the location which Conrad addressed. Schutt asked if there was a PUD or anything else submitted in conjunction with this annexation. Conrad said not at this time. He added if the property is annexed and the R-3 zoning is put in place they could expect the property owners to come back with some type of residential subdivision creating 3 or 4 lots. APPLICANT/ AGENC ES Janet Cahill, stated that she represents a non-profit organization who has purchased this lot and wishes to annex into the city with the R-3 zoning with the intention of eventually selling the lots to finance the purchase of the property. Norton asked if the buildings would be raised. Cahill said that the house will remain but the outbuildings will be removed. PUBLIC HEARING Alex Hasson, Columbia Falls stated that he is on, the board of the non-profit organization. He said they may approach the board with a PUD when they decide hour they want to subdivide. Kathleen Dusk, 107 Santa Fe Street stated that her back fence borders the property and she is happy to see the property get cleaned up. However, she is concerned that when the ground is frozen and they get rain about 1/4 to 1 / 3 of her back yard is a lake and she would like the underground infrastructure drainage, etc., fixed so that it does not come into her backyard. Her house was one of the ones that flooded in April and she doesn't want it to happen again and to have the development of this property add to her water problems. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of oetoher 10, 2006 Page 5 of 1 I Norton said that he has spoken to city council about these issues and the city has now taken steps to remedy these problems. MOTION - ANNEXATION Schutt moved and Balcom seconded a motion to adopt staff report KA- 0 - 1 o as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the initial zoning for this property upon annexation by R-3, Urban Single Family Residential. BOARD DISCUSSION Norton asked staff to ensure that the drainage issues are addressed when the subdivision goes before the city council. Conrad noted that the subdivision will be a subsequent minor subdivision which will be treated as a major and will therefore come before the planning board for review. Conrad added that the drainage issues will be addressed in the staff report at that time. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. SUNBURST FOUNDATION, A request by the Sunburst Foundation., Inc. to allow a INC. - ZONING ORDINANCE `Family Support and Education Center" as a permitted use TEXT AMENDMENT in the R--4 (Two Family Residential) zoning district and add a definition of the term in the definition section of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. A Family Support and Education Center, as proposed, would provide services to support families who have issues of neglect and also provide services to foster families. Among the services offered would be parenting classes and supervision of visits between children and their birth parents. STAFF REPORT - KZTAW Sean Conrad, representing the Kalispell Planning 06-05 Department presented staff Report KZTA- 06- 05 for the Board.. Conrad said this is a proposed text amendment to the R-4, Two Family Residential zoning district which would add Family Support and Education Center as a permitted use. The Center would be defined as "A center providing services to support foster families and/or families who have issues of neglect. Services may include parenting classes, supervision of visits between children and their birth parents, and the coaching of parenting skills to the birth parents." Conrad continued that staff is recommending that the planning board consider denying the proposed amendment. The R-4 zone is a widely used residential zone throughout the city and does allover some other nonresidential uses such as day cares, group homes, churches and schools, but staff felt that the parameters around the services that the center would provide is more commercial in nature and there are a number of commercial zoning districts in the city that would accommodate this type of use. Kalispeil City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 10, 2006 Page 6 of 11 Staff is recommending that the Kalispell City Planning Board adopt staff report KZTA.-06-05 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed amendment be denied. Alternately, if the Board adopts different findings supporting the proposal, staff would strongly recommend that the proposed use be allowed as a conditionally permitted. use (rather than a permitted use) in order to review an individual proposal's impacts and allow for public notice and comment. BOARD DISCUSSION I None. APPLICANTS/ AGENCIES Don Fleck, Administrative Director of the Sunburst Foundation said they are asking for the zoning text amendment because that is what staff suggested. He said they disagree with the staff recommendation because when staff looks at their operation they see more of an office than a day care whereas they feel they are more of a day care than an office. Fleck continued the Sunburst Foundation has four sites, on North Meridian in Kalispell, in Polson, in Missoula, and in Hamilton. He said primarily Family Concepts provides a supervised setting for foster children to meet with their birth parents. There is a need as well as a legal requirement that the birth parents are able to come