Loading...
09-10-98K LISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION MHINUTES OF MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 1998 CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City -County Planning AND ROLL CALL Board was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Board members present were Walter Bahr, Milt Carlson, Therese Hash, Don Hines, Don Garberg, Rob Heinecke, Greg Stevens, and Jean Johnson, Joe Brenneman arrived at 8:45 p,m. (excused). The Flathead Regional Development Office was represented by Steve Kountz, Senior Planner. There were eight (8) people in the audience. APPROVAL OF The minutes of the meeting of August 11, 1998 were approved as written N TUTES on a motion by Bahr, second by Carlson. ROYBAL ZONE The public hearing was introduced on a request by Paul Roybal for a CHANCE / SAG-5 zone change from SAG-5, Suburban Agricultural, to R-I, Suburban TOR-1 Residential, for approximately six acres near the north end of Foys Lake on Foys Lake Road, Montana highway 404. Conflict of Interest Don .Hines declared a conflict of interest and stepped down from the Board. Staff Report Kountz gave a detailed overview of report #FZC-98-9. The application was evaluated in accordance with the statutory criteria for a _change in. zoning. Based. on the findings, staff recommended the zone change from.. SAG-5 to R-1 be denied. Steep slopes and dangerous road- and no sight distance far intersection; erosion from bank above lake, fire concerns, difficult to fight fires on steep slopes. Significant environmental problems are the basis for denial, although the master plan anticipates this type of development in the Foys Lake area. it is a matter. of timing for adequate infrastructure. ,Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in, .favor. In Favor Paul Roybal, the applicant, handed out topo maps for Board review. The issue regarding. slope, as indicated. on .the topo maps done by the surveyors he hired, clearly states it does not exceed. 22%. and so that. information is false. It does not.exceed 30%_ A zone change has to be Kali,"]] City -County Planning Board. Mc:cting of Sr pWmbcT 10, 199$ Pagc 1 of 8 �> acquired. before we can do a subdivision. It is not our immediate anticipation for the property. Property is generally zoned R-t and R 2 surrounding his property. There has always been three. parcels that do not comply with SAG-5. We- are trying to have a uniform situation. It clearly complies with suburban --residential. The approach is already approved by county road department. [He submitted photos showing adequate sight distance for his approach.] The approach at the, county. park is a far more hazardous .access. His personal feelings are that the report misrepresents the property, and disagrees with the findings. During his preliminary meeting with Narda, she says his property is designated for R-1, so this report was a shock. No one else spoke in favor. (apposition Kurt Markus, owns the l 15 acre parcel to west, said, he understands the man's feeling to- do with his land what he wants. The Master Plan is a good idea. 1[f 1 were asking for a 115 one -acre subdivision, would it be granted? He is asking fora ,subdivision on a small parcel that does not provide any amenities to the property owner.. This trend of T.-acre. pieces. has no aesthetics and does not work with the land. Kathryn Samuel,. 225 Terrace Road, testified. thatall the: parcels of land up there are 5-acre minimum .on septics. We pay .for all our services. T. am opposed to this zone change,, mainly because the house below ours on the lake, started building; but could- not get .septic, so-it,is not finished. The bank erodes onto the. road, and it. is nothing but clay and shale. You cannot put 5-6 septics there. Foys-Lake. is already at the point of being polluted. The, entrance to the park is. clear sight. Winter driving conditions will be worse on sharp curve Raye Vall, 11 l Terrace Road; we have 15 acres, and we had trouble getting a septic permit. Their land is even steeper than ours. How can they put septic, systems on: five acres. T. don't think we gain anything by developing that land. He will gain, but we won't. No one, else spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed and opened to. Board discussion. Board Discussion Hash is familiar with this area. and can appreciate. the speeds on, Boys Lake Road and the steep banks. Even though this is not a subdivision request, a change to an R-1 envisions. a higher density than what is there. I have concerns about the access point; and living. on that steep slope; �J Kalispell City-Cauzlty Maiming Fo ird Meeting of September 10,1998 Page 2of 8 agree with the concerns about the poor soils. Health regulations may preclude any development. I would concur with staff report. Heinecke asked how staff came up with the percentages for steep. slopes?. Kountz replied that he got his information from USES maps, which are at 20 feet contour intervals. I did not have the information from Mr. Roybal and did not know more detailed maps were available until a .few minutes ago. There was discussion and clarification on the access. Roybal has obtained an approach permit from the county far two parcels. He has done a boundary line adjustment so that there are two existing parcels. We- are not trying to create five parcels and squeeze five accesses in there. K.ountz clarified that an approach permit is for a driveway, and the county has a very hard time denying access to someone's property. The county, -can. however, -deny -subdivisions creating rnore.property. If this is zoned R-t, it- is conceivable that it can be divided into . smaller tracts, possibly by family transfer, and it is, hard to deny access to each tract, even if in difficult. locations. An approach permit for a driveway is different thanan: approach permit for a new road that would serve