07-08-97KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
JULY 8, 1997
Master Plan Update There was a work session to work on the master plan update at 5:30
p.m. prior to the regular meeting.
CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City -County Planning
AND ROLL CALL Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:07 p.m. by Vice
President Kennedy. Board members present were Robert Sanders,
Walter Bahr, Milt Carlson, Robert Lopp, Joe Brenneman, Jean Johnson,
Mike Conner, and Pam Kennedy. Therese Hash was absent (excused).
The Flathead Regional Development Office was represented by Steve
Kountz, Senior Planner and Narda Wilson, Senior Planner. There were
12 people in attendance.
APPROVAL OF The minutes of the meeting of June 10, 1997 were approved as written
MINUTES on a motion by Bahr, second by Brenneman. All members voted aye.
O MERIDIAN The first public hearing was announced on a request by Meridian Offices,
OFFICES, LTD & Ltd., and Leslie J. and Patricia Tinseth for a zone change from B-1, a
TINSETH / ZONE Neighborhood Buffer District, to B-2, a General Commercial zoning
CHANGE / FROM district. The properties proposed for rezoning contain approximately
B-1 TO B-2 2.13 acres and are located between Meridian Road and Glenwood Drive
approximately 800 feet north of Two Mile Drive, and can be described as
the east 315 feet of Assessor's Tract 5CF, Quirk's Addition No. 46, and
the east 125 feet of Assessor's Tract 5CE in Section 12, Township 28
North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County.
Staff Report Wilson presented an overview of the application as set forth in report
#KZC-97-2. Based on the findings staff recommended the zone change
from B-1 to B-2 be approved.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to proponents of the zone change.
In Favor Mike Fraser, a tenant in the building, as well as a property owner, spoke
in favor of the zone change. The B-2 request provides more flexibility
for signage. The building is occupied, and the tenants want more
exposure which is provided under the B-2 zoning. It is in general
character with the existing development and is in conformance with the
neighborhood plan. Because it is already developed, we don't anticipate
Oany impacts or increase in use of services.
l j The public hearing was closed and opened to Board discussion.
Board Discussion Wilson was asked to compare the signage differences between the B-1 and B-
2 zones. There is a significant difference. The Board discussed the potential
signage that could be utilized for this property.
Motion Bahr moved to adopt staff report #KZC-97-2 as findings of fact, and forward
a recommendation to City Council to grant the zone change from B-1 to B-2.
Sanders seconded. On a roll call vote, the motion carried 8-0 in favor.
MILLSPAUGH The next public hearing was introduced on a request by Nels and Virginia
ZONE CHANGE Millspaugh for a zone change from SAG-10 a Suburban Agricultural zoning
/ FROM SAG-10 district which requires a ten acre minimum lot size; to SAG-5, a Suburban
TO SAG-5 Agricultural zoning district which requires a five acre minimum lot size. The
property proposed for rezoning is in the Lower Side Zoning District and
contains approximately 10.20 acres. It is located west of Wapiti Acres
Subdivision, west of Airport Road approximately 1,000 feet between Rocky
Cliff Drive and Cemetery Road. The property can be described as an
approximate 10.20 acre portion of Amended Lot 13 of Wapiti Acres
Subdivision located in Section 31, Township 28 North, Range 21 West,
P.M.M., Flathead County.
OStaff Report Wilson gave a detailed presentation of report #FZC-97-6. The statutory basis
for reviewing a change in zoning were discussed, and staff recommended the
zone change be granted. She noted that a preliminary plat for a proposed
minor subdivision for a cluster development has been submitted and will be
processed concurrent with the zone change.
Disclosure of Jean Johnson disclosed that he presented the original application in 1995 for
Potential Conflict the Millspaughs. They do not represent them, now. It is not the same
proposal, and he does not have a personal conflict with the project.
Questions Bahr asked about the adjoining 10 acre parcel. Wilson replied that Lot 13D is
not part of the request for a zone change, and would remain SAG-10.
Kennedy asked about stafrs findings for the first statutory criteria that states
that the proposed zone change is considered in "marginal" compliance with
the Master Plan.
Wilson answered that a Suburban Agricultural zone, such as SAG-5, is
difficult to classify as an agricultural sized lot. In my personal opinion, a true
agricultural lot needs to be 20-40 acres. The master plan does not specify lot
size when defining agricultural lots.
Kennedy asked if preserving the open space and providing the scenic areas, is
2
Kennedy asked if preserving the open space and providing the scenic areas,
is met by the SAG-5, or it is preserved by keeping the remainder at SAG-
10?
