Loading...
03-10-98O KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION MINTUES OF MEETING MARCH 10, 1998 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 7:02 p.m. Board members present were Don Garberg, Walter Bahr, Joe Brenneman, Milt Carlson, Don Hines, Therese Hash, Jean Johnson, Gregory Stevens, and Rob Heinecke. The Flathead Regional Development Office was represented by Narda Wilson, Senior Planner. There were 4 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF The minutes of the meeting of February 10, 1998 were approved as MINUTES written on a motion by Bahr, second by Carlson. FLATHEAD The first public hearing was introduced on a request by Flathead Health HEALTH CENTER Center, Inc. for a conditional use permit to allow the placement of a CONDITIONAL temporary office building which is intended to provide office space for USE PERMIT approximately seven employees in an H-1, Hospital zoning district. The property is located south of Kalispell Regional Hospital at 325 Claremont Street, Kalispell. Rob Heinecke declared a conflict of interest and stepped down from the Board. Staff Report Wilson presented an overview of report #KCU-98-3. The application was reviewed in accordance with all the necessary criteria, and four (4) conditions of approval were recommended. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor. In Favor David Greer, planning consultant for Northwest Healthcare, explained the request which is part of their long term plans for the facility. There will not be an increase in employees or need for parking. No existing parking will be displaced. No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed and opened to Board discussion. �) Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of March 10, 1998 Page 1 of 8 _ Board Discussion There was discussion on the temporary nature of the office building. It will be set on a temporary foundation that is acceptable to the Building Department. An administrative conditional use permit could be issued if there is a need to have an extension on the permit. Motion Bahr made the motion to adopt the findings of fact in report #KCU-98-3, and forward a favorable recommendation to City Council to grant the conditional use permit subject to the four (4) conditions. Carlson seconded. On a roll call vote, the motion carried 8-0. Heinecke returned to the Board. HINES The next public hearing was introduced on a request by Don Hines for ANNEXATION annexation into the city of Kalispell and initial zoning of B-2, General WITH INITIAL Business zoning district. The property is located on the west side of ZONING / B-2 Highway 93 South, south of Big R Home and Ranch Supply. Don Hines declared a conflict of interest and stepped down from the Board. Staff Report Wilson gave a presentation of report #KA-98-2, with a recommendation Oto zone the property B-2 upon annexation into the City of Kalispell. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor. In Favor Don Hines, the applicant, spoke in favor, and explained the reason for the request. No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed and opened to Board discussion. Motion Carlson moved to adopt staff report #KA-98-2 as findings of fact and forward a favorable recommendation to City Council to zone the property B-2, General Business upon annexation. Bahr seconded. On a roll call vote, the motion carried 8-0 in favor. KALISPELL - The next public hearing was introduced on request by the City of ZONING TEXT Kalispell for a zoning text amendment to the Kalispell Zoning AMENDMENTS Ordinance, Section 27.22.030, Design Standards for Single -Family Dwellings. The proposed text amendment will primarily address requirements for manufactured housing in the city of Kalispell, and U Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of March 10, 1998 Page 2 of 8 would affect all areas in the city of Kalispell which allows single-family dwellings. Staff Report Wilson gave a detailed presentation of report #KZTA-98-1. The amendments were evaluated in accordance with statutory criteria, and staff recommended the text amendments be made to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, based on the findings of fact. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the text amendments. In Favor Diana Harrison, Zoning Administrator for the City of Kalispell, said that the city has worked closely with FRDO on these amendments, which came about as a result of problems that we have had with placing manufactured housing in the city. She was in support of the changes. No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the proposed text amendments. The public hearing was closed and opened to Board discussion. Board Discussion There was considerable discussion on the state statutes pertaining to manufactured housing. Stevens argued that the proposed design standards are contrary to state law, in regards to moving a manufactured home. It did not make sense to him. Brenneman noted that one of the statutory criteria is looking at the preservation of property values. There was considerable argument on what the state statute says about defining manufactured housing, and where it is allowed. It