Loading...
07-01-85 Annexation Committee. July 1, 1985 ANNEXATION COMMITTEE 4:00 P.M. Chairman Manning, Councilmen Springer and Palmer in attendance. DPW Hammer, Attorney Neier, Nick Verma, Ross Plambeck, Ken O'Brian also present. RESUBDIVISION OF LOT A OF RESUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 12, HIGH SCHOOL AD➢ITION - Change of recommendation discussed: paving of all of loth Avenue W. VS paving only to ten feet past entry, possibility of annexation negative, possible need to work with County because of improvement of county road. Committee recommended conditionally approving preliminary plat with conditions: (1) Approval of county, (2) Waiver of right to protest future SID, (3) Cash in lieu of park land. CASH IN LIEU OF PARK LAND - Discussion of City Attorney's findings (attached to original minutes), comparable market value based on sales in area. Need to formalize policy to avercome inconsistency. C. Palmer agreed to make a checklist for scrutinizing these cases consistently. NORTHERN LIGHTS BOULEVARD ADDITION #182 - Report from City Attorney _ about withdrawing from rural fire districts. Discussion of need for policy. Committee recommended (1) have hearing, (2) present protest of residents to annexation, (3) Palmer will, as taxpayer, protest providing services without annexation, (4) instruct Attorney not to draw up resolution. • ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 5.06 - 5.08 - Extended discussion of differing views of non -conforming use. Meeting will be set with Attorney Neier, Ross Plambeck, and Nick Verma to address their concerns with the ordinance. They will report back to the Committee with suggested changes or recommendation to continue on as is. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Discussion of meaning of zoning, conditional use not being used as land use control, theory of conditional use being permitted use with reasonable conditions. Motion and recommendation was to leave as is - conditional use permit on multi -family dwellings. All must go through conditional use permit. Ken Jackson, Building Official to be notified of this. ajg • w TO. Parks Committee FROM: Glen Neier 0 RE: Park Dedication The Council has requested that I suggest a policy for Council consideration which would eliminate inequities in the enforcement of Section 76-3-606, M.C.A. Section 76-3-606 M.C.A., requires that a subdivider dedicate a certain portion of a residential subdivision for use by the public as public parks and playgrounds. 1) A plat of a residential subdivision shall show that one -ninth of the combined area of lots five acres or less in size and one -twelfth of the combined area of lots greater than five acres in size, exclusive of all other dedications, is forever dedicated to the .public parks and play- grounds ... 2) Where the dedication of land for parks or playgrounds is undesirable because of size, topography, shape, location, or other circumstances, the governing body may, for good cause shown, make an order to be endorsed and certified on the plat accepting a cash donation in lieu of the dedication of land and equal to the fair market value of the amount of land that would have been dedicated. For the purpose of this section, the fair market value is the value of the unsubdivided, ,unim- proved land. Such cash donation shall be paid into the park fund to be used for the purchase of additional lands or for the initial development of parks and playgrounds. 3) The park dedication and cash in lieu requirements of subsections • (1) and (2) do not apply to any division that creates only one additional lot. §76-3-606 M.C.A. The City of Kalispell has in the past employed a variety of methods of determining the amount of a cash donation in lieu of park dedication. Some subdivisions have escaped with only a nominal charge and some have been accessed an amount which the developer considered unfair. The State of Montana Attorney General's Office in an opinion issued jn 1978 ruled that: "A cash donation under such provision must be based upon the fair market value of the unimproved, unsubdivided land that is to be sub- divided. Fair market value is the amount a willing buyer would pay and a willing seller would accept for the land when neither is under duress. 37 A.G. Op. 169 (1978) It is the opinion of this office that the City Council ought to follow the ruling made by the Attorney General and determine the fair market value based upon the last ascertainable sale price. This could be accomplished by reference,in house.to the documents of sale showing what the developer paid for the property. If there is a disagreement as to the fair market value of property between the developer and the City §3.16(B) of the City of Kalispell Subdivision Regulations contains a provision authorizing an appraisal of the property at developer's expense. By following the two suggested means of determining land values, the Council can assure that all developers of residential subdivisions are treated equitably. DATED this 21st day of June, 1985.