Wilson said that by using a cluster design rather than dividing it into two 5-
acre parcels, creates open space and preserves scenic areas.
If this is approved tonight, couldn't they come back for a zone change on
that other parcel?
They could come before this Board again, for another zone change.
Kennedy, noted that we would be setting a precedence if this were granted,
for further zone changes for smaller lot sizes.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened for those in favor of the zone change
request.
In Favor Dawn Marquardt, representative for the Millspaughs, explained how they
arrived at the current proposal. The ten acre parcel they want to leave in
O the SAG-10 is not suitable for subdivision, and the applicants have no
intention of dividing it any further. The reason for this, is that when they
bought the land, they were not well informed, and the parcel got attached to
their lot in Wapiti Acres. They cannot sell their house without selling the
land that is behind it. The main reason for this subdivision is to split off the
lot with their house on it. The subdivision is consistent with most of the
tracts in the neighborhood. The SAG-5 has a rectangle of SAG-10 in the
middle of it. More than half the lots in the SAG-5 are less than 5 acres. We
will meet all the requirements for subdivision to create these tracts. It will
allow them to split off one additional lot from what they can do at the
present time.
No one else spoke in favor. The public hearing was opened to those in
opposition.
Opposition Gary Crowe, attorney representing the Roberts family, spoke in opposition
to the zone change. The major argument against this proposal is that this is
the same proposal you saw 1 V2 year ago. The situation presented to you
last year was denied because of the density, and improper footwork. The
grade of this property does not allow for this type of development, as well
as other problems, that warranted the rejection at that time, and warrant the
rejection this time. You have no assurances that the property owners would
come back in a year's time with subsequent proposals for subdividing. He
reviewed previous proposals for this property, which resulted in the
nadjoining property owners, including the Millspaughs, to buy the property in
O
question. Now, the Millspaughs are proposing this development. I say that
my clients have a detrimental reliance on the master plan. These plans are in
place for a purpose, so when it says this is in "marginal" compliance with
the master plan, that raises big red flags.
Additional septic systems in an already overly populated area is a problem.
There are water table problems. It is a game preserve. You can see this
area from Highway 93, and it is patently unfair to everyone in this area and
those who travel to this area, to view this type of density. With this type of
spot zoning, it sets a precedence for everyone else to create a spot, which
adds up to a mess.
My clients were well informed when they bought their property, and that is
why they bought it, because they thought the zoning prohibited this type of
development from happening. We have heard that the Millspaughs were
not well informed and they had financial hardships. This should not be a
consideration. I would question how they were able to contribute to
purchasing the large parcel of land with the other neighbors.
I also question Mr. Johnson on whether you are able to maintain neutrality
on this vote. You spoke as a supporter of this project. I would request that
you recuse yourself from voting, based on the appearance of impropriety.
Loy Roberts, property owner of Tract 1BAA, adjacent to the subject
property. This proposal is not in the least bit conforming to what exists in
the neighborhood. There is a hillside with a lot of old growth trees. It is
spectacularly beautiful up there. The only exception to that beauty is that
part of this parcel was very aggressively logged by the Millspaughs. You
can see it from the road. If they do a dense cluster development on that, it
will further damage this particular area. Above this parcel is a hillside not
touched by any development, whatsoever. We have put parts of our
property in a view easement. Our neighbors have put Tract 5CB into a
view easement. We did very much rely on the existing zoning that was in
place when we bought our property. The natural view flows from lot to lot.
The only thing that interrupts it at this particular time is the logging which
has caused the weed problem. It is very extensive and affects my property
right now. I don't see any economic gain for the Millspaughs in turning the
ten acre piece into a cluster. I see a loss to the community. I am against the
zone change.
No one else spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed and it was
opened to Board deliberation.
10
Board Discussion The Board did not feel that Jean Johnson had a conflict, as he had disclosed
his prior involvement with the Millspaughs' project, but is no longer
working on this.
They reviewed the summary of the proposal presented in December of
1995, and their reasons for denial.
Lopp had concern with staff findings that said that this proposed zone
change was in "marginal" compliance with the Master Plan.
Wilson pointed out that the entire area is designated in the master plan as
agriculture/silviculture. In my opinion, all of this zoning is in marginal
compliance with the master plan, because you can't really sustainably
harvest timber or productive agricultural activities on 5 acres. The master
plan does not designate a lot size or density in an agricultural area. But for
the purposes of evaluation of subdivision proposals, the SAG-5 designation
complies with the master plan.
