Loading...
09-16-85 Annexation CommitteeSeptember 16, 1985 ANNEXATION COMMITTEE 4:00 P.M. • Chairman Manning and Councilmen Palmer, Springer, and Schindler present. Mayor McDowell, DPW Hammer, Attorney Neier, Building Official Jackson, Surveyor Zavodny, Nick Verma, Stan Pine, Don Berringer, and Mike Fraser also in attendance. BUFFALO HEAD - These minutes are not verbatum, but the intent was to record the discussion fully, for future reference if needed. C. Palmer gave his recollection of the history of Buffalo Head. He said that the first change was that the developers wanted to build a building to fit the market, 1 - 1$ story structures, spread out, 98 units, which would be to their benefit because they were better looking buildings than the original plans. The Council at that time approved the common area and the 15' setback. A problem arose when one lot was unbuildable because of the terms of the agreement. So Council allowed encroachment for the two corner lots because it was county right-of-way and it wasn't an obstruction of traffic and it wasn't hampering the common area. The rest was to stay as planned. Then there ensued heavy discussion because the. Building Official Alan Peterson said they had to abide by the 15' setback, but the developers couldn't do both RA-1 zoning and the requiring of 15' setbacks on a private drive. C. Springer asked if it was ever contemplated that the street would be dedicated? The response was NO, it was not wide enough. C. Palmer recalled the Council saying they only wanted to maintain the integrity of the plan (the 15' setback on Ponderosa). Then it was put to bed. • The Committee discussed the alternatives: C. Palmer said to keep the common area as is. As long as they maintain 15' setback from Ponderosa let them do as they wish with their private drives. There was discussion of encroachment of the common area. There are three buildings now encroaching. Stan Pine indicated that he would prefer going back to Plan A+(7 years ago). The Mayor pointed out that there have been three exceptions already, done with the Council's approval. C. Springer asked if the Council has the authority to preclude any more exceptions, and hold the developers to just the 15' setback on Ponderosa? C. Manning backed the discussion up and asked Stan Pine what his original concept was. He indicated no setbacks even from Ponderosa because the City already has 11 feet (30' wide road, 60' easement, 11' on both sides). Zero lot line as long as the building was within the lot lines. That is the way the first buildings were built. He said that in 1978 they were dealing with a whole new concept (row houses), new council, new city attorney. C. Manning asked Mr. Pine, as a developer, what is most important, the 15' setback or the common area, and what kind of agreement can we enter into in keeping with that? Mr. Pine indicated thatthe common area was most important and that they would set back as far as possible because of the parking. There is a dead end on both ends which precludes the street ever; being widened. That was part of the reason why STeve Petrini and Mr. Moen felt that there was no problem. The way the developer did it was the recommendation of the • staff and the planning board. Ken Jackson, being the Zoning Administrator, was asked how he interpreted the 15' setback on the private roads and on Ponderosa. His response was to reiterate the contents of the attached letter. When asked if he felt that Annexation Committee/Buffalo Head September 16, 1985 Page 2 the Council had a right, viewing this situation right now, to require a 15' setback on a private drive, he responded in the negative. C. Palmer indicated that he felt that was the intent. The big deal in the past was that everyone wanted the building 10' from the common area. It was decided that the common area was the setback. If the Committee should then adopt the policy of a 15' setback from a private drive the developer cannot then build a house on some lots. DPW Hammer stated that the problem they would run into is the length of parked cars and the remaining distance left for a fire truck. That is probably where the 15' setback came from in the beginning. The parking situation was discussed thoroughly. Mr. Pine indicated that the setback had originated in the Building Department. Looking at the main thoroughfare, 20 feet is needed to get a car off the street and parked. So a 15' setback wouldn't do the job anyway. C. Springer pointed out again that the City hasn't got the right to impose the setback. More discussion concerning where the setback should begin, property line or Ponderosa? The comment was made that this is a can of worms and the Committee was trying to solve it, and if the common sense approach was taken (protect the common area and provide for parking) it would solve the problem even if it wasn't the right way to do it. Mr. Pine agreed that it would still leave the lot buildable, but asked about side and rear setbacks. He indicated that generally buildings are centered on lots, but some would not be workable if there were side setbacks. He was agreeable to no side set- • backs. This was discussed further. C. Palmer gave more background information. These were the first "row houses" built in Kalispell. The ordinance said you couldn't build a row house because you had to have a set distance between houses, so that had to be changed. So the agreement was a bandaid and the Council wasn't sophisticated enough to deal with the other problems at the time. During the time that Buffalo Head was in the planning stage was when the City was reviewing and rewriting and restructuring the ordinances. It took about a year and a half to get the subdivision through the planning