Loading...
01-10-95KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING JANUARY 10, 1995 CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City - AND ROLL CALL County Planning Board and Zoning Commission was called to order by Senior Planner ,John Parsons at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were Milt Carlson, Robert Lopp, Walter Bahr, Mike DeGrosky, Therese Hash, Robert Sanders, Fred Hodgeboom and Pam Kennedy. John Parsons represented the Flathead Regional Development Office. Brian Wood, Zoning Administrator, represented the City of Kalispell. There were approximately 45 members of the public in attendance. ELECTION OF The next item of business was the election of officers OFFICERS for 1995. Nominations were opened. The motion was made and seconded to nominated Therese Hash as president. There were no other nominations. By acclamation vote, all members voted aye. Newly elected President Hash presided over the meeting. The motion was made and seconded to nominate Pam Kennedy as •Vice President. The nominations were �! closed. By acclamation vote all members voted aye. ELECTION OF Next, was the election to fill the member -at -large MEMBER AT position on the Board. Letters of interest were LARGE received from Michael Fraser, Dave Mason and Molly Schwarz. Motion The motion to nominate Michael Fraser to fill the ninth position on the Planning Board was made by Kennedy, second by Lapp. The Board expressed their appreciation to the other applicants for their interest and would like them to apply for future positions on the Planning Board. On a roll call vote the members voted unanimously in favor of reappointing Mike Fraser as member at large on the Planning Board. The appointment of Mr. Fraser to this position must be confirmed by both the Board of County Commissioners and Kalispell City Council prior to him sitting on the Board. APPROVAL OF The minutes of the meeting of December 13, 1994 were MINUTES approved as submitted on a motion by Bahr, second by DeGrosky. All members present voted aye. Bob Sanders stepped down from the Board due to a (_1 conflict of interest on the next two agenda items. �J SANDERS Hash introduced a request by Robert and Marjorie ZONE CHANGE / Sanders to amend the Lower Side Zoning District Map by AG-80 TO changing the zoning on approximately 186 acres from AG-20 AG-80 (Agricultural) to AG-20 (Agricultural). The M1 property is generally located south and east of the Lower Valley Road intersection with Somers Stage Road, and is further described as part of the south half of Section 35, T28N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County. Staff Report Parsons gave a presentation of report #FZC-94-23. The request was evaluated in accordance with the statutory criteria for a zone change, and based on that evaluation, staff recommended that the zone change be approved. Staff noted the attachments submitted by the applicant, which included a traffic study, as well as a petition signed by 198 persons in favor of the zone change. Several letters were received, both in favor and in opposition to the zone change, which were submitted to Board members and read into the record. Questions Lopp asked if the Master Plan agricultural designation distinguished between AG-20, AG-40, AG-80? Parsons replied that it does not. The Master Plan does not set forth a clear series of policies to determine the location of specific agricultural zones. It basically says this area will be agriculture, or this area will be suburban or urban, etc. At this time the AG-20 and the AG-80 zones are considered agricultural zones. Both are therefore in conformance with the Master Plan. O DeGrosky asked if AG-20 is an Agricultural or Suburban Agriculture zone? Parsons responded that he has to .abide by the zoning ordinance, which says they are the same thing with minor differences in specified uses. This zone change will set a precedent for the area, as there are no other AG-20 zones in the Kalispell City - County Planning Jurisdiction. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the zone change. In Favor Ed Trippett, 1135 1st Ave West, Kalispell, said he served on the Planning Board for six years. He went on to say that the Sanders have paid taxes on their property for 25 years. They wish to use their land for their retirement. He thinks they are justified in doing that.. If you take that right away from them, then you should take that right away from everyone. The Planning Board only makes suggestions. These people own their land, they have farmed it as agricultural land, and it will still be used for agriculture on a smaller scale. They have reached their years of retirement and are entitled to it. Don't take it away from them. Horace Sanders, who lives approximately one mile from !