a 5-lot subdivision. Greater sight distance requirements would be looked at. Just because a driveway was approved here does not .mean that a road intersection would. Hash asked the applicant why he was seeking an R 1 zone change_ Mr. Roybal replied that it would benefit me for appraisal value of the property, for the potential to give my daughter a pieceof property 20 years from now, and if I should .decide to sell the property, and someone wants to subdivide it, it would -enhance my property. Roybal has no immediate intention for subdivision. He wants to keep his 5 acres, with possible second one acre lot fora residence. We do own, 300 feet of lake frontage with a dock permit. The total acreage is 5.96, so six lots with puttinga road in, is. irrelevant for discussion. Slope is more considerable to the east .of property. Stevens had .a problem with the staff report. This is a zone. changenot a subdivision application. We are not reviewing a subdivision. Tf we change the zone, there is a, liklihood that it wouldn't get approved for UKalispell City-Coulity Planni i oard Meeting -of -September 10, 1998 Page 3.of 8 roads, septics, or steep -slopes. Just: because, there are strict standards are not a reason- to turn something dawn. The plan, is 1-2 years old; so I don't t1jink, this is premature, Having lake frontage, would increase 1Vir. Roybal's bank account. He hasn't said that he is going to put five lots. He -does not -have -enough., acreage to put in five lots, i find his application to be accurate; truthful and direct. He proceeded to go through; entire staff -report and claimed that all --findings -are erroneous, and irrelevant because it is not a subdivision. Hash agreed that there was differing information on slopes, and that would- be a reason to Have-- staff review the _report based o:. that new information, Making personal attacks when staff is working with the information available to them, is unfair. Motion Stevens moved to adopt a T-esolution.-directing Steve Kountz to take this recommendation back to- rewrite- it in accordance with reality, and resubmit to this Board at a -special. -meeting neNt Tuesday night.at 7:00 p.m. The motion died for lack of a second. Board Discussion -Garberg -asked Mrs. Markus. to -comment. Resumed Maria Mark -us, -stated that they have not developed their 115 acres -of 0agricultural land, Mr. Roybat already has part of his property for sale; has moved the boundary line and has -big -house being -built, with well -and septic. So; he already has his big Douse; Why he wants to put' More- house$ -on such a small -piece -of -land,. -it is destruction -of the land and property around- it. It if it were up to developers, it would all be -subdivided. It would be a -crime. It would open the floodgates. The whole place would be cut up: Johnson. addressed -slopes. When.. you take two contour lines and try to interpret a slope on a scale of .1:2000, it can be misconstrued. If you had offered that information to staff, -it would have -made a difference. He commented that today's standards for septic systems are -very advanced. Subdivisions today are under an entire different set of criteria than when you got yours. Another .point I'd like to make is that 3-4 months ago, the Commissioners. -directed this Planning Board to do something with Foys Lake, We have not done anything- except look at one other similar application that wanted to do a similar thing. He ended up getting, it. You . say that Foys Lake is going to. be degraded — it is up to you folks. Do a neighborhood plan.. Otherwise we will be here month after month hearing the same situation. Technically, he hasa. pretty good case. If the Kalispell City-Cotmty Planning Board Mcctiug of Scptcmbcr 10,.1998- Page: 4of 8 n basis for denying this application is steep slopes, we have evidence that it / is not steep slopes. Kountz pointed -out that essentially a -neighborhood plan was done. The Lower- Side Zoning District has been done and it was zoned SACS-5-. It went through a neighborhood planning -process to create that zoning. The 22% slope is still a steep slope. To access, for erosion concerns, for potential for scarring, and other concerns. I could respond to some of Mr. Steven's comments on erroneous and truthfulness. The only erroneous information was on slopes. I would recommend that the Board look at changing the references in. the staff report that talk about "-more than 30% slope", and change it to -approximately 22% slope on the steeper part of the lot, up against Foys Lake to reflect the new information made available. Other than that, I know of no. other inaccurate information. Opinion of whether it is an agricultural or a rural area, is subjective. The existing zoning on three sides is suburban agricultural; the property to- the north is farmed, and many of the surrounding parcels are large. In terms of rural, the main concern is that it is outside of urban area of Kalispell. Hash reminded the Board that we -are charged with planning. Planning envisions long term. Mr: Roybal claims he has no intention of subdividing, but has admitted he would profit from this decision. We need to address how we want .growth to occur. Jean is correct that the Commissioners directed- this Board to consider certain planning: in this area, however, I take greatexception to the implication that the applicant received that -permit without vehement objection on many of our -parts. Yes, it passed; but by a very slim: margin. There was vehement opposition. I -don't feel the. Foys -Lake area is -appropriatefor a denser development that now exists. The lake front of which is spoken of, is a sliver, and is a,very steep slope. There may be. water and sewer extended in the future and then perhaps it would be appropriate. Acknowledging change in slopes, I see no other changes in the report. Kountz said- that he would still: give the same