was noted that the City does not have to provide for manufactured housing according to state law, but with this text amendment it is actually broadening the zoning to allow them in more zoning districts. The standard pertaining to whether or not the homes have been previously moved, thus causing structural damage, is the point in contention. Narda interjected that there is nothing in the state statutes that says that local government has to adopt this as a definition for manufactured housing. She felt it was probably a moot issue since manufactured homes placed in the city are of a permanent nature. Motion Brenneman moved to adopt the findings of fact in report #KZTA-98-1, Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of March 10, 1998 Page 3 of 8 and based on these findings recommend that City Council make the amendments listed on page 9 to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. Bahr seconded. Amendment to Bahr moved to amend Section 27.22.03: Design Standards for Single Motion & Roll Call Family Dwellings (1) to delete the last phrase "...and have not beeft Vote on Amendment ." Stevens seconded. On a roll call vote Garberg, Heinecke, Bahr, Stevens, Hines, and Johnson voted aye. Hash, Carlson, and Brenneman voted no. The motion carried on a 6-3 vote. Roll Call Vote on On a roll call vote to recommend that City Council consider and adopt Amended Motion the amendments to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance as amended, Brenneman, Heinecke, Garberg, Stevens, Johnson, Hines and Bahr voted aye. Carlson and Hash voted no. The motion carried 7-2. NEW BUSINESS Under new business was consideration of amendments to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. Updating the zoning ordinance was one of the FRDO work program assignments. The intent is to clarify and make the ordinance easier to understand and administer. Wilson brought several sections of the ordinance for review. The Planning Board can then either hold public hearings on the whole thing, or hold several public hearings on different sections. Stevens asked what the rights were of collective property owners? Wilson replied that the collective property owners would have a reasonable expectation to have their property values protected which would be damaged by incompatible uses. Individual property owners would have the reasonable expectation to have zoning provide some predictability of how their neighborhood would develop. They would have the right to anticipate certain safety standards associated with development, or aesthetic standards. Hash suggested that unless this a statutory criteria, that this be left to those criteria, and it be stricken. Carlson favored consistency with the County zoning regulations for ease of administration. The concept of takings was discussed, and felt that it was unnecessary to Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of March 10, 1998 Page 4 of 8 n put under the general provisions. The law of takings and just compensation is enormous and it seems superfluous. The Board and staff went through the proposed changes, most of which were housecleaning amendments. Next month, another section of the zoning ordinance will be reviewed. OLD BUSINESS Under old business was consideration of rezoning in the Foys Lake Area from AG-40 to SAG-5. The issue has come up from a zone change request from Dan Pearce, that has resulted in the Commissioners asking that the Planning Board look at the entire area for the appropriateness of rezoning to SAG-5. Hash felt it was important to look at this area as part of the whole update, and not piecemeal as a knee jerk reaction to a particular landowner's request, which is self motivated. A master plan update is an elaborate process and everyone gets an opportunity to make comments. Many considerations are taken into account. So, to address only a part of the area is premature. Stevens pointed out that he feels the 40 acres in question is a defacto SAG-5. Changing that particular piece would not have any impact on anything. He couldn't see any reason why Mr. Peace couldn't split his 12 acres into two 6 acre parcels. It wouldn't be spot zoning , because it is already spot zoning, and there are six property owners in the 40 acre. Hash pointed out that the other property owners have not come forward with an application for a zone change which would legally be considered spot zoning. If all the property owners came forward with a request, it would be reviewed under different criteria. Motion Stevens made the motion to proceed with staff s recommendation #1 in her memorandum dated March 2, 1998, to move forward by designating specific boundaries, compiling a list of property owners in the area and conducting a neighborhood meeting and /or survey regarding the general interest in rezoning the area. Bahr seconded. Discussion on Motion Johnson commented that he thought the intent of the Commissioners was to look at the entire Foys Lake area. It is a rapidly growing area. Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of March 10, 1998 Page 5 of 8 (—� The idea of taking 40 acres out of the middle of it is ineffective. I am opposed to tying it up with the master plan update, that may take years. The issue is the Foys Lake area is improperly zoned to accommodate what's happening. If we have to sit here every month and address another 40 acres in the same area, it is defeating our purpose. We should step up and address the whole area like the Commissioners want us to. We can't do spot zoning. As far as I'm concerned, we've already ruled on Mr. Pearce's application. We are talking about the whole area. Hash agreed that the entire area be considered, and suggested that staff bring a map next meeting to determine the boundaries of the area. Brenneman commented that this begs the issue, if we have this coming before us because of a single property owner. The others aren't requesting a rezone. So, we are going to do the entire Foys Lake area, because one property owner doesn't like his zone. I don't think there is any reason for us to draw these arbitrary boundaries. Bahr observed that of this 40 acres, there are 6 tracts within the two 40's north of this adjoining the SAG-5, none of which are 40 acres. The entire area is ripe for redesignation. Wilson pointed out that there may be lots in the area that do not conform to the AG-40 zoning. It was not zoned for what is there. It was based on the steep slopes in the area, the roads are substandard, the services are inadequate to support additional growth, and the AG-40 zoning is a means of controlling density. Zoning is a method of directing future development, so you will find parcels that are non -conforming in agricultural zoning districts. Hash observed that if we were to go ahead and recommend alternative #1, essentially we are instituting a master plan amendment without a request. Carlson stated that this is a master plan amendment just before the master plan update goes before public hearings, plus all the other criteria that must be considered, which would take a long time, such as the steep slopes and wildfire potential. Stevens argued that Mr. Pearce is a fireman, and has taken necessary precautions to not endanger himself, his family or his neighbors. This CKalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of March 10, 1998 Page 6 of 8 property doesn't interface with any government land, so I don't think it can interface with wildland. It is already a defacto SAG-5 zone. The Commissioners are asking us to just accept the fact that it is there, and verify it with the appropriate zone. Roll Call Vote There was a roll call vote on the motion to proceed with staffs alternative #1 to designate specific boundaries for rezoning. Bahr, Johnson, Hines, Garberg, Heinecke, and Stevens voted aye. Carlson, Brenneman and Hash voted no. The motion carried 6-3. Motion Carlson moved to recommend including alternative #2, to incorporate consideration of this area as part of the master plan update process to assess the appropriate density for the Foys Lake area. Bahr seconded. Discussion on Motion There was dissension on whether staffs three alternatives were mutually exclusive or not. Stevens said that when he made his motion, he meant that the boundaries were to be the 40 acre parcel with the 6 properties within it. Hash and Brenneman argued that carving out a chunk of land to be rezoned cannot be done. That is spot zoning. Looking at a broader area would entail a neighborhood plan. A neighborhood plan is initiated by the public. Johnson again stressed that Mr. Pearce's request is a done deal. The zone change request was denied and that is a dead issue. As a result, the Commissioners have asked that we look at the entire area to see of the zoning is appropriate for what is going on there. Zoning is not a method of building infrastructure. Should we carve out this neighborhood, or should we include it with the entire master plan update process. Carlson pointed out that a neighborhood planning process could take as long or longer than the master plan update. The motion was restated and clarified that the direction given to staff is to designate specific boundaries in an area appropriate for rezoning with the master plan update process — A no vote would mean that the Board Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of March 10, 1998 Page 7 of 8 was defeated on a 4-5 vote. There was a question on what is spot zoning. Hash suggested that the county attorney be consulted on spot zoning, as designating the 40 acres, as proposed -by Stevensis illegal. Johnson commented that this seems like a waste of time, because it is part of the master plan process, The Board clarified that what they voted on was to move forward with a neighborliood'plan for the Foys Lake area separate from the master plan update process. Staff was directed to bring a map next meeting, and it win be up to us to draw those boundaries. Other Old Business The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation is scheduled to give a presentation on wilct lan(I/fire interface at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. 4-�'Uv UU, 4 I - OTherese-Fo)cHash, President �Zth Ontko,- Recording Secretary APPROVED: a-o Cclv� c5� ✓ v I l R N Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of March 10, 1998 Page 8' of '8