�\l Bob Sanders, spoke in favor of the zone change. He pointed out that there are already a number of 10 and 20 acre parcels in the area. 2 Doug Miller, a neighbor to the Sanders, has no objection to their requested zone change. Tim Burke, is also a neighbor of the Sanders, and he does not object to the zone change. Ray Sanders, neighbor to the south, said he has been farming in the area for 37 years. He has watched the degradation of farm prices in this time, and what is happening now with grain prices, hay prices, and livestock prices, he has a quarrel with what is defined as AG-80. We can't make any better living on AG-80 than on AG-20. He has farmed for several landlords for many years, and they have to scramble to pay the taxes. He thinks that these people have paid the taxes on that land all this time, they have a right to do what they want with their land. He watches realtors in the area buy land and subdivide it. He feels that the property owners, the farmers should have the right to get some of this money, too. Bill Frey, neighbor to the north of Sanders, stated that they have been good neighbors and he trusts that they will do a good job which will benefit the area. They will not do anything detrimental. ( John Dyer, 125 School Addition Road, feels that property owners should be able to divide their land and do what they want with it. At least these people are trying to do something for themselves rather than get on the program. Jeff Larson, the surveyor and engineer working with the Sanders, is in favor of the zone change for three reasons. (1) It is consistent with the smaller adjacent parcels in the vicinity. There are three 10- acre parcels and one 20-acre parcel directly adjacent to the Sanders property. (2) He thinks that 20-acre parcels are much more affordable for people than 80 acre parcels, therefore it makes it possible for middle class people to live in an agricultural setting, but still preserve the agricultural use of the area. An 80 acre parcel in Flathead Valley now is so unaffordable that you have to have it handed down from a relative in order to obtain one. (3) The subject property currently exists in four legal parcels, therefore the net increase in density is only five additional lots. That is equivalent to a minor subdivision and therefore the impacts are minimal. These lots will be served by individual wells and septic systems, and he feels that is immaterial to the Lakeside Sewer District. If they ll ever get hooked up to the sewer district, that will �J have to be reviewed in an appropriate manner. He urged the Board to vote in favor of the zone change from AG- 80 to AG-20. 3 Bob Sanders, 1220 Lower Valley Road, the applicant, told the Board that there is more to this proposal than meets the eye. The original purchase of 80 acres was in 1964, and they bought two parcels with two houses on it. They bought an additional 30 acres in 1972. They bought the landlocked 80 acres in 1974. In March 23, 1992, they broke it into 20 acre parcels. This was legal at the time. It was not surveyed, because at that time it did not need to be surveyed, any aliquot part that can be described as 1/32 did not need to be surveyed. Any title company would accept those 20 acre parcels. This was zoned in fall of '92, unbeknown to those in the area. No one in this area was notified. We did not know that it was zoned AG-80. He was told by the Commissioners that he was okay because he had 20 acre parcels. However, when he went to sell a parcel, he found out that those 20 acre parcels had been deemed illegal. The 21st District Court ruled that any parcel deeded from yourself to'yourself was illegal. They are backtracking on that to 1972. If they had sold these parcels prior to September 1993, they would have been legal. This is a technicality which has put them into a predicament. Jack Barrett, said he has known the Sanders for 40-50 years. Sanders bought this property about 30 years ago. He did not buy it for subdividing. They would like to retire. There is not enough profit to lease or hire it done anymore. Bob is getting tired of working from 6 a.m. to 9 or 10 p.m. every day. He shouldn't have to do that. It is his ground, and he should be able to do what he'd like to do. He doesn't believe that the late comers in the last 5-10 years can tell someone what to do with their land. He has seen it time and time again at public hearings from people who have 5, 10 or 20 acres who flood the room and say "no more Lee Tower, Kalispell, said he has known Bob Sanders for quite awhile. He thinks that these subdivisions have to be allowed. AG zoning in order to keep open space is extremely unfair. Any objections to these developments should be accompanyed with a buy -sell with cash to buy the development rights. He does not think that those who live in town have any right to force these people to use their land for non-profit. People who have been in agriculture for 25-30 years can't even pay interest on this