together with their kids who are now in foster care and they provide this service in a very supervised setting. Karen Bean, 1 o5B Garden Drive in Kalispell stated she supervises the operation at 1070 North Meridian. Load. They have trained staff on the premises who coordinate with birth and foster parents to provide a supervised visitation time during the week in order for them to stay connected with their children while the parents are working on treatment plans with the hope of reunification of the family. Each day 3 families come to their house setting on Meridian Road and those families are supervised from 1 -- 4 hours, depending on the ages of the children, while they make a meal and share it together or read stories, and do what families do together. Dean said they also provide parent education classes once a creek for 2 hours for up to S parents. They provide foster parents support groups which are usually up to 10 people once a month for 2 hours. Dean added they do visitation at their Meridian Road site on Tues, wed, Thurs, and Saturdays. In addition, there would be one staff member provided to each of the families as they are spending time visiting their children. Fleck mentioned that the site at North Meridian was built as a family residence. It looks like a house and on the inside for the most -part it functions like a house. The support worker Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 10, ?006 Page 7 of I I usually has a laptop where they can mare their notes during the family visit and then they go to their desk and transcribe their notes and perhaps make some phone calls, etc., but primarily most of their time is spent meeting with the parents and the children rather than actually doing desk i work. Fleck noted the staff reports states "while churches and elementary schools are generally expected to be intermingled into those neighborhoods, they are not intended for places of business that brings in customers or clients who would otherwise not be driving into the neighborhood." Fleck disagrees because churches, community centers, day cares, and group homes bring people in from all over the city and the valley and it is their contention that the kind of operation that they have is no different than the uses that are already permitted in the zone. Fleck said that their operation would not increase traffic. and they do not think it would be an inappropriate use of the land. He added he feels their services are very similar to a day care but suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate for their use to be allowed as a conditional use instead of a permitted use. PUBLIC HEARING Carol Pannell, 525 (last Evergreen stated for the last 20 years they owned this building. It started off as a church then a day care was added and finally they expanded to a day care center with 45 children. The day care was primarily for special needs children where CDC, occupational, physical, and speech therapists and school buses carve and went on a daily/weekly basis. In addition the center operated 2 vans picking up and dropping off children several times a day. Pannell noted the dynamics of that area has changed. On both sides of the day care there are townhouses and the building is set back and is private. It has worked well as a full day care center and she added there were no problems with congestion. BOARD DISCUSSION None. MOTION Hull moved and Norton seconded a motion to adopt staff report KZTA--06-05 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed text amendment be approved with the following change: That Social Service Centers be allowed as a conditional use in the R--4 Two Family Residential District. BOARD DISCUSSION Hull asked Parnell if they operated under a conditional use permit and she said they did. Hull said that to change the zoning text for only a family support and education center was too narrow. He believes that this should be a conditional use. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 14, 26 Page 8 of I 1 Conrad reminded the board that although they are being presented with a site that previously accommodated a day care center and church, they should be considering the effect that the text amendment would have on all of the R-4 zoning districts in the city not just this neighborhood. Jentz added that the difference with this proposal and a day care as a permitted use is with a day care the person who operates the business lives there too. with a day care center a conditional use permit is required and the board can evaluate the proposal on a case -by -case basis and the neighbors would have to be notified and a public hearing would be held. Norton stated that he agreed that a conditional use permit is the correct way to go. Schutt said that whenever they come across these new uses into an eXisti:ng zone he has to ask himself if he would want this type of use next to his house. His answer is, it depends which indicates it should be a conditional use. Hull said the board has allowed day care centers and group homes because people need them and they are scattered all over the city. It seems to him there is also a need for a facility of this type. He understands why it should be in a home -type setting. Albert said he supports an amendment to allow this type of facility in the R--4 zone with the conditional use permit because that would give