Loading...
Planning Board Minutes - April 13, 2004KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING APRIL 13, 2004 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: Rick Hull, Jim Atkinson, George Taylor, John Hinchey, Sue Ellyn Anderson, Jean Johnson and Timothy Norton. Narda Wilson represented the Tri-City Planning Office. There were approximately 50 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Norton moved and Anderson seconded to approve the minutes of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission regular meeting of March 9, 2004. The motion passed unanimously on a vote by acclamation. HEAR THE PUBLIC No one wished to speak. LANCE/POSTEN INITIAL A request by Robert Lance and Kathryn Posten for an initial ZONING UPON zoning designation of RA-1, Low Density Residential ANNEXATION REQUEST Apartment on approximately 4,000 square feet located at the end of Liberty Street upon annexation to the City of Kalispell. STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, with the Tri-City Planning Office, gave a KA-04-3 presentation of staff report KA-04-3, a request by Robert Lance and Kathryn Posten for an initial zoning designation of RA-1, Low Density Residential Apartment on an approximately 30 by 150 foot strip of land approximately 4,000 square feet located at the end of Liberty Street upon annexation to the City of Kalispell. Wilson showed a vicinity map and explained that 30 feet of Kinshella Avenue was abandoned; it reverted to the adjoining parcel and was acquired by the petitioners, who want to build a duplex on the property, which will be coming up for a CUP next month. She said the zoning is currently County R- 1, and the applicants are asking for City RA-1 consistent with the rest of the property to the east. The property is south of Three Mile Drive, north of Two Mile Drive and west of Meridian Road, at the end of Liberty Street, and we will be annexing adjoining roadways in the future. She said the property is just a few thousand square feet and the staff report outlines all of the criteria and staff recommends adoption of the staff report. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the issue. APPLICANT/AGENCIES The applicants were not available. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page t of23 PUBLIC COMMENT No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Anderson moved and Hinchey seconded to adopt staff report KA-04-3 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the zoning for this property be RA-1, Low Density Residential Apartment, upon annexation to the City of Kalispell. BOARD DISCUSSION Atkinson asked if all of Kinshella Avenue was abandoned. Wilson answered no, just the east 30 feet, so that owner would not bear the burden of supplying the entire 60-foot right of way. She said the other 30 feet would come from the property to the west when it was developed, and that Kinshella Avenue will still be a right of way, with the potential to be a street. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. WILLIS/RILEY INITIAL A request by Debbie Willis and Richard and Patricia Riley for ZONING UPON an initial zoning designation of R-4, Two Family Residential, ANNEXATION REQUEST on approximately one and one-half acres located on the north side of Sunnyside Drive near Denver Avenue upon annexation to the City of Kalispell. STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, with the Tri-City Planning Office, gave a KA-04-4 presentation of staff report KA-04-4, a request by Debbie Willis and Richard and Patricia Riley for an initial zoning designation of R-4, Two Family Residential, on one and one- half acres located on the north side of Sunnyside Drive near Denver Avenue upon annexation to the City of Kalispell. Wilson showed the vicinity map, and explained that the property is about one and one-half acres and lies on the north side of Sunnyside Drive and currently has a single family home and small detached garage. She stated it is currently zoned R-1 in the county and fronts on Ashley Creek. There may be two additional lots created and will be connected to City water and sewer. She said the purpose of the annexation was to develop the property with utilities, and the applicants have requested R-4 zoning. Wilson explained the growth policy designates this area as urban residential because it is close to utilities. She noted there will actually be an exit from the Bypass onto Sunnyside, a collector, and will be scheduled for upgrading at that time. When this property is subdivided, there will be a single shared access to lots created. Wilson said staff recommends adoption of the staff report, and zoning the property R-4 upon annexation. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page 2 of 23 PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the issue. APPLICANTS/AGENCIES Debbie Willis, 400 Marco Bay Road, Somers, thanked the Board and staff for their hard work and their commitment to the community and for the board's consideration tonight. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no comments in support of the zoning. The following people spoke in opposition to the zoning Mary Kruse, 1125 Sunnyside Drive, stated that 1 1/2 acres is hard to split into three pieces, it is too close to Ashley Creek, Sunnyside Drive is too congested, and the large subdivisions just annexed are creating a problem. Artie Adkins, Ashley Drive, stated that Sunnyside Drive is too congested, that people in the subdivisions are using his property as a playground, that there is no place to play for the kids, and that dogs are using his property as a toilet. John Baril, Ashley Drive, stated the ground in the area is very unique, about 2/3 of it is in the flood plain, with lots of animals and fish, and he would like to see it stay R-1. Lila Kruckenberg, 1204 Sunnyside Drive, stated that they don't want any more R-4 properties on Sunnyside Drive, that it will be a feeder road to the bypass, but it already handles too much traffic. She also said that notices were mailed on this zone change, but that it has not always been the case in the past, and she feels the City Council picks and chooses who it sends notices to. She said the people voiced their opinions to the City Council and were ignored, and she wants the people to be heard. Dulane Fulton, 1035 Ashley Drive, stated he owns the six acres to the north that borders this property, and is concerned that the land was originally set up in lots with covenants, so there was only one building on the lot for residential purposes, but you could have horses, cows and dogs, but not pigs or chickens. He stated there is a game trail right there, he watches the animals move from Lone Pine to the river, and he wants to hold on to that way of life. He said the road is congested now, their way of life is at risk, and they want to keep their open space. Cheryl Pierce, 1015 Ashley Drive, stated she lives right above the development, and is concerned about three lots on 1 and 1/2 acre of land, and quoted the zoning ordinance. She stated this is against the Kalispell zoning ordinance and the Board has no idea of what is going on at that end of town. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page 3 of 23 No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Atkinson moved and Norton seconded to adopt staff report KA-04-4 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the initial zoning for one and one-half acres located on the north side of Sunnyside Drive near Denver Avenue be R-4, Two Family Residential, upon annexation to the City of Kalispell. BOARD DISCUSSION Taylor asked about the surrounding zoning. Wilson stated it was County R-1 and City R-4. Atkinson commented that the Ashley Creek Bridge would be the first bridge owned by the City after the area is annexed. Norton asked how big the lot was. Wilson stated it was about an acre and a half. Norton asked Wilson what the maximum number of lots are in a minor subdivision. Wilson answered five, so on a practical basis she could get two more lots out of it, including the house already there. Taylor asked Wilson where the property that Mr. Fulton spoke about was. Wilson answered it looks like Lot 14, with Ashley Creek running to the east and the Pierce property to the west. Taylor also asked about the status of Sunnyside Drive. Wilson answered it would depend on the bypass timing, and the City does not plan to widen Sunnyside yet, but the County recently repaved it and improved it to Foys Lake Road. She stated she was not sure what improvements would be appropriate at this time. Taylor asked about the irregular lot shape indicated on the map, and what the property north of Sunnyside Drive was zoned. Wilson answered the is likely part of the public right of way, that the subdivision was platted a very long time ago, and the lot was created before the Subdivision and Platting Act; there are no parcel boundaries, just a metes and bounds description of the property and it was likely platted prior to 1972. She also stated all the property to the north is County R-1. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page 4 of 23 Norton asked if Sunnyside would tie in to the bypass. Wilson said there was an exit at Sunnyside identified on the bypass plan. Norton answered some questions brought up during the public hearing. He said an R-4 lot has to be 6,000 square feet that dwellings have to meet size requirements, and that; unfortunately, roads don't get improved until the need is overwhelming and the funding is available. He said the Board looks at health and safety issues, that roads and kids are an issue, but four more lots is not going to create that much more traffic. Atkinson asked Wilson if all of the area is out of the flood plain. Wilson stated not all of it, but nothing will be built in the 100-year flood plain, and no fill work or encroachment will be necessary. Atkinson also asked what County R-1 related to in City zoning, and questioned the covenants that Mr. Baril stated were in the area. Wilson stated County R-1 is one acre minimum with no water or sewer available, with on -site septic and wells and it can be found around the perimeter of the city. If the site is right, it can allow for extra density where sewer was previously not available, and allow for incremental redevelopment when utilities are there. Wilson also said that covenants should come up in a title report and she would be surprised if there were restrictions on subdividing the property. According to the plat, the area has previously been subdivided. Taylor stated that a recurring theme tonight has been keeping County R-1 intact, and stated as a planning board, we have the responsibility to do effective planning and depart from what has been done in the past, which was either no planning at all or haphazard planning. He then asked Wilson why some of the lots are odd sized and there is obviously not just one building on some of the lots. Wilson stated that some of the odd lot sizes are along Ashley Creek and a lot of flood plain area, and others could be subdivisions, or easements. She said that section lines or 1/4 section lines may run through the property and it gets two numbers in that case, and family transfers and "occasional sales" all could create oddly sized lots. Hinchey asked about the zoning east of 7th Avenue West, and wouldn't R-3 zoning also allow three units to be built Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page 5 of 23 there? Wilson answered it was all R-4 zoning, and part of the R-4 is being able to create a duplex which you can't do in an R-3 zone, and the rezoning is for subdivision and resale purposes. Hull stated the area is very pastoral, but it is an obvious fill- in area and the city butts up right against it. Norton asked if a future buyer of a lot could do a subdivision on this property. Wilson answered yes, but it would be subject to major subdivision review even if it created only one lot, because it would be the second minor subdivision on that piece of property. ROLL CALL The motion passed on a roll call vote with Taylor and Hinchey voting against. NOLAN HOLDINGS, LLC A request by Nolan Holdings, LLC for an initial zoning INITIAL ZONING UPON designation of R-5, Residential/Professional Office with a ANNEXATION REQUEST Planned Unit Development overlay on 3.84 acres located on the southwest corner of Four Mile Drive and Highway 93 North upon annexation to the City of Kalispell. THE GREENERY A request for preliminary plat approval of The Greenery PUD, PRELIMINARY PLAT a 10 lot mixed use subdivision on 3.84 acres with a zoning APPROVAL REQUEST designation of R-5/PUD upon annexation to the City. STAFF REPORTS KA-04-6, Narda Wilson, with the Tri-City Planning Office, gave staff KPUD-04-3 AND KPP-04-4 reports KA-04-6 and KPUD-04-3, a request for an initial zoning designation of R-5, Residential/Professional Office with a Planned Unit Development overlay on 3.84 acres located on the southwest corner of Four Mile Drive and Highway 93 North upon annexation to the City of Kalispell and KPP-04-4, a request for preliminary plat approval of a 10-lot mixed use subdivision on approximately 3.84 acres. This subdivision would create six duplex townhouse lots and four commercial sublots both with common area. Wilson explained that the property is located at the southwest corner of Four Mile Drive and Highway 93, and was formerly known as The Greenery. She stated this is an expanding urban area, with the Sunrise View subdivision to the south, the KidSports complex to the north on a long-term lease, with the Christian Center further to the south, and the Community College to the northeast. She stated there is a mix of single family and townhouses on the southeast corner and that this property is entirely surrounded by the city, and it was only a matter of time until it developed. Wilson explained that the