land, now, with ag production like it is. If you are going to force someone into that type of a life, you better be ready to support them. Opposition Dave Heine, 2000 Lower Valley Road, a neighbor of the Sanders, feels that this is a very difficult situation. He cannot disagree with any of the previous testimony. Bob and Marge have worked hard and they are in their retirement years. He has some questions and maybe we 4 need to go back and redefine the AG-20 zone. Is it really an agricultural use. He knows that John has to go by his regulations. He has observed that these people buy a 20 acre parcel and claim that they will keep their 20, but all of a sudden they have to chance to split it into 10's. That is a problem he can foresee. He sees agricultural activities possibly being shut down because of nuisance lawsuits from rural activities such as plane spraying, etc. What about a cluster development with protective covenants? That would be a way for Bob and Marge to sell some homesites and still keep open space, and protect the neighborhood from all these splits that could possibly be following this. Bruce Louden, 820 Lower Valley Road, owns the farm across the road from the Sanders. He said that Bob and Marge have been good neighbors and he is somewhat reluctant to speak. He is not a newcomer to the Valley. He has lived there all his life. His father homesteaded in the Lower Valley, as did his great grandfather. They have tried to make a living as farmers just like Bob has, for a long time. He feels this would set a precedent where we are going to have 5, 10, and 20 acre parcels. He doesn't think zoning is going to stop any of it. We_are just going to be J) forced out of what is our livelihood. He already sees splits right across the road from their house, and right next to another place that they farm. All these parcels will have houses on them. In his opinion, 20 acres is not an agricultural designation. The ones he has seen either become weed patches or horse farms. That isn't agriculture in his opinion. We need to look at whether we want this land ag or not. If it is an 80 acre AG zone, he agrees that is maybe too small. He also knows that the finances aren't there as much as they should be for farmers to remain in business. They are trying to raise peppermint, which has to be sprayed with airplanes. From experience, he knows of two or three areas in the Valley that already have trouble with subdivisions right next to them, and they get many complaints whenever they spray. The state ag designation has no teeth in it. He is worried about getting sued or people complaining about dust, machinery on the road, and other nuisance complaints. For these reasons he is opposed to the zone change. He can sympathize with Bob and Marge, he understands why they want to subdivide, but he is afraid it will affect his livelihood. John Ficken, said that he is a third generation farmer in the Lower Valley. His brother's kids will be fourth generation. They intend to keep their land in farming and maintain their livelihood that way. It has been his experience, both in watching other areas in the Valley, and other farming communities in other states 5 in a similar situation where houses start, it always ends up being a problem no matter how clean it starts out. When you start bringing in non -farming people into an agricultural community it always ends up bringing severe hardship from harassment to literal prohibiting of certain farm activities that may be necessary for production. In fact, he heard that a farmer in Oregon was arrested for disorderly conduct for trying to bale hay on a Sunday morning, because the people in the small subdivisions didn't like the noise. He doesn't want to see that here. The AG-80 was intended to protect the farming community and whenever you start letting houses in, that is the beginning of the end. He is very strongly opposed to changing the zone. Neal Danford, a retired farmer in the Lower Valley, thinks that 20 acres should not have the agricultural tax break on it. It is a subdivision then and should be taxed that way. When you break the land into 20's it will end up in 10's and 5's. Bill Goodman, 1275 Lower Valley Road, said he moved there a couple of years ago from Kalispell basically to get away from people like himself. He doesn't want nine more people like him across the road. He is a special interest of one, as is Bob Sanders. He asked if it is good planning to have the whole Lower Valley split into 20 acre parcels, which it will be. This is confirmed in the staff report where it says that the AG-20 zone will set the pattern for future zoning changes in the area. This change would set a.precedent for this area by creating large lot estate ranchette developments in this jurisdiction. He referred to the Master Plan for the area and under the section about "preserving agricultural land", it