Loading...
Planning Board Minutes - August 8, 1995KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING JULY 11, 1995 CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City -County AND ROLL CALL Planning Board and Zoning Commission- was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Vice -Chair Pam Kennedy. Board members present were Walter Bahr, Fred Hodgeboom, Milt Carlson, Robert Sanders, Robert Lopp and Pam Kennedy. Board members absent were Mike Fraser (excused) and Therese Hash (excused). John Parsons, Senior Planner, represented the Flathead Regional Development Office. Brian Wood, Zoning Administrator, represented the City of Kalispell. There were approximately 22 people in attendance. APPROVAL OF The minutes of the June 13, 1995 meeting were approved as written MINUTES on a motion by Bahr, second by Hodgeboom. All members present voted aye. HOFERT ZONE The first public hearing was introduced on a request by John CHANGE / Hofert, et al, for a zone change from R-1 (Suburban Residential) R-1 TO I-1 to I-1 (Light Industrial) on approximately 6 acres. The location is south of US Highway 2 approximately 300 feet east of Hathaway Lane, west of Kalispell, in the West Side Zoning District. The property is described as part of Assessor's Tracts 13 and 13C in the NW4 of Section 13, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. Staff Report Parsons presented report #FZC-95-08. The request was evaluated in accordance with the statutory procedure for zone changes. Based on the evaluation of that criteria, staff recommended the zone change be denied. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the zone change. In Favor John Schwarz, with Billmayer Engineering, and technical representative for the applicant, Mr. Hofert said he was disappointed with the staff's recommendation for denial. He wanted to shed some light on the zone change from their perspective. The biggest situation that Mr. Parsons pointed out was conformance with the Master Plan. The Master Plan is more than a line on the map, there are not definite boundaries. If you look at the map you will see there is industrial zones in the area. The scale on the document is a bit obscured in that this document is not meant to be something that defines lines and boundaries. We do have industrial zoning designations in the area that extends towards the highway. We take offense that Mr. Parsons says this is not conforming to the Master Plan. He displayed photographs of adjacent properties and land uses. There; are a number of industrial uses adjacent to this property; and to tell my client that his property is suitable for residential development is a misnomer. I don't think anybody would put a residential development in this area. This is over H acres and it does have some value and it is your job to define a recommendation on that. We feel that recommendation should be industrial zoning. We feel that light industrial would provide a good buffer to the City. Another point was that congestion would likely increase."' That is debatable. If the lot was allowed to develop as residential with approximately 8-10 vehicle trips per day., Whether an industrial use would have a similar traffic impact would depend on what kind of use went in there. Those questions are dealt with at subdivision review. The way to move traffic is not to push industrial zoning to a place not suited for it. So, congestion is not a problem. Mr. Parsons also brought up the fact that the zoning does not follow the property lines. All we did was line up the boundary line to the existing lots, and continued that line to industrial designation to the south. The historical use of this property is industrial. It was one of the largest Christmas tree distribution centers in North America. We have utility records from that use. We also have a business plan that confirms that was the use. We appreciate your time and are available for questions. Victor Workman, Whitefish, said I work for Century 21, Whitefish Land Office, and am a City Council member for Whitefish. I would like to explain the reasons why we are requesting the zone change. Mr. Hofert is not an out-of-state developer who is trying to take advantage of the property. The situation came about in light that he contacted me as a representative wanting to liquidate his property. After my investigation, I found that the residential zoning value on the property compared to a light industrial zoning was quite significant. That is why we are here, requesting that we allow Mr. Hofert to sell his property for its true value. We think it is very important for you to know that the Christmas tree company operated out of that location from the 50's through the 80's. They have been landowners in Flathead County since the 30's. They not only pay taxes on the property but were seasonal summer and fall employers, employing help in the valley. In your consideration of the zone change, I think it is very important that you look at what you are doing to the valley as a whole. This zone change does not affect the master plan, from my viewpoint. It continues the zoning that is in place there. In answer to Mr. Parsons question on why did we do the [zone] split. We were being considerate to the residential homeowners in the area. We took the basic geography there about 200 feet from the highway which there are a few homes in the area, and trying