stage. , Ken Jackson, the Zoning Administrator, was asked again what his comfort level was. Is it a reasonable, negotiable middle line for the City to require just enough room for parking off Ponderosa and protect the common area? He did not know. Said he would have to-, look down the road. There are some now on Ponderosa built 27' back. The ascetics of jockeying them back and forth might present a problem. Side lot setbacks under RA-1 are 5 feet. So long as buildings are no closer than 5 feet from the lot lines would make it no closer than 10' between buildings. Someone pointed out that the Committee was solving the problem but that it would come up again. C. Springer indicated that the Committee should say just that - that they were solving the problem in this instance and the decision was limited by the parameters of Buffalo Head. What if the corner of a building is right next to the curb? Not very • ascetic. What is realistic? Mr. Pine said that when you start changing from the original plans, cutting off, you get unbuildable lots. C. Palmer asked why is it on this particular plat, showing that far back? That was the two-story a Annexation Committee/Buffalo Head • September 16, 1985 Page 3 units, then that's when we came back in and flattened them out to make them lower units instead of the 8-plexes and 6-plexes. Mr. Pine indicated that the City adopted the site plan and RA-1 zoning, not realizing that there would be a conflict. RA-1 zoning was just so row -houses could be built, the covenants dealt with the number of units that could be built. That is unusual in itself. The original plan was the exact same unit for all the units - it was the concept, not the exact plan. Jim Moen brought it back in in November 1979, and Norb Donehue talks about the fact that these comments deal primarily with the zero lot line placement of structures set in 1920 and setback requirements on row houses, more specifically lots 1 - 14, etc. The questions came up as to whether there were any setbacks and he is responding that there are not. It is apparent from the site plan thatthereare many places that it was a site plan concept, not a specific plan. Don Berringer is saying that the developers original understanding when the first buildings were built, was that they could build anywhere within the lot lines. When the original plans were done with the planning board the agreement was to stay within the lot lines. C. Palmer showed by reading the code that it really was impossible to figure out the ordinance requirements. Attorney Neier explained that these units were not subject to the side setbacks because they could not be set back, but in the overall plan there has to be 10 feet between buildings. C. Palmer pointed out that if Mr. Pine was to call that space behind the buildings an alley he has 0 setback. So obviously we cannot imply part of the law without implying all of it. Mr. Pine pointed out that they could never adequately apply RA-1 zoning setbacks to this subdivision because it was not designed with RA-1 in mind. The conversation went back to 15' setback off the curb or the lot line. Don Hettinger indicated that if you went from the lot line it would render half the lots on Ponderosa unbuildable according to the current plan. The only reason there is 27 feet on the existing ones is that they picked the biggest lots they could find to put the RA-1 zoning in, because that was the only'way they could get a building permit. The rest of the lots are narrower, and they'll never get anything like the buildings they have now on them if you take 15' from the lot. The idea, Mr. Pine said, on no from setbacks on Ponderosa, was that you already have 11 feet there and if you want to put a 15 or 18' driveway in there you could and you would have plenty of room for a car to set off the street. Discussion followed of the square footage needs for today's market and the fact that you can't scoot back 15' from Ponderosa and fit it in. The worst case - 1200', two story, with the setback would be 5' short. Decks are over the common area and 2' was cut out of the courtyard to do that. Mr. Pine indicated that a 15' or 18' setback from Ponderosa was no problem, because they were going to build as far back on the lot as possible. The first • buildings were built with no setbacks required. That has come up since. Even though the setback from Ponderosa is more restrictive than the original plan, if they are allowed to build anywhere within the lot lines they can work with that. It is going to cut some out of the courtyards, but workable. Annexation Committee/Buffalo Head September 16, 1985 Page 4 DPW Hammer pointed out that allowing someone to park on the public right of way is a problem. If they stay out of the common area and 15' back from the lot line they should be able to do what they want. When Mr. Berringer raised the question of an unbuildable lot DPW Hammer said they could then go to the Board of Adjustments for that lot. Mr. Pine pointed out that every time you go to the Board of Adjustments you re -invent the wheel and that is the whole problem - you don't come before a regulatory agency and come out with less regulations. You get more restrictions. C. Palmer indicated that his solution was to observe the common area zero setback, build right to the common area, and that in all cases where available you observe at least a 15' setback or the maximum of the building shall be on the lot area. His intent is that on any of those where you can have a 15' setback, build your building on the 0 setback of the common area. On this particular one you are obviously going to have to be closer, but at least on the rest of them it should solve the problem. . There was discussion of