applicant had previously come before the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page 6 of 23 board and that there were concerns from the neighbors about the potential for townhouses, so the developer delayed action and worked with the neighbors. He changed their plans to lower buildings and worked with the staff to address concerns in the nonresidential component of the development. Wilson said that the applicant came up with the PUD zoning overlay on the four acre parcel to address the mixed use development with the proposed zone being R-5, Residential/ Professional Office, with medical/dental offices and duplex and single family residential uses being the permitted uses. Wilson explained there would be two components to the project, that Four Mile Drive will have the commercial component alongside it, and Parkway Drive will have the residential component. She said there would be duplex townhomes to the west, and the elevation of the commercial section will be semi-subterrainian, not to exceed the height of the existing Greenery building. The lower level will be partly below grade, so the buildings won't interfere with neighboring views. Wilson explained the duplex townhomes would be higher on the hilltop to the west, and also over the top of the buildings. She said the topo lines vary on the property and there is a good drop between where the houses are located to the south and the commercial property. She said there would be 10 lots in the subdivision with six sublets for the duplex townhouses, and four lots for the medical/dental offices. She stated the road is already developed with curb and sidewalk and there will be two accesses onto Four Mile Drive, and the controlled intersection with Highway 93. Wilson stated the zoning deviations are only to the side corner setback along 93 with the eastern -most building; the building will sit more north/south, and allow the northeast corner to start at the property boundary, and gradually come out to 18 feet, which would allow better use of parking and back up space. In addition, she said a bike and pedestrian trail is being developed along 93 with CTEP money, and the developer would fill between the slope and the right of way to allow relocation of the path further away from 93. He would need to work with city on those plans. Wilson said the other zoning deviation deals with signage; there are two entrance signs shown on the site plan at Four Mile Drive, for the parent tract and sublets, which would be minimal signage and a minor deviation. As for the surrounding land uses, the developer has attempted to create a transition from strictly residential to a mixed -use area. Wilson explained this will be a highly desirable place, and the low level architectural design, residential components, and the scale of the buildings should address Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page 7 of 23 the neighborhood concerns. She said the height limit will be 22 feet from grade to the top of the building and parking anticipates a mix of professional offices and medical office uses, but they are limited to the number of medical uses because the parking requirements are higher. Staff tried to make the conditions as consistent as they could for continuity between the preliminary plat and the PUD. Wilson explained the conditions for the project plat and said that drainage would need to be retained on site, there would need to be significant landscaped areas, and that sidewalks would need to be installed along Four Mile Drive within the right of way, tie into the sidewalk on Parkway Drive, and eventually run to the ball fields. She said that water and sewer are already in Four Mile Drive and that main extensions may be involved; the residential component is subject to parkland dedication and, because of the parcel size, will need to be met through cash in lieu of parkland. Staff is recommending adoption of KA-04-6 and KPUD-04-3 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council the property be zoned R-5 subject to the listed conditions. Staff is also recommending adoption of KPP-04-4 to approve the Greenery Subdivision subject to the listed conditions. Wilson noted that she received four letters from the public tonight and read them into the record, excerpted as follows: The Storey Family Living Trust, 747 Parkway Drive, asked that the six two -level townhouse buildings be changed to one -level townhouse buildings to bring them into compliance with the existing single family homes on the north side above Parkway Drive above the Greenery so as not to block the view of the north side of Parkway Drive. Ralph Stettler, 741 Parkway Drive, wrote that he agrees to the plans, but does not want two story condos on the west end and asked that they be reduced to a single level. Donald and Stella Wagner, Lot 8, Sunrise Estates, stated they have no problems as it was described to them. Beth and John Rader, Lot 4, stated that Mr. Beach has been thoughtful, but they will have a compromised view to the north and they request one-story structures. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the issue. APPLICANTS/AGENCIES Norman Beach, managing partner of Nolan Holdings, LLC, stated that he agreed with the staff report and spoke about Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page 8 of 23 the steps he has taken to make the neighbors happy. He stated that MDOT will draft a letter stating that they are not concerned with any encroachment onto the right of way with regard to fill, and he wants to use the foundation of the building as a retaining wall and use fill to fill the slope. He plans to grade and slope the area to bring the bike path away from the road and relocate it away from the highway. He stated the signage was an oversight on his part and that he hoped the neighbors would speak in favor of his proposal, although he knows they have concerns with the townhouses. He said it was an interesting piece of property, that it dips down in a hole and comes back up, and Lots 1 and 2 could not have their views preserved. In response to a question, he stated that ingress and egress will be off of Four Mile Drive, and that the buildings will be a story and a half with 20 feet exposed; his overall goal was to work with the homeowners to preserve their views and he feels he did that as well as he could. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no comments in support of the subdivision. The following spoke in opposition to the subdivision George Mumm, 735 Parkway Drive, Lot 5 of Sunrise View, which immediately adjoins the proposed development, stated that Sunrise is a unique subdivision, because of two factors: it is in a good location and there are good views in one direction. He explained how the covenants that were written in 1997 limited heights, so that everyone could have a view. Mumm said that the line of sight, looking over a professional building, would be very different from what they have now; right now they have a panoramic view because they are built on a plateau, and there is quite a drop off where the professional buildings are proposed, so there is no interference with the view by the professional buildings, but the townhouses would obstruct the view. He stated they would like to limit the townhouses to one level structures, or go back to the previous plan for strictly professional buildings. In response to a question from Taylor, he stated he was speaking for a loosely knit homeowners group. Karen Michaels, 759 Parkway Drive, Lot 1, stated she is very opposed to the townhouses, because there would be no view and they would be crowded in, and there is not much room for the townhouses. She stated it is very neat in the back, with few campers or boats. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page 9 of 23 MOTION Anderson moved and Norton seconded to adopt Staff Reports KA-04-6 and KPUD-04-3 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the initial zoning for 3.84 acres of land be R-S, Residential/Professional Office, with a PUD overlay upon annexation to the City of Kalispell, subject to the listed conditions. BOARD DISCUSSION Taylor asked where Parkway Drive was, and how the views would be obstructed. Wilson answered Parkway wraps around from the north to the west and there are two tiers of homes on Parkway Drive, so Lots 1 and 2 could potentially be blocked by the townhomes. Taylor asked what the plan was for Four Mile Drive Wilson answered it will eventually be altered by going around the hill with an access to the bypass. Hull stated that this property was voted in favor before and it was probably a worse layout. Atkinson stated that public transportation has been involved in the planning process just recently, although not on this project. He said public transportation will probably need to access this and it is a nice design, with good public transportation access. Norton thanked Beach for his hard work and his willingness to make things acceptable to everyone. He said the homeowner's concerns were noted, but that hearing the underlying "not in my backyard" tone concerns him. He stated that yes, view lots are valuable, but that a city is a living organism and we cannot control the city's growth, only guide it. He said he is not hearing a lot of praise or thanks from the homeowners for Mr. Beach's willingness to work with them. Anderson reiterated what Norton said, and stated she sympathized with the neighbors, but she does not feel losing some view is a good reason to deny the project. Taylor stated we were here for more than heath and safety issues and are concerned with aesthetics as well. He stated we need to have good planning; that Mr. Beach has made a great effort to work with the neighbors, and there are other amenities besides a view and this development's amenities outweighs the diminished view of a few neighbors. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page 10 of 23 MOTION -- PRELIMINARY Norton moved and Anderson seconded to adopt Staff Report PLAT KPP-04-4 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Kalispell City Council that preliminary plat approval for a 10 lot mixed use subdivision be approved for The Greenery subject to the listed conditions. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. JOHNSON INITIAL ZONING A request by Douglas Johnson for an initial zoning UPON ANNEXATION designation of R-3, Single Family Residential with a Planned REQUEST Unit Development overlay on 20 acres located on the south side of Three Mile Drive, west of Stillwater Road upon annexation to the City of Kalispell. ASPEN CREEK A request for preliminary plat approval of Aspen Creek SUBDIVISION Subdivision, an 80 lot mixed residential subdivision on 20 PRELIMINARY PLAT acres with a zoning designation of R-3/PUD upon annexation APPROVAL REQUEST to the City. STAFF REPORTS KA-04-5, Narda Wilson, with the Tri-City Planning Office, gave a KPUD-04-2 AND KPP-04-3 presentation of Staff Reports KA-04-5 and KPUD-04-2, a request for an initial zoning designation of R-3, Single Family Residential with a Planned Unit Development overlay on 20 acres located on the south side of Three Mile Drive, west of Stillwater Road upon annexation to the City of Kalispell, and KPP-04-3, a request for preliminary plat approval of an 80-lot mixed residential subdivision on approximately 20 acres. Wilson showed a vicinity map and stated it was a broader map of all the development in the area, that at some point it will be interconnected with all of the development going on in that area. She stated the Three Mile Drive and Stillwater Road area is very active, with the bypass corridor to the east, Blue Herron to the west, currently under construction, Empire Estates, Northview Heights, and Raven Rock, all of which are new construction or projects approved in the last year. She said there is a controlled access planned off the bypass, and MDOT is providing right in, right out access to the bypass after construction. Wilson stated tonight we are looking at the annexation of 20 acres for the Aspen Creek Subdivision, which is located 1/4 to 1/2 mile west of Stillwater Drive. She said the purpose of the PUD is to allow the property owner to retain a five -acre homesite and to cluster the density around the perimeter of the site. There will be a restriction of no further subdivision of the five acres. She explained that the PUD designates the density of the project and the PUD overlay allows flexibility in how the density is achieved. This project will have 54 duplex lots, nine triplex sublets, and four fourplex sublots around the perimeter of the property. She stated there is an existing access off of Three Mile Drive that crosses the drainage and provides access to the house; the Spring Creek drainage runs Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page I I of 23 through the property. Wilson stated the floodplain is designated on the plat, but it is a non -delineated area that has not been studied and the 100-year flood plain hasn't been well established. As part of this project, the developer will need to do a "detailed study" of the channel and send it to FEMA; FEMA will then establish the base elevation or ask for additional information. At this point, the best guess is done by looking at the site, which has fairly significant topography. The subdivision regulations do not allow lots to be created in the flood plain. She said the best guess is based on the survey, so the developer avoided the flood plain altogether; none of lots are shown near the 100-year flood plain. Wilson went on to explain that two accesses are proposed off of Three Mile Drive, and the topography of the site does not lend itself to a road connection, so this turns into an isolated pocket of development, and is only connected by the area set aside as a park; the pedestrian access trail is proposed to access the park area