to be aware of any potential of any decrease of values. We felt that 2 was the best way to help to not encourage the loss of residential properties that are there. I am here to answer any questions. John Hofert, 322 N. McCadden Place, Los' Angeles, California, the owner of the property said that the testimony by John Schwarz and Victor Workman was accurate. He had records that showed that they have owned this property since the 1930's. He hoped the Board would find their request reasonable. There being no further proponents, the public hearing was opened to opponents of the zone change request. opposition Don Claypool, 1520 Highway 2 West, said he was strongly opposed to the zone change. Kim Ross, 1450 Highway 2 West, spoke in opposition to the zone change, request. Her home is located in the middle of the area under discussion, and there are other homes nearby. This industrial zone would be in her backyard. There being no other speakers either in favor or in opposition, the public hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board discussion. Discussion Carlson noted that along the railroad spur, it has been proposed to be designated as part of the Rails to Trails Program. Lopp referred to when the Master Plan was done and the boundaries were set up, and asked if the tree farm was in operation at that time? Parsons responded that the Master Plan was adopted in 1986. Lopp said that when we were developing the Master Plan, we weighed back and forth in each area the land use as it was occurring at that point, and some things were grandfathered as we drew the boundaries. Parsons explained that the Master Plan, as with zoning, is not intended to create conformity with existing land uses to what is on the map. What a Master Plan does is try to look to the future and ask the question that "In the future what is it that we would like to see out there?" What types of zoning and what types of land use? So, regardless of whether Mr. Hofert was operating his Christmas tree operation out of there, for the most part, it was decided by the County Commissioners at that time, and City Council at the time, that this area in the future was not to be industrial. It was to be residential. It had the existing industrial, basically the lumberyard, and it wasn't going to go any further west. Lapp commented that he strongly agreed on, the issue of a split zone. We hit so many snags when zoning does not conform to property lines. We have spent considerable time correcting that, 3 especially in the Evergreen area where we didn't pay attention to property lines. Hodgeboom requested that the list of uses allowed in the I-1 zone 'be read. Parsons read the list of allowable uses from the zoning ordinance. Carlson commented that when the Master Plan was updated, the deficiency of industrial land under the County jurisdiction was increased by 500 acres. There is a surplus of industrial land currently in effect. You take the Master Plan map and have a green buffer from the existing industrial to what should be residential, urban and suburban, you take the entire area as a whole. I think the appropriate thing would be to come before this Board with a Master Plan amendment rather than trying to zone an area that the Master Plan does not allow to have in it. This is a short cut in trying to knock down the integrity of the Master Plan itself, which is the best thing we have to go with. We are constantly revising it and taking into account neighborhood plans and the efforts of people ten years ago, plus what has been done since that time. Revision would be appropriate, but not coming in to zone something which does not comply with the Master Plan. Motion Lopp moved that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board acting as the Zoning Commission, adopt FRDO staff report #FZC-95-08 as findings of fact and forward a recommendation of denial to the County Commissioners for the requested zone change from R-1 to I-1. Carlson seconded. On a roll call vote Lopp, Carlson, Sanders, Bahr, Hodgeboom and Kennedy voted aye. The motion carried on an unanimous vote to deny the zone change request. MOHRENWEISER Kennedy introduced the next public hearing on a request by ZONE CHANGE / Richard and Judith Mohrenweiser for a zone change from R-3 to R-3 TO RA-1 RA-1 on approximately 2 acres. The property is located north of the Underhill Subdivision, 300 feet north of Arizona Street, and west of US Highway 93. The property is described as part of Tract 6B in the NW4 Section 7, Township 22 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. Staff Report Parsons presented an overview of report #KZC-95-03. The request was evaluated in accordance with the statutory criteria for zone changes, and based on the evaluation, staff recommended approval. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to proponents of the proposal. In Favor Jean Johnson, Paul Stokes & Associates, technical representative for the applicant, spoke in favor of the zone change. We agree with the staff report. A couple of issues is that number one the change is in compliance with the Master Plan and more specifically, the North Meridian Neighborhood Plan. The change 4 would be contiguous with an existing RA-1 zone. A lot of consideration has gone into development of this parcel that some of those items would be addressed in a subdivision proposal. Density, traffic, how best can we use this parcel of land. There are some slope considerations. We have addressed those and we feel we have a good plan. Again, that would be presented to this Board during the subdivision hearing. Our intent is to have five lots to be made available for duplexes: The land would not be economically feasible to be developed for single family residences. I am available for questions. Richard Mohrenweiser, one of the applicants, testified that they have put a lot of time and effort into this parcel, so far, such as bringing in the utilities properly, taking care of groundwater after development. This has already been provided. The neighbors are here and they have been busy getting a petition signed. Perhaps it is the old syndrome of "I'm here, let's not let anyone else in". We all know that if they didn't let anyone in, they wouldn't have the opportunity to protest any of this stuff. The zoning request for RA-1 has staff approval. It is in compliance with the Master Plan. I want to develop the land to its best use, and I believe the RA-1 zone will accomplish that. There being no other proponents, the public hearing was opened to those opposed. Opposition Vern Wyman, 507 W. Arizona Street, said he has lived there since 1950. Actually, we are not opposed to the zone. We are opposed to more apartment developments like the Meridian Pointe complex. He read into the record the petition signed by 50 residents of Underhill Court and West Arizona Street who are opposed to the RA-1 zone density. Attached to the petition was a vicinity map showing the location of those opposed in proximity to the Meridian Pointe complex. The petition was submitted and made a part of the record. We moved here in 1950 and there were three houses on West Arizona Street. Now, there are about thirty on West Arizona and Underhill Court. We consider that a natural development. Last year, with the Meridian Pointe complex apartment building, there were 48 families in one year. That is what we don't want is for this area to become another apartment complex. Mr. Mohrenweiser mentioned duplexes. Single family or duplexes would be fine. The RA-1 zone says Low Density, but we consider 48 families on 3 acres as High Density. That is what we are opposed to. The R-4 zone designation is for duplexes as I understand it. We would favor the R-4 over the RA-1 zone. Gerianne Robbins, 637 Underhill Court, questioned what did low density mean? 5 Parsons answered that what Low Density Residential Apartment, which RA-1 is, you could put approximately 26 units on 1.8 acres. Her second question is what is the definition of "non-residential use"? Parsons read the list of both permitted and conditionally permitted non-residential uses in the RA-1 zone classification from the zoning ordinance. Ms. Robbins pointed out that based on `staff's elaboration the entire neighborhood is at great risk of having much greater impact on the site, than the proposed five duplex units, particularly with the RA-1 that allows 26 units. We, in a single family residential neighborhood, are already greatly impacted by the Meridian Pointe by having approximately 200-250 people dumped in our backyard within a year. We have the potential of 26 additional units with an average of 3-4 people per unit onto this small area. We have already been greatly impacted by the noise. My neighbor has had her mailbox blown up, she has had prowlers try to break and enter. For the buffering that Meridian Pointe supposedly had to buffer high density from single family residential, I don't think a few dead trees and shrubs is really a buffer. My family and I protest having this zone change with a possible impact of having 26 units up there. This low density is a far cry from what our single family housing is. The gentleman talked about there already being drainage in place to accommodate what is going down the street. Excuse me, but this month, my front yard and street have been flooded for approximately 7 days because of the rain we have had. So, if that is already in place without anything being built, I am guessing that we will continue to have those problems. Another great concern we have is the traffic impact. We have gone to both the city and county about that dangerous intersection of West Arizona and 5th Avenue WN. Nothing is being modified. We have concerns about the traffic and safety impact of additional people being put into this neighborhood. We would prefer to see this property developed as single family, or if it is developed to a higher density, will there be an ingress/egress through Meridian Pointe therefore negating promises we have had that there will not be that traffic impact. I would strongly urge the Board to look at narrowing that definition and allowing R-4 which only allows duplexes. Mildred Thompson, 1079 N. Meridian Road, located right next to the Meridian Pointe project. We have had considerable trouble, with children in our yard, on our buildings, they go back into our trees and smoke. We are afraid to leave our house because of the 1 vandalism. This is what is happening in our neighborhood and on our property. We are opposed to the RA-1 zone request. Janet Wyman, 507 West Arizona, testified that the site if very steep. I really can't imagine anything being built there. In the neighborhood, there really is no place for children to ga. I would love to see this site made into a