a problem with angled property. When the 15' _ setback is not observed the building shall commence from the 0 common area ' line. In other words=, if you can't get 15' from your property line you must start the building on the 0 line of the common area. C. Manning added that it should also be stated that they could be no less than 20 or 28' from the curb cut so that there is room enough for parking. C. Palmer objected saying that then the City would be allowing parking on the City right-of-way. Mr. Berringer pointed out that the driveway comes across the right-of-way. DPW Hammer suggested giving up some of the right-of-way - have only a 50' right-of-way to give them more room. Deed the land back to them. The developer preferred not to do it that way. Mayor McDowell said to go back to the original plan. It was explained again that during the time span rules have changed, and that even if they had built according to the original plan it wouldn't have looked like the plot being discussed at this meeting. The present buildings are much longer -;80' rather than what is shown. DPW Hammer brought up again giving the land'back to them, but the developers weren't sure that would solve the problem. C. Springer said that if Ken's suggestion of giving them back 5' combined with C. Palmer's suggestion would solve the problem then it should be done and settled. C. Manning questioned the giving back of 5' if they are required to be back 15' or to begin on the 0 line of the common area. DPW Hammer explained that if future developers held this situation up as an example of the City allowing parking on the right-of-way, how about them? The Committee agreed that this decision could not become a precident for future decisions. C. Palmer made a motion that when the 15' setback cannot be observed on Ponderosa that the buildings shall set on the 0 lot line of the common area, and that the 15' setback will not be applied to private drives. The policy established by this recommendation is specifically attributable to Buffalo Head Townhouses. C. Springer seconded, all approved, and the motion carried. DPW Hammer pointed out that this decision must be shared with the planning • department so that FRIO understands the Council action. Annexation Committee/Buffalo Head . September 16, 1985 Page 5 BUFFALO HEAD PARK SITE - The Homeowners Association is proposing that the park be deeded back to them so that they can develop it. C. Manning indicated that he wasn't sure they could legally do that. C. Palmer pointed out that with Parkview Terrace they formed a homeowners maintenance organization, the land stayed in the City's ownership, and they maintained it. Mr. Berringer said they also wanted to build a clubhouse and tennis court. All agreed to discuss this at another time. BUFFALO HEAD COVENANTS - The developers pointed out that in order to change the covenants they needed City Council approval. On some lots it may be that with the building design they would only be able to get six rather than eight units, for example. Some lots are set up for single, one unit per lot. Is it possible to trade designations on particular lots while still staying within the 91 units? C. Manning said they would have to go back to the original des- ignations and the reasons for them. Attorney Neier, when asked for his opinion, said lots would have to be resubdivided as single family lots. He remembered that there had been a lot of arguement at the time that led to them being desig- nated single family instead of multi -family lots. They would need to go_ through resubdivision review. The developer indicated that losing two lots in one place they are looking to pick them up elsewhere, and would like to make two single family lots into duplexes instead. C. Palmer pointed out that they need to remember what is required under RA-1. City ordinance says you can have 22 units per acre, subdivision in question has 6 - 7 units per acre, so there is not too much that can go wrong. All agreed to discuss these issues at the October 7 meeting. Attorney Neier indicated he would have the resolution done for the October 7 Council meeting. WINDWARD VILLA PRELIMINARY PLAT - Windward Villa is directly north of the Second Wind, less than an acre, and the developer wants to put in some one -bedroom townhouses, 480 square feet each. The conditions were read and discussed. There was some discussion of a 6" water line but DPW Hammer said the City will accept only the 8" provided for in the City standards. The Committee recommended approval of the preliminary plat. Attached: Memorandums concerning Buffalo Head from DPW Hammer, Building Official Ken Jackson, and City Attorney Neier. Additional information may be found in the files of the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. ajg PW-0277 LcRov E..LicDowcll bl,por 11�i ,: �_ / ZiP599o3i991 Telephone (4o6) 755-gW THE CITY OF K A L I S P E L L, MONTANA DATE: August 29, 1985 TO: Mayor McDowell All Council Members FROM: Ken Hammer, Director of Public Works RE: Buffalo Head? As you are aware there has been a considerable amount of con- fusion on the development -known 'as Buffalo Head. After carefully reviewing all of the pertinent data and files it is my non -legal opinion that the following criteria be evaluated for approval by the City Council. ajg 1. The common area to the rear which is approximately 10' from the rear property line, be strictly adhered to and maintained. 2. The requirement of a 15' front yard setback should also be strictly adhered to and maintained. 