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.