Loading...
03-14-84 Annexation CommitteeMarch 14, 1984 ANNEXATION COMMITTEE •The committee met in the Conference Room on this date at 3:30 P.M. Present were Chair- man Chuck Manning, Committee members Springer and Palmer, City Attorney Neier, former City Attorney Norbert Donahue, Nakul Verma,Dire.Ctor�o:f FRDO;. , Bob Fredericks, Klaus Gilchrist and Tom Sederstrom , Connie Wilde, Mike Frazier and Tom Murphy. DPW Hammer, Building Official Petersen and City Surveyor Zavodny. TRUCK BY-PASS C. Manning referred to a letter from TAC regarding the by-pass and question of east or west of town. A study is scheduled for June 17 but cannot be funded by TAC. Decision should be sent to TAC by June 1. FRDO Verma referred to the last study done in 1980. Question of this being Annexation or Street & Alley Committee realm. Should be brought to Council to update the 1980 study. Nick has attended a meeting with Co. Commissioner Wollan. It was felt that both city and County officials should make a joint decision on location and funding. He will arrange such a meeting. BLUE CHIP ADDITION ANNEXATION REQUEST Tom Murphy stated that their annexation request went through the City/County Planning Board at the March 13th meeting. He distributed broch"es.which include .plans for a golf pro shop for sale of equipment. The Board recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. That all new utility installations be done in accordance with Kalispell's "Standards and General Provisions for Design and Construction". • 2. That a surface drainage plan with on -site detention be approved as per City Standards. 3. That the landowners waive the right of protest to S.I.D. for adjacent road and right-of-way improvement and storm drain systems. 4. The Certificate of Survey creating the subject tract be filled prior to final action on the annexation request. The Zoning Commission, at its regular meeting on March 13 resolved that: The requested B-6 zone classification be approved for the proposed "Blue Chip addition". The request will be addressed at the March 19 regular City Council meeting, per a motion made by C. Palmer and seconded by S. Springer. All voted aye. NORTHWEST HORIZONS ADDITION ANNEXATION REQUEST This request is for annexation adjacent to Kalispell Regional Hospital for an extensive care unit. C. Manning stated that a letter to the Developers from FRDO, dated March 5 and requesting information by March 9 was rather unrealistic and asked if time could not be more expanded for Resolution of Intent. Question of whether request should be included on agenda from the time of initial letter. Councilman Palmer stated that a public notice was necessary, that department heads should review first. Planning Board's involvement, resolution of intent, etc. policy should be checked into. • City Attorney Neier will review questions involving islands. C. Palmer made a motion that the request be addressed to the Council. Seconded by C. Springer. All voted aye. - Annexation Committee Page 2 March 14, 1984 16 HERITAGE HEALTH CENTER ADDITION Mike Frazier referred to a letter of 3/12 to the committee requesting resumption of the Public Hearing at the March 19 Council meeting. They have no objection of access street being included with the annexation. He presented a reproduction of map of Comprehensive Plan, stating that the new map didn't go through land change because it was thought to be in compliance. Mike related the development history from the first presentation to the Annexation Committee. At that time, the then FRDO office stated that it was in compliance. Verma pointed out that the map was one page of a 50 page document, the general boundary is not exact. A letter dated December 19 states that fact. The ordinance states that RA-1 zoning is not allowed, question of why urban residential classification. DPW Hammer defined permitted use in RA-1 zone and stated there was con- cern that if it comes under this zoning it could likely become commercial. He stated that urban residential allows R3, R4, R5, B-1 or B-2, high density urban allows B1, B2, PUD, RA-1, RA-2 and RA-3. The proposal is in a transitional area. Frazier stated that the proposed use. was in conformance with land use plan. Norb Donahue stated he was concerned about setting precedent. When asked, Verma stated that it could take another 30 days or so for annexation. C.A. Neier pointed out that the Public Hearing was recessed and has been republished for reopening that hearing and stated that it could go before the Council on March 19 •and after adoption, would become effective in 30 days. To change to the Comprehensive Plan would be about 6 months; plan would have to approved by both city and county. C. Palmer stated that we have had problems with boundaries and that this has to be determined as a "concept" --not as defining a zoning line. He is in favor of going ahead and doing this without the street being annexed. The appropriate thing, since we talking of only one acre with boundary lines that need to be straightened out, is Y 4 to get it done. C. Manning stated that it was an on -going problem and that if we expect for the city to grow, we should look at problem solving whether through zone reduction or whatever vehicle that can be uesed. In zoning classifications, are we too restrictive, should there be more overlap, allow more uses by increasing categories? We want people to annex and we are not creating a good atmosphere for them, urban sprawl is being created. C. Springer stated that he had no problem with the concept and that if the City Attorney could support the position taken by his advisors, he would prefer the road being brought in. He is more concerned about what owners will be doing with the rest of zoning. C. Palmer felt that we are not entitled to that right of concern of zoning until we addressproblem of whose responsibility it will be. He went back to the fact that the committee voted to make a recommendation to the