3. Should the developer desire to build outside of the rear common area, technically, he could do so by filing a Consent to Plat. However, since this was a critical issue in the formulation of this development in 1977, and since there is a concern on when the developer ceases to be the owner of record of that common area, I again would recommend that the common area not be used to construct buildings. If the developer desires not to maintain the 15' front yard requirement he should request a variance from the front yard setback from the Board of Adjustment, not the City Council. 4. If the City Council decides that the 15' front yard require- ment not be strictly enforced, then the developer should amend the final plat to reflect that decision. "Vacation City" c to LCRoy E. McDowell Mayor Drawer 2997-21p 599oi—Telephone WOW 755 5457 Ken B. Jackson Building Official THE CITY OF K A L I S P E L L, M O N T A N A DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & ZONING M E M O R A N D U M TO: Chuck Manning, Chairman Annexation Committee FROM: Ken Jackson, Building Official, Zoning Administrator—�—t DATE: 12 September 1985 RE: Buffalo Head Revisited. In hopes of saving some time at Monday's Annexation Committee meeting, I thought I would write down my thoughts on this subject to allow you to be.aware of the Building Department's position. I have been reviewing the Building Department file on Buffalo Head for the last few days, and have had some lengthy discussions with Alan Petersen to determine not only past policy of the Department, but also what it should be now and in the future (at least until an official change of policy by the Council). It appears to me that the lass, or at least latest, official pronouncement by - the Council is Resolution No.3500, by which the Council approved the Preliminary Plat of Buffalo Head Townhouses which was a resubdivision of Buffalo Head Addi- tion N0.92, and, of which, Alan Petersen's letter of November 7, 1983 to Stan Pine was made a part. This Preliminary Plat erased the original lot lines and made "common area" out of anything outside of the actual units. My personal recollection of what transpired at that time, as well as my discus- sions with Al Petersen, convince me that it was thoroughly discussed and decided at that time -that with the approval of the Buffalo Head Townhouses Preliminary Plat, the rear lot lines (for purposes of set back requirements) became the Subdivision line. Some confusion and concern has arisen due to the fact that the Council required that the original lot lines established by the Plat of Buffalo Head Addition No. 92 be shown on each final plat. It has happened then, that when the final plat is submitted, it sometimes will show a building sited outside of the original. lot lines which were erased on the Preliminary Plat of the resubdivision of Buffalo Head No. 92, and the Building Department is then asked why we issued a permit for a building to be constructed on land that does not belong to the owner of the building. "Vacation City" - LeRoy E. MCDowdl Mayor Drawer 1997 ZIP 59903 1997 Telephone (4o6) 755-5457 THE CITY OF K A L I S P E L L, MONTANA T0: Paul Lambert FROM: Glen Nei RE: Buffo ead Townhouses The problems presented by your recent submission of a Plot Plan, on a portion of the above -referenced subdivision, while not new to the Buffalo Head Subdivision, continue to hang up final plat approval. The Plot Plan for Lot #15 does not comply with Resolution No. 3201 and Resolution No. 3500 in that it shows a wing -wall between unit #D and unit #E protruding into the common area of the subdivision. The Plot Plan fcr Lot #11 shows all units having wing -walls which extend into the common area. Such extensions of the building into the common area results in construction upon property which you do not own and creates problems in subdivision review. In the past the City Council has allowed two encroachments into the Common Area, once for decks and once because of building placement. In both instances, the City required the developer to submit Consents to Plat from Stan Pine, the record owner of the Common Area, and the Buffalo Head Homeowner's Association. A careful examination of the covenants, however, show that the Council's decision may have been in error. According to the Declaration of Amendment to Restrictive Covenants and Grant of Easements, recorded at Book 724, Page 962, the "common area" consists of "all real property (including any improvements thereon) owned by the Association for the common use and enjoyment of its members". The common area was to be described in the original plat of Buffalo Head Addition No. 92. (Declaration Article I, Section 2). The Declaration further dedicates all "private" roads and "common areas" to the common use and benefit to the homeowners in Buffalo Head Subdivision, (Declaration, Article II, Section 2). The removal of any part or all of the "common area" from the provisions of the Declaration, in other words to undedicate it, requires the written approval of all the holders of Deeds of Trust. [Declarations, Article V, Section 5(c)] Amendments to the Declaration may only be made by instruments signed by at least 90% of the Lot owners and approved by the City of Kalispell. (Declaration, Article X, Section 3) The Final Plats that have been filed on the Buffalo Head Townhouses have "Vacation City" Paul Lambert Page 3 September 11, 1985 I have left your Plot Plans with the City Building Official for review and have talked with the Chairman of the Annexation Committee regarding the subdivision. I expect that the Committee shall take up the issues presented herein at their next committee meeting. I hope that the Committee and the Council at that time will provide the staff with a decision which will concisely direct future decisions. Dated this 11 day of September, 1985. cc: Ken Hammer Mayor McDowell Ken Jackson Annexation Committee s • •