recommendation. It is still steep slopes and there is no opportunity to review roads when it is a family transfers. Mrs. Ball asked about development pressure regarding Foys Lake. Johnson felt that this area should be planned.and ;not be bodge podge like what is happening. Commissioners directed us to consider that area. It Kalispell City-Coimty Planning Board Meeting of September 10,1998 Page 5of 8 is going to be residential, city plans to extend sewer and water. It behooves us to figure it out, rather than have messes. There are vehicles to avoid subdivision regulations, however not health regulations. Carlson pointed out that this Board is to act on the facts as presented by the applicant and staff, as well as public input. I noticed that Mr. Stevens missed #I that the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the surrounding parcel sizes, and does not give reasonable consideration to the character of the district. Motion Carlson made the motion that the Planning Board adopt staff report #FZC-98. 9 as findings of fact, changing the topographical information in the report from 30% to 15% wherever it occurs; and recoinmend the Board of Commissioners deny the requested zone change from SAG-5 to R-1 based on: those findings. Bahr seconded. Discussion on Motion Heinecke had trouble with it. T bds is an ideal spot for develop. The septic concerns are valid, but are taker, up with the Sanitation depart►►ent. If they can't get a pegs it, then the house won't be built. Unfortunately, someone couldn't go any further because they couldn't get ;a septa permit. That is their -fault. Septic concerns do riot apply here. If the 4--oad depar tinent doesn't have any problem with safety, then T don't see why we should. The.zoning is appropriate. Garberg pointed out that there is a reason for the zoning. That is what we are here for. We need to look at the whole picture. All the. people around it -are opposed. to it. There is a- reason for that. Nothing. is right. about this. We are trying to have Some tinh-non sense about preventing urban sprawl. Hash pointed out that. the approach is for a single driveway,, not for a subdivision. Johnson asked if we are rewriting the regulations for steep slope standards. Kountz reviewed the regulations for the Board that pertain to this particular item. Hash noted; that as a Board, we do not have that professional expertise on % of slope. We have gotten information from staff that it is still considered steep slopes, as well as other issues involved. We have the Kalispell City -County Planning Board Meeting of September. 10, 1998 Page 6of 8 public we need to listen to. I don't think we are trying to rewrite the book. Carlsson explained that his motion was not intended to: set a different standard. For this particular area, and in consideration of the property and surrounding property, just rewrite the staff report to change . the topographical information that reads where it exceeds 30%, change to 15%. Roll Call Vote On a: roll call vote Bahr, Carlson, Garberg and hash voted aye. Heinecke, Johnson, and Stevens voted no. The motion for denial of the zone:change request from SA&5 to R-1 carried on.a<vote of 4-3. Discussion on Master Kountz. reviewed information sent out on the master plan update. After Plan Update the numerous meetings held on this; and three consensus committee meetings, a preliminary draft of the plan was sent for comment. There was discussion on the suggestions set forth in the memorandum of September .1, 1.998 from Steve Kountz to the Kalispell City County Planning Board. Stevens stated that the map is the most important part, and he had to go up the office to get a copy. Kountz answered that he had submitted maps to each Boardmember along with all the other information generated during this ongoing process. The maps cost the taxpayers $2.00 each, but if the members no longer have the maps submitted earlier, then he will get them another. The Board agreed by consensus to have more time. to read thedraft and make. comments at the. next meeting. Discussion on Draft The next item for discussion was the draft bike plan, of which the Board Bike Plan received a presentation on at the July meeting. The Board opted to comment. -on. the bike plan.. as it is part of the Master Plan at the next. meeting, as well. Kountz recommended some.changes to the bike plan for implementation. He will outline the issues for Board review. NEW BUSINESS There. wasno new business. Kalispell, City-Gouaty Planating Boar Meeting of September 10, 1998 Page 7of 8 OLD BUSINESS At. the last meeting, .staff was directed to provide information on ethics and ex parte communication. Wilson had compiled some information from other areas, and the state. statutes pertaining to same. There was considerable discussion on this topic. Ethics is a complicated issue. The Planning Board is considered a quasi-judicial body that recommends land use decisions to the governing bodies. As a quasi- judicial body, the Board must consider proper. procedure for public hearings. Other states have specific laves pertaining to ethics, however Montana -does not have as much case. law applicability. Staff was .directed to draft letters to the City Council and the County Commissioners asking themto ask the City Attorney and, the County. Attorney for direction on this issue. Motion The -motion was made by Garberg to have draft letters to the City Council. and the County Commissioners asking that they have the City Attorney and the -County Attorney provide direction to the Planning Board with regards to a code of ethics and ex parte commundcation. Heinecke seconded. The motion carried by unanimous consent. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p,m. C� Therese Fox Hash, President Elizabeth. Ontko, Recording, Secretary APPROVED: L) Kalispell City -County Planning Board, Meeting or September 10, 1998 Page 8of 8