Lopp commented that it becomes quite subjective, when we get to that
point. In the discussion, when that property was purchased by a number of
people, to prevent the extreme development proposed, they made it very
clear that they would like to keep that area fairly free of development.
There were solid reasons for it, that are mentioned in the summary.
Potentially sensitive to fire and erosion. Lot 13B is approximately 440 feet
long, and has an elevation change of 100 feet. Lot 13A, where the house is
located has an elevation change of 20 feet on 396 feet. Lot 13C has an 80
foot elevation change on 348 feet, which includes the road. I see that as
very steep terrain for housing, particularly when we are looking at septic
systems. That is part of the argument of why a group of people got
together and bought that slope to prevent one acre tracts. This proposal
creates a one acre net on each of the two lots, and the open space, which is
steeper. The last time this was discussed, in 1995, there was considerable
discussion of the issue of the unfortunate mistake that was made when they
purchased the 20 acres of having it added to 13A. The problem was, that
once added, difficult to get back to its original. If the purpose is to sell the
lot where their residence is, I would much prefer seeing them pursue
rectifying the boundary change, since the original lot is an integral part of
Wapiti Acres. It doesn't seem to me to be that impossible to reverse that. I
don't see much change from what is being proposed now from what was
proposed 1 1/2 year ago. The issues are still the same.
Brenneman asked if there was a zoning designation that recognized the
desire to preserve open space. It doesn't seem to be relevant that 5 or 10
acres is a viable agricultural entity, because in some cases what the
community wants is a scenic open space. Isn't SAG-5 the closest we come
5
7) to keeping what the community actually wants, but then to say that it isn't
really a viable agricultural entity, therefore we can divide it further. That
seems to me that we aren't really addressing the issue that is being
presented on scenic views.
Wilson responded that part of the reason we have large tract zoning districts
is to preserve open space, and those are some of the goals in the master
plan. That is part of the reason that I followed that up with because of the
proposal, it does meet those goals. Basically, the hillside remains
undeveloped.
Brenneman pointed out that it does as long as the owners choose to keep it
that way, and subsequent planning commissions and commissioners agree to
that also. I don't think it addresses them coming in again for another zone
change. If lot 13D and the area designated as open space, came before the
planning commission with some sort of permanent easement on it, I could
probably support this, but as it is, I have difficulty.
Wilson explained that the open space would be a term of preliminary plat
approval. Another homesite could be placed on Lot 13D.
The Board clarified, however, that since it was a zone change request,
`.� conditions cannot be placed upon this application. The preliminary plat will
go before the Commissioners, and not this Board. It would be up to the
Commissioners to place such a condition on the plat.
There was discussion on the steep slopes in the area, which was an issue the
last time this came before the Board.
Motion Lopp moved that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission adopt FRDO report #FZC-97-6 as findings of fact, and
legitimately, based on these findings, recommend the County
Commissioners deny the requested zone change from SAG-10 to SAG-5.
Bahr seconded.
Discussion on Lopp felt that the issue of marginal is subjective. It can be looked at as
Motion marginally complying, or you can look at it and say definitely not, with the
site being potentially sensitive to fire and erosion. It is very steep, which is
clearly shown on the topo map. It is interjected into SAG-10. I have no
problem with the findings of fact, but I disagree with the interpretation of
the findings of fact.
There was further discussion on the findings of fact, and whether the Board
�} should make new or additional findings.
RI
Amended Motion Based on the discussion, Lopp amended his motion to adopt the findings of
fact in report #FZC-97-6 and recommend approval of the zone change
request. Bahr accepted the amendment and seconded.
Roll Call Vote On a roll call vote Sanders and Johnson voted aye. Conner, Bahr,
Brenneman, Carlson, Kennedy, and Lopp voted no. The motion failed on a
motion of 2 in favor, 6 opposed.
OLD BUSINESS Under old business, the unfinished discussion on the meeting schedule for
the master plan continued. .A scoping meeting was agreed upon to be held
in August 26"' at the Justice Center, if it is available.
NEW BUSINESS The County's proposed renovation of the County Parks buildings into a
new animal shelter was discussed. Kennedy will be attending the meeting
with the County Commissioners. The Board agreed to have Kennedy
request a public hearing on the matter.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. at 7:50 p.m.
-� Pamela J.B. Ke ed ,Vice-Chairp iz Ontko, Recording Secretary
APPROVED: a
C�
7