park. Children have been using it for a sledding hill for years. It is very steep. Glen Thompson, 1079 N. Meridian Road,` said he is against this zone change. My property borders Meridian. Pointe, and I have enough trouble without any more kids on my property. I feel like an old scrooge chasing kids off. Keith Robinson, 501 West Arizona, echoes all that has been said in opposition to the zone change request. I can't see how they can do construction on that slope. The higher density bothers me, as well as the conditional uses allowed in the RA-1 zone. Planning is a good thing to have, but allowing this level of density on this site is like constructing a slum, and destroying the neighborhood. There being no others to speak in opposition, the public hearing was closed and it was opened to Board discussion. Discussion Carlson commented that being a Master Plan advocate, the Master Plan indicates the maximum densities for an area, which does not mean that we have to comply with the maximum each time it is proposed. Take into account the character of the neighborhood of how that fits into the surrounding territory. That is what I feel planning is all about. This would be opening it up to a much denser character adjacent to single family residences. Kennedy pointed out that the Underhill neighborhood is zoned R-3, with the only RA-1 being Meridian Pointe. There is no R-4 in the area, so that would not be an option, because that would be spot zoning. Parsons said that is not correct. Spot zoning typically occurs when it is not in conformance with the Master Plan, and there is no other zoning of its type in the area. When a request like this comes in, you look at the Master Plan, the policies and make your best guess. The applicant has indicated that he wishes to subdivide the property and put duplexes on there. He has even submitted covenants. Those things are irrelevant in a zone change request. You have to look at what the zone permits. Getting back to spot zoning, what the R-4 would do is that since it is in conformance with the master plan, it would set a pattern of development to occur. In this particular case, it is very limited because you have RA-1 immediately to the west, the highway north and east, so in effect what you have is a buffer 7 between what we would expect to see. Whether the R-4 continues north it is not technically considered'a spot zone. Lapp said that going back to the Neighborhood Plan, there was a lot of discussion of this particular property ,`because of the access. What I see as a significant difference `between this piece and Meridian Pointe is that the access to Meridian Pointe is restricted to Meridian Road. Having lived in the area, I know that the kids cut through. We cannot control that"aspect, but we can control vehicle access. I have a real problem with this proposal, at a density that would allow 26 units, the only access to the property is a cul-de-sac through a single family neighborhood. A neighborhood that is well established and has a serious road problem, which is the junction of West Arizona and 5th Ave WN. It is a hazardous intersection. Adding the potential of 26 more units compounds that. Related to that, is once the zone is changed anything allowed in that zone can be put in there. I realize there is a plan associated with this request, but minds and circumstances can ,change. I object to the staff's finding that "this property is an expansion of the existing RA-1 zone" on the basis that this is not being accessed through to Meridian, so it is not an extension of Meridian Pointe, even though it is contiguous to it. The access is in fact, through an R-3 zone. I also contend under the finding Does the Rectuested Zoning Give Reasonable Consideration to the Character of This District?, there is a strong neighborhood sense in -the Underhill/Arizona area. They have maintained it and managed to hold their area together by opposing the extension of Arizona onto Meridian, which would change the character completely. It is a backwater residential area, that is quiet and by sticking a potential of 26 units up there, we would have serious impacts on the neighborhood. I would support a modification to an R-4 classification. Parsons explained that the Board can make a recommendation for any zone of a lesser intensity use than what was requested. What has often been a point of contention is the definition of the word "district". We now have a legal opinion from Judge Curtis, and a district is defined by Kalispell, which is the district this is in. All of Kalispell. The Lower Side Zoning District is the district, the Willow Glen District, etc. So, district does not mean neighborhood. Bahr asked if it is letZo gally possible to develop access through one of these properties onto Meridian? Parsons answered that legally it was not possible. He explained that this a flag shaped lot. The request is for a portion of the lot to be rezoned to RA-1, with the intention of doing a boundary line adjustment to eliminate the flag pole part of the lot. The flag pole portion of the lot is less than 30 feet wide. It is not wide enough for a road easement to Meridian. The property also has 8 Motion inadequate access through the Underhill Subdivision. During the discussions on the North Meridian Neighborhood Plan, at one point we talked about punching the road '' through to connect with Meridian Road, because