with the creek channel. Wilson explained there were questions regarding setbacks that resulted in a deviation from zoning, changed from a 20- foot setback to 10 feet. She said the staff would support reduction in setbacks with regard to dwellings, but garages need to be back 20 feet. Wilson said that staff is recommending that during Phase 1, Lot 35 be platted because it is where the density comes from; there is only a single access road in, and the road may need to be improved. She said the fire department is concerned about emergency equipment crossing the bridge over the creek. She said Phase 2 would be via another access to the east across privately owned property, and require an easement for a 60 foot right of way, extension of utilities and a public right of way that will be given to the city and built to city standards. She said that timing on Phase 2 depends on Phase 4 of the subdivision to the east, and being able to connect a secondary access that meets Uniform Fire Codes without dealing with the flood plain. Wilson explained that staff has tried to make the conditions consistent with the PUD, and said one of them is that a 20 foot landscape buffer be incorporated along Three Mile Drive, and a pedestrian walkway be incorporated to go with all the other subdivisions in the area. She said that Three Mile is maintained by the county, and there is a 100-foot right of way right there, so none would be required from this property. New accesses would need to be approved by MDOT and Flathead County, which would line up with an existing subdivision access to the north. She said the park area would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association, and that some type of recreational amenities Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page 12 of 23 would need to be developed Wilson finished by stating that staff is recommending the Board adopt Staff Reports KA-04-5 and KPUD-04-2 as findings of fact and recommend to the City Council that the zoning designation of R-3 with a PUD overlay be assigned to the property upon annexation, subject to the listed conditions. She said staff is also recommending approving the preliminary plat, Staff Report KPP-04-3, as findings of fact subject to the conditions. QUESTIONS BY THE Taylor asked what was in Lot 8, the private property to the BOARD northwest, and what kind of development is taking place around the area. Wilson answered Lot 8 is a single lot with a single owner and the surrounding developments are a mix of both single family and multi family lots. Atkinson asked about the parkland and if it was enough, and did they need cash in lieu. Wilson said the parkland is adequate to satisfy the requirements, but they will need to set up some amenities so it functions as a recreation area. They can't leave it brushy and there will be some improvement plan. Atkinson asked about access to the lower development area and if the easement is in effect at this time, or will it be a condition of approval. Wilson answered that the easement has been negotiated and the owner will be using the easement in the future, but it is one of the conditions. Taylor asked about Phase 2 and what was in it Wilson answered the numbers refer to sublots, with each one conveyed separately in a duplex, triplex or fourplex configuration. So 16 sublots are in a fourplex configuration, with each sublet being conveyed separately. Most of Phase 2 will be duplexes. Hinchey asked about the PUD overlay and the density. Wilson said the PUD would allow seven dwellings per acre and the density on this development is 80 lots on 20 acres, or four lots per acre. The density is coming from keeping the one large parcel and clustering in the other portions of the site. One of the conditions is that the large lot and park be platted in Phase 1 so they will not be further subdivided, at least until the growth policy changes. She said by saving the five -acre parcel, the developer has used up all of the density. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page 13 of 23 PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the issue. APPLICANTS/AGENCIES Jeff Larsen, Larsen Engineering, thanked Wilson for all of her work, that it was a difficult site to design, but access has been secured. He stated they went with a PUD because of the topography of the site, and they are trying to protect certain areas of the property around the creek and the riparian areas. He said they plan to cross connect with the development to the east at some point. They plan to provide affordable housing units and extend city services to the west, but they must have a certain amount of density to design it to city standards and to extend city utilities. He said this is a unique situation in that developers to the east have worked with them on roads and sewer and water main extensions. Doug Johnson, owner and developer, spoke about wanting other people to be able to afford to live in the Flathead Valley, and the homes will be around $155,000-160,000. In response to a question by the Board, he said the five -acre parcel has been set aside because it is his house and he wants to be able to keep his horses. Phil Neuharth, real estate broker, stated that the market prices now are around $185,000 for single-family homes and they want to build affordable homes. He said the lots in this project would average around $125,000 per unit. PUBLIC COMMENT No one spoke in support of the project. The following spoke in opposition to the project: Alison Drollinger, 169 Brook Drive, stated that she is very concerned about density and that planning is very important for a community, but this kind of planning does not help the community and pushes us all together, and no one is happy. She stated she is concerned about the flood plain, and wants FEMA to do its job, and they should have hard facts before any development in the area. She said that Three Mile Drive is nuts and dangerous and dumps out onto Meridian Road, which has no sidewalk. She said we have to deal with infrastructure problems before we divide the landscape. She spoke about kids and where they will be able to play and their affect on the creek. She is also concerned about fire, schools, wildlife and the creek. She said the density will affect the creek and the wildlife in the area and people are not happy when they are crammed together. Matt Martin, 180 Aspen Loop, stated he has concerns about the density, and stated that some of the lots are smaller than his garage. He is concerned about overcrowded schools, fire and wildlife. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page 14 of 23 Dick Smith, 58 West View Drive, stated he is a land surveyor, and wants the Board to look at the five acre parcel, and he has never seen anything like that. He wants to know if the five acres will be available to the homeowners for their use. He stated the existing subdivisions to the south weren't mentioned, and they are large tracts of land which are zoned R-2. He said this development would change the texture of the neighborhood if this one goes through. He said cancer could also be described as a living growing organism and the drainage is a major wildlife refuge. There is significant wildlife in the area which will be severely impacted. Richard Nelson, 94 Northern Lights Boulevard, stated he is concerned about the traffic access onto Three Mile Drive, because getting onto Three Mile is difficult because of the traffic and speed. He said they are looking at 5000 people in the area if the subdivisions continue they way they are going. He stated that Three Mile is a paved country road and urged the Board to consider traffic impacts before sewer. Steve Burland, 604 7th Avenue West, stated he also owns property in Aspen Knoll and that the area is prime for development and is extremely attractive, but he is concerned with the proposed zoning; it is now AG 80 in the county and R-3 is not realistic for the area. He stated he wants development that is compatible with existing neighborhoods, but this has 15 housing units backing up to three one -acre lots along the southern boundary. He stated this development will hurt property values to the south and that setbacks will be 10 feet closer to their houses, if he is correct. He said this is prime real estate, extremely attractive, and the development should be a buffer for the development to the north, but the density needs to be reduced. He said that all developments should be held to the same standards, and asked that the setback change be denied. He is still concerned with the impact on Three Mile, wildlife and the location of the parkland and urged the Board to deny or table this subdivision to allow the developer to make changes. Mike Corbett, 995 Blackmer Lane, Columbia Falls, stated he owns lot 9 in Aspen Knoll, and was surprised tonight to hear about the developments to the north and nothing about the developments to the south. He stated there are plenty of affordable homes in town and that townhouses will be 10 feet away from his home. He said he is not against development, but the project should be laid out in a buffer zone fashion and not serve a five -acre parcel. Cara and Glen Sargent, 140 Aspen Loop, stated they are concerned that the high density is not compatible with the area, that it will severely impact the roads, and decrease Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page 15 of 23 property values in the area Ken Hannah, 91 West View, stated the kids would play in the streets in a subdivision of this size and used the example of Great View in South Meadows. He said this poses a safety issue and that south Three Mile Drive has R-1 and R-2 zoning and they need a buffer zone. He said the density is a safety hazard for the kids and that all the kids will have to walk to the junior high, and there are no sidewalks and no streetlights on Three Mile. Joan Gates, 136 West View Drive, stated she is concerned about the density and it does not fit the neighborhood. She said the area is in the West Valley school district and kids K- 8 will need to go four miles to school; she doesn't know where West Valley will put the kids. Bob Gates, 136 West View Drive, stated the density is a huge change to the area, that it doesn't fit the character of the area, most of the lots are 1/2 to 1 acre and larger, and there is nothing this dense until 1/2 mile back towards town. He stated this development is on the far side of the bypass. Darcy and Bob Albert, 265 Aspen Loop, Lot 30 Aspen Knoll subdivision, asked how many stories high the homes would be and stated they are opposed to the density and that it is poor planning. Don Hines, 140 West View, stated that the density is completely wrong, that Three Mile Drive is extremely dangerous, and there are no public facilities nearby. He said the developers have not been required to improve Three Mile Drive in any way and the density will cause problems. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Atkinson moved and Johnson seconded to adopt Staff Reports KA-04-5 and KPUD-04-2 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the initial zoning for 20 acres of land be R-3, Single Family Residential, with a PUD overlay upon annexation to the City of Kalispell. DISCUSSION Norton stated the density is within the growth policy range and that the infrastructure will be in place. He said that affordable housing is important, and that he sees what is available out there and that $150,000 is not affordable housing. As to this subdivision, he feels it is the worst subdivision he has ever seen as an appraiser or a Planning Board member, and he understands the problems with topography and retaining the five acres, but this is not what Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page 16 of 23 the growth policy had in mind. He stated this is not a correct subdivision plat, and there are better ways to design the property. He stated he feels it is a horrible plat, and is not opposed to the density if it is designed correctly. Atkinson stated that he shares Ms. Drollinger's frustrations with roads and schools and until there are impact fees we have no tools to deal with them. He stated FEMA will have to make a recommendation before anything happens on the property, and that kids and seniors will not be served well in that location; multiple units belong in town, not that far out of town, and the project doesn't fit anybody's lifestyle there at all. Hull stated that the layout is very strange, the topography is difficult to design around, and in other subdivisions, multi- family housing has been allowed as a buffer. Here it is all clustered in the back of the property. Anderson stated that these houses are not affordable, and that Three Mile Drive is a nightmare and there are genuine safety issues involved. She stated that FEMA must be addressed and there will be no loan until the flood plain issue is answered. Aspen Knoll and Two Mile Tracts are not compatible with this project. Johnson stated that not too long ago, there were people who wanted to stop the Aspen Knoll project, so this is not unique. He then moved the matter be tabled until the developer could take another look at it; Taylor seconded. Hinchey stated that he has a problem with the density, and that the area is too small for 79 lots. He said the Growth Policy states four units per acre, and the PUD allows seven, but this density is beyond that. He stated it violates the spirit of the Growth Policy and they must know the results of the FEMA study. Taylor stated we must look at the context of the statute, and define the purpose of the zoning. He quoted from the statutes, stating "zoning must be made with reasonable consideration to the character of the area, its suitability to the intended use, with a view to conserving the value of the buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of the land." He said this is not the most appropriate use of the land, it doesn't conserve the value of the buildings in the area, it is not suitable to the area, and is not reasonable to the character of the neighborhood. He feels it is a warehousing concept and he finds it offensive. ROLL CALL -- MOTION TO The motion to table failed on a roll call vote of 2-5, with TABLE Johnson and Norton voting in favor. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page 17 of 23 ROLL CALL (MAIN MOTION) The main motion failed on a roll call vote of 1-6, with Johnson voting in favor. MOTION TO AMEND Atkinson moved and Anderson seconded to amend the FINDINGS OF FACT findings of fact of Aspen Creek PUD based upon the density being inconsistent and incongruent with the adjoining neighborhood, based upon traffic impacts, based upon other services, based upon the effects on the environment and based upon concerns with the 100 year flood plain, and recommend denial of the request. DISCUSSION Atkinson stated that using the density allowance is different than what went on here, and the tool was not used in the manner it was designed to be used. Norton stated he agreed with the density, just not the project as proposed and the whole layout needs to be tweaked a little bit. Taylor said if the same number of units were just spread out, they would not accomplish anything and they must look at the density in the context of the surrounding area. ROLL CALL - AMEND The motion to amend the findings of fact passed FINDINGS OF FACT unanimously on a roll call vote. PURDY INITIAL ZONING A request by Russell Purdy for an initial zoning designation UPON ANNEXATION of R-3, Single Family Residential with a Planned Unit Development overlay on 30.77 acres located on the southwest corner of Three Mile Drive and Stillwater Road upon annexation to the City of Kalispell. BOWSER CREEK ESTATES A request for preliminary plat approval of Bowser Creek SUBDIVISION Estates, a 103 lot mixed use subdivision on 30.77 acres with PRELIMINARY PLAT a zoning designation of R-3/PUD upon annexation to the REQUEST City. STAFF REPORTS KA-04-7, Narda Wilson, with the Tri-City Planning Office, gave a KPUD-04-4 AND KPP-04-5 presentation of Staff Reports KA-04-7 and KPUD-04-4, a request for an initial zoning designation of R-3, Single Family Residential with a Planned Unit Development overlay on 30.77 acres located on the southwest corner of Three Mile Drive and Stillwater Road upon annexation to the City of Kalispell, and KPP-04-5, a request for preliminary plat approval of an 103-lot mixed use subdivision on approximately 30.77 acres. Wilson gave a staff report and stated this is a 30 acre parcel adjoining the project to the east just discussed, which is currently R-2 in the county, and that we assume there are on -site sewage treatment and septic tanks. Wilson explained the purpose of this PUD is to allow 40 detached single family homes and 62 duplex and triplex lots, and there will be two Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page 18 of 23 accesses off of Three Mile, one at Stillwater Road and Three Mile, which will have to cross private property, and will require an easement. She said a neighborhood commercial area is being proposed on the corner, and Spring Creek also flows through this property, so there are 100-year flood plain issues here as well. According to the map, the 100-year flood plain area is exaggerated, and will require a more detailed study. She stated a riparian vegetation line borders the creek, and the area to the north is more of a backwater to the channel than overflow to the north. It will be subject to a detailed flood study submitted to FEMA to determine where the flood plain is. She said it appeared that a lot of the units were "wishfully" located within the flood plain and riparian corridor. Wilson said the issues with this subdivision are similar to the last public hearing, with the properties to the south being 1/2 acre lots with onsite sewage treatment, and there is no way for this project to go smaller or denser without public utilities. Wilson explained the applicants are shifting the density out of the flood plain by coming in as a PUD, moving lots into a cluster design to make townhouse pods which will be accessed via an internal roadway. She said a good part of the floodplain would be set -aside as a homeowners park, and the environmentally sensitive area would be preserved and maintained. Wilson stated the staff is recommending adoption of KA-04-7 and KPUD-04-4 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council this property be zoned R-3 with a PUD overlay upon annexation to the City. QUESTIONS BY THE Hull asked Wilson to address the commercial lot. BOARD Wilson answered it was a deviation from R-3 zoning but is allowed under a PUD for the immediate neighborhood. She stated there were problems with locating it at the intersection so close to the bypass access, and site development wanted it moved to the intersection with Blue Herron and required that it would not exceed an acre. She said the property to the west is undeveloped, and there is no access to the site. They anticipate an easement for future road access to the adjoining parcel could be acquired. A 63-foot wide lot could create another access onto Three Mile Drive from this parcel. She said that relocating the commercial development would give a better separation between the residential component and the commercial component. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the issue. APPLICANT/AGENCIES Mike Fraser, Thomas Dean and Hoskins, asked if the Board could recess and take this up again when everyone was Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page 19 of 23 fresh. There was a short discussion regarding tabling the matter at this time, but it was decided to move forward with the public hearing. Frasier stated this project complies with the growth policy and mentioned some of the subdivisions that have been passed recently by the Board. He said they are asking for R-3 zoning, and the density is 3.31 units per acre, and will be fronted by Three Mile Drive. He stated that traffic is addressed by MDOT when they require a traffic study. He stated that this is not a cookie cutter subdivision; they have tried to be sensitive to the environment, create a buffer, and mix the duplexes with the single-family homes. They want to develop the homeowners area as a playfield, and are proposing an internal pedestrian access to the field. He said that Spring Creek would be preserved in its natural state and will be protected during construction. Frasier stated this is proposed as a four phase project over 12 years, with Phase 1 being townhouses in the central area, Phase 2 will be a mixture of single family and townhouses, Phase 3 will stop at the southern cul-de-sac, and Phase 4 will depend on the next subdivision. He said that Phase 1 is not impacted by the flood plain and a large portion of Phase 2 