the board the opportunity to control the impact to the neighborhood. ROLL CALL I The motion was approved unanimously on a roll call vote. BOARD DISCUSSION Conrad asked for clarification in that the board is making this decision because this type of use gives reasonable consideration to the character of the R- 4 district and by requiring a conditional use permitwould allow the board to consider the use proposed, hours of operation, number of employees, building layout and design, and traffic on a case - by -case basis. In addition the board felt that the use would not adversely affect the neighborhood. The board agreed with those findings and asked that they be forwarded to city council. RALISPELL SUBDMSION A request by the city of Kalispell to amend the Kalispell REGULATIONS UPDATE Subdivision Regulations to address legislative changes in the subdivision and platting act for review and processing of subdivision applications. In addition, several definitions will be added to the definitions section of the subdivision regulations as well as revising Appendix B of the regulations with regard to the information needed in an environmental Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 10, 2006 Page 9 of I I assessment. STAFF REPORT — RS'TA._06.. Torn Jentz, representing the Kalispell Planning Department 01 provided a brief overview of the amendments to the regulations. Jentz noted that 2 years ago the Legislature added some administrative amendments to the subdivision regulations which became effective October 1, 2006. The board held a work session in which these changes were reviewed and tonight's public hearing is another part of the process. Jentz said that since the amendments are now state later it does not allow for a lot of flexibility. He added in the next 12 months the board wi.Il be involved in major amendments to the design standards portion of the regulations. Staff is recommending that the Kalispell City Planning Board adopt staff report KSTA-06-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the City Council that the amendments to the Kalispell City Subdivision Regulations be approved as set forth in the draft regulations dated June 2 006 . BOARD DISCUSSION General discussion was held. APPLICANT/ AGENCIES None. PUBLIC HEARING No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Norton moved and Albert seconded a motion to adopt staff report KSTA-06--01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City council that the amendments to the Kalispell City Subdivision Regulations be approved as set forth in the draft regulations dated June 2006. BOARD DISCUSSION Hull said the requirement that all letters have to go through the subdivision administrator will never happen because people will always go to their council representative. His only suggestion is the administrator could be sure that copies are distributed. Norton suggested that should already be covered under the provision to allow for additional information to be presented to council after the planning board has reviewed the project. Jentz noted that it seems impossible to enforce but it is state law. There was discussion about the requirement to post properties that are undergoing subdivision.. Jentz noted that it is covered under the portion when and if council decided a subsequent hearing should be held the properties should be posted. The board felt that properties should be posted and it should be up to the developers to do the posting. Jentz agreed that staff would come u with a plan to ensure the Kalispell City Punning Surd Minutes of the meeting of October 10, 2006 Wage 10 of 11 properties are posted in the future. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. OLD BUSINEW., None. NEW BUSINESS The projects scheduled for the October 24, 2006 work session are: Silverbrook Subdivision 8, Kalispell west Growth Policy Amendment Boundary. willow Creek Subdivision may also be discussed. Jentz noted the need for a planning ri Y ng board hest and worst tour sometime next spring. Hull asked if there were examples where properties have been annexed 2 miles outside of their city limits. Jentz said they would be hard to find. Norton expressed his frustration that there was not a requirement for a pass through road from Rosauers south to the new location of MacKenzie River Pizza. He said it doesn't make sense that those properties only have one access point. Norton reviewed the council minutes on recent projects for the board. Jentz reviewed the Redevelopment Incentives that were discussed by the planning board a while back. The council will work on a resolution with a requirement that a committee be formed for the historical renovations and added this may be handled by the Architectural Review Committee. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adj ourned at approximately 9:1 U p. m. Work Session October 24, 2006: 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers. The next regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and zoning Commission will be held on Tuesday, November 14, 2006. Worst Session (pending),., November 28, 2006 - Building Department Conference Room, (New Location) 411 - lat Avenue West. Timothy Norton Michelle Anderson President Recording Secretary APPROVED as submitted/corrected: /_/06 Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 10, ?006 Page I I of I I