that was our understanding that it was the original intention of that road. The '`approval of the North Meridian Plan limited that access of the immediate property to the north. Hodgeboom asked the applicant if an R-4 zone would meet their objectives`' Mr. Mohrenweiser replied that he did not know. He doesn't know what would best fit the land until be gets information from his architects. To be denied access for the full potential of the property is not fair. Lopp said that there has to be a balance of the desires of the property owner with his neighbors. Whatever he does affects the valuation of their property. Kennedy pointed out that the Board has the option of granting the applicant a continuance of 30 days to give the developer an opportunity to review the possibility of applying for an R-4 zone. The applicant was asked to address their preference. Jean Johnson replied that it would be their desire to continue this matter for 30 days to give the applicant an opportunity to incorporate this into his long term plans for this property. Bahr moved to continue discussion on the Mohrenweiser zone change request for 30 days. Sanders seconded. Discussion followed on the motion to point out that the developer would potentially come back with a different proposal. The interests of the neighborhood should have an opportunity to comment at the next meeting. The motion was amended to open the meeting to public comment, as well. On a roll call vote Sanders, Hodgeboom, Lopp, Bahr, Carlson and Kennedy voted aye. The motion carried unanimously to continue this matter for 30 days. GLACIER BANK Next public hearing was introduced on a request by Glacier Bank CONDITIONAL for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-in banking facility. USE PERMIT The site would contain eight (8) drive -through lanes. Access would be from Center Street and form a proposed driveway connecting 1st and 3rd Avenue East North on the north side of Center Street. The property is part of Tract 2A in the SE4 of Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. 9 Staff Report Parsons presented an overview of report #KCU-95-03. Based on evaluation of the necessary criteria for the,,. requested conditional use, staff recommended granting the permit subject to nine (9) conditions of approval. Condition #3 "wasamended to delete the parking aspect of the condition, _as` At `was determined that adequate parking for the bank 'and for Lots 1 and 3 can be provided onsite. Therefore, Condition #3 would read: Enter into a cross access agreement with Lots 1 and 3 of Kalispell Market Place Phase 3. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the requested conditional use permit. In Favor Mick Blodnick, 475 3rd Avenue EN, Kalispell, stated that we have been working for many months putting this project together. We've had some problems with acquiring property in the past, because we wanted to keep this as a development that would continue to enhance the City of Kalispell and keep this business in the Kalispell area. We were successful in acquiring this land and are in the final stages of getting the subdivision approved. We have got a major problem with the drive-in facility where we are located now. It is approaching 20 years of age and is just not able to handle the traffic flow. We've got a major amount of congestion that takes place on 2nd Street between Nlain and 1st Avenue West. We feel that this new site and this new project off of Center Street will give us the ability to expand the facility, take pressure off that thoroughfare, and at the same time improve an area that is really just an abandoned lot. Our plan is to put a nice, attractive building with landscaping, similar to what we have done at our old parking lot. We want to start as soon as possible. John McMillan, President of Glacier Bank, 258 Juniper Bend Drive, spoke in favor of this project. The bank has a definite need for this project and we have no complaints with the conditions recommended by the staff. There were no others wishing to speak either in favor or in opposition to the proposal. The public hearing was closed and opened to Board discussion. Discussion Lopp asked about the 24 foot wide paved surface for the proposed east/west cut across. Parsons responded that this proposed road would meet City standards for a two-way travel way. It will be a private driveway. Motion Bahr moved to adopt FRDO staff report #KCU-95-03 as findings of fact and forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to grant the conditional use permit subject to the nine (9) conditions as amended. Lopp seconded. On a roll call vote Bahr, 10 Hodgeboom, Lopp, Carlson, Sanders and Kennedy voted aye. The motion carried 6-0 in favor. OLD BUSINESS Parsons announced that the State legislature has recently made changes to the subdivision regulations to become effective October 1, 1995. A public hearing will be held on the changes. The Kalispell Subdivision Regulations will be rewritten to reflect the legislative changes. There was no other old business. NEW BUSINESS The meeting time was discussed. The Planning Board members were polled and everyone present preferred that the meetings start at 7:00 p.m. rather than 6:00 p.m. There was no other new business. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. meta J. B. Kennedy, Vice -Chair E zabeth Ontko, Recording Secretary APPROVED: C11L S- 1 11