is in the same category. He said there has not been a detailed study done of the flood plain, and that their flood plain analysis is not official yet, but it follows the stream channel of the 100-year flood and is much less than is represented by the non -detailed map. They will not develop until the flood plain study is approved by FEMA. He stated they are not asking for variances and there is no setback reduction. He said they would provide rear yard buffering to adjoining projects to the south. He said that within the confines of the R-3 zone they would maintain the separation and buffer the area. He said they have tried to be creative and follow the contours of the land and that 17.4% of the subdivision is open space; they plan to preserve it, and put in improvements with paths and benches. He said they support the recommendation to move the commercial area and that the main access was purposely set at Stillwater Road for traffic control in the future. Russell Purdy, 241 Commons Way, stated they are trying to handle the area appropriately and serve the public and that the city has planned for it. He said this was the best use for the property in a cost effective manner and they will be trying to slow down traffic and there will be some drainage situations, but they will handle that. There will be a homeowners park to the north, and there will be no backyards in the stream and that walking paths will not be in sensitive areas for wildlife. He stated the valley is growing, and he wanted to be sensitive to the developer next door, and that townhouses give seniors a chance to live with their kids. He stated he wants utilities and asphalt before houses are built and he wants to do something appropriate for the area. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page 20 of 23 He does not want to be compared to the subdivision next door. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no comments in support of the project. The following spoke in opposition to the project: Dick Smith, 58 West View Drive, stated that the Two Mile Tracts could not be subdivided and that the fabric of the neighborhood is R-2. He stated the zoning around this subdivision is R-1 to the east, AG-80 to the west, R-1 to the southwest, and R-2 to the south. He said the R-3 is in conflict with the fabric of their neighborhood, although the design is better than the previous subdivision, but the intersection and the creek will be a problem. He said the juxtaposition with .17 acres on the southern line with their 1/2-acre parcels in his neighborhood is a problem and maybe some of the common area could be moved to right there. He wants to see something more in tune with their R-2 zoning. Ken Hannah, 91 West View Drive, stated this is a much more professional subdivision, but is still not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhoods. He said the growth policy allows for up to an R-3, but that doesn't mean you need to take it to the extreme. He asked if it is good for the land and community and stated there are 60% townhomes on this land. He said it was still too dense and safety is still a concern and he would like some sort of buffer zones. Alan Reby, 394 Three Mile Drive, stated this subdivision would be using his driveway. He said the agreement was no commercial lot on that corner, and he will not grant an easement on the land if the commercial lot is there. He said he has seen water flood the proposed park area when the culvert backs up and the density is too heavy, with four duplexes in his back yard, and it cheapens the subdivision. He wants to know how close the subdivision will be to his boundary, and how close the cul-de-sac will be. He said that fire access, traffic and schools will be a problem and that Meridian Road is a serious problem. Alison Drollinger, 169 Brook Drive, is opposed due to the density and stated the creek bottom will flood. She said the homes would all be on the steep hillside and Three Mile Drive and Meridian Road are very bad. She stated we need better planning and she wants it subdivided correctly. Bob Gates, 136 West View Drive, stated the density is better, but is still greater than what is in the area now. He said he opposes the zoning and wanted to commend Norman Beach for involving the neighbors with his project (The Greenery). Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page21 of23 Don Hines, 140 West View Drive, stated the original development for the Two Mile Tracts were done in the early 80s; the whole area is nothing less than 1/2 acre lots and the area funnels into Meridian and the traffic problem is not being addressed. He said that density will compound the problem, and lower density would help. Larry Hartman, 143 West View Drive, stated that Spring Creek is a safety concern and it runs right through the development; there are too many homes and too many kids. He said the creek will be a magnet and you can't fence it off. Glen Sargent, 140 Aspen Loop, stated he is concerned about the schools and the fire danger. He praised the developer and said it just needs a little bit of fine-tuning. Steve Burgland, 604 7th Avenue West, stated the developers should be required to meet the setbacks for the zoning districts and no variances should be allowed. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION TO TABLE Atkinson moved and Anderson seconded to table this until the next regular meeting on May 11, 2004. ROLL CALL The motion to table passed 5-2 with Hull and Norton voting against. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS Wilson discussed the draft sign regulations, which reflected workshop discussions. She said the new language was underscored, deleted items were struck through, and there are no significant issues. She stated it could be scheduled for May 11 and hold the public hearing on that date. Hull brought up his concerns regarding a legal ad for seven liquor licenses at one address past the five -mile mark. He is concerned that when the city annexes past the five -mile mark, those licenses will be worth a lot of money and this is a fraudulent attempt to get those licenses. Wilson answered that her office is aware of the situation and the Department of Revenue will be investigating it. She said once there is more information, she will let the Board know, but the protest period ends May 3. Hull gave copies of the notice to the board. Wilson stated there is a work session scheduled for April 20, 2004 to discuss architectural standards. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page 22 of 23 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:15 p.m. The next meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission will be held on Tuesday, May 11, 2004. There will be a work session held on April 20, 2004. George Taylor Judi Funk President Recording Secretary APPROVED as submitted/corrected: / /04 Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 13, 2004 Page 23 of 23