Council to adopt this annexation on the basis that it it is a concept and that the boundary line was used as a conven- ience to the city at that time, and so moved. •C. Springer seconded, for discussion purposes, and asked why that tag was needed and was told the rationale was that the issue was thought out and addressed and not negli- gent. Norb Donahue intervened,again regarding precedent being set. He stated that the Plan- ning Board recommends, the Council makes the decisions. We have to be consistent Annexation Committee Page 3 •with concepts and do things in an orderly fashion prevent having to make changes. March 14, 1984 The ordinance was designed to C. Springer went back to the motion on floor to recommend to full Council, with the reservation, called for question. All voted aye. Mike Frazier asked for committee to make unanimous recommendation on the road. C. Springer stated it was determined at the first session of public hearing that the road would not be a burden and in-house staff would like to have it included, and mentioned an amendment which recommended that the access road not be included in the annexation. He was on record for wanting the road. C. Palmer stated that it would be built to City specs or the agreement would be in violation and was assured by Mike that it would be a quality street; it is a dead end road now, we are reserving prerogative. C. A. Neier stated that if in the future we decided that we do want the road, this could be solved with a Resolution of Intent and notice to property owners. C. Springer asked if it wasn't more logical to do this now. C. Manning moved that the road be included in the annexatio;i; seconded by C. Palmer. All voted aye. C. Manning.then directed the meeting back to the basic problem and what we will do about it. •N. Donahue stated that Mr. Verma is wrong in telling the committee that the Compre- hensive Plan could be changed. He states that we are precluded from zoning outside city limits. Whitefish did not have a Comprehensive Plan or Subdivision Regulations within perimeter before they went outside city but the Kalispell City/County Planning Board has them. Mr. Verma stated that the City and County must get together on this. C. Springer asked if we are prohibited because we have a Comprehensive Plan with zoning regulations from zoning beyond our jurisdiction. In reply, Norb Donahue stated that the law says when you have city/county jurisdiction area, the city can adopt zoning regulations and subdivision regulations that apply to a city. Until the county adopts zoning regulations and subdivision regulations that apply within their area of the joint zone, the city can go out for up to 3 miles for temporary extended zoning until the county does, but once the county has adopted its own subdivision and zoning regulations, the city can't go beyond city limits. He feels that the city should not take on the county's job. C. A. Neier will research and get back to the committee as to who has jurisdictional' preference on the three mile grey area outside the city. Donahue stated that he had read in a recent_ newspaper of Verma's recommendation that the city scrap the current zoning ordinance and develop another. He advises that this is not the thing to do. Reasons:- The city adopted the zoning regulation in 1947. After administering about 25 years, a lot of problems developed. The ordinance was vague, not many things were accounted for, it was pyramid type zoning (most restrictive at top and less at the bottom), contained 7 zones. One of the main problems was with the • Annexation Committee Page 4 March 14, 1984 . Board of Adjustment, who granted variances throughout the city without much reason behind them, Meridian on west side has to this date not been rezoned. In 1974 or 1975 FRDO recommended that the city ordinance on zoning be rewritten. This was done, horizontal zoning, different categories; it was worked on for 2 years. One thing the Council wanted was elimination of the Board's power to grant variances be cause of the past problems such as "hip pocket zoning and variances" no records being kept, etc. A lot of compromises were made in the new ordinance, the number of zones adopted, some not even yet applicable to city but the potential for future use still exists. The ordinance was adopted to be effective 1/l/78. The concept of the Board of Adj. land use change was overcome by granting them the concept of conditional use permit, which is a valuable tool in the control of city development. Regarding the downtown redevelopment plan, Donahue stated that the main purpose of that is for tax increment financing which is substantial for city streets, sewer, water, etc. There was a question on which ordinance applied to this area, the old or new. Former FRDO officials felt that the new ordinance of zoning would apply in the downtown area to make concept fit with State law. Donahue was opposed to this but tried to make new zones as close as possible to former zones. A degree of .pyramid zoning mill exists, it is working fine, although it has been amended several times. In error, an amending ordinance (#920) was not sent to codifying agency in CA, after some time the deletion was realized. C. Palmer pointed out that the Building Department has permit problems, with the • ordinance, we have 2 zoning systems, he is in favor of rezoning. Donahue cautioned that rewriting the entire ordinance would create terrible problems to rezone the city. C. Manning stated that at the February 16 committee meeting, it was recommended that the slate be wiped clean and look at rezoning of city. Another committee meeting will be scheduled to review what the Development Office has done, the existing Ord- inance will be reviewed and opinions from the City Attorney and Building Official will be heard. A big decision must be made. The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 22, at 4:00 P.M. Meeting adjourned at 5:20 P. M. ms 0