says "the parcelling of rural landscape into 20 acre or smaller lots has led to a pattern of scattered development on properties that are too large for many homeowners to maintain in lawns and gardens, but too small for productive agricultural operations. As a result, many rural tracts become hosts to weed infestations that create severe management problems for adjacent farm operations." He hopes this will help the Board make its decision. Janna Goodman, 1275 Lower Valley Road, would like to tie together two comments that were made. When staff said that the difference between the AG-20 and AG-80 is really a judgement call and Mr. Ficken said that when AG-80 was implemented, it was certainly with the intent to keep the area in agriculture. She felt that if there is a judgement to be made, she feels that it should be the AG-80 reflected by the people who live there. 1.9 Robert Streit, 1670 Lower Valley Road, spoke in support of the AG-80 mainly for future generations of people who are involved in agriculture. Some of his neighbors' livelihoods are at risk by starting this precedent. Gail Bissell, 535 Lower Valley Road, said she agrees with previous testimony in that she is not opposed to the AG-20 in a personal way. But, the area was zoned AG-80 very recently for a reason. She thinks it should stay AG-80 for awhile, anyway. The whole idea of the zoning is to keep agricultural uses in the valley. She feels that perhaps the applicant can buy some time and work with some of the incentives in the County Master Plan such as cluster development, to avoid a 20 acre split. She strongly urged the use of the conservation organizations or land trust organizations to keep this land in perpetuity for agricultural purposes, but will let these people out of the bind they are in. There being no further comment either in favor or in opposition, the public hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board deliberation. Discussion Kennedy ascertained that the general consensus of the neighborhood was to zone the area AG-80 at the time the Lower Side Zoning District went into effect. Parsons replied that was his understanding since the area was zoned prior to his employment with FRDO. Public hearings in accordance with state law did occur. Family transfers were explained. Mr. Sanders was asked if there were any neighborhood meetings. He said that there were none. The zoning district was advertised in the Bigfork Eagle and not in the Daily Inter Lake, so they did not know about the AG-80 zoning of their property. Bob Lopp addressed a number of issues. He said that he has known the Sanders a long time. He knows many people in the Lower Valley area, and sympathizes with the current designation of AG-80 for the preservation of agricultural land. There are some issues he wants to raise in the staff report, which are issues which need to be weighed very carefully as we come to a decision. First of all, pg. 2, under the second criterion - according to the Master Plan the property is currently designated as agriculture. Both the AG-80 and AG-20 designations equally fit within the Master Plan. In other words the Master Plan does not micro - plan to this level. However, the AG-20 zone not yet occurring in this area, nor in any area within our planning jurisdiction, will set the pattern for future zone changes in the area. That is very significant. One of the issues we have to look at is the issue of spot zoning. This 186 acres is in the middle of an AG- 80 zone. That is something as a planning board that we 7 1 ) are not supposed to do. It is surrounded by AG-80, not adjacent to another AG-20 zone. On page 3, criteria 4, paragraph 2, line 2 - "This process offers an opportunity to ensure that any changes to the Official Zoning Map are done in the general public interest." it is important for us to look at what is the impact on the entire neighborhood, not just on the parcel under discussion. On the same page, criteria 7, line 3 - obviously it is going to increase the density, but currently there appear to be four legally created parcels which can be sold by the applicant. One 35, one 80 and two 40 acres. It does not mean they need to put together 80 acres before they can sell it. Those are bona fide units which can be sold. The bottom of the page talks about the suitability of the property for particular uses. It is prime agricultural land and that is probably his biggest concern. We live in a valley that is expanding so rapidly that we are inundating our basic industries. We have had an ongoing war for the last five years over the impact of subdivision on timber. This is the same issue. The impact of subdivision on agriculture. Yes, the Master Plan anticipates this type of development for the area, but at what point? Again, the Master Plan lists agriculture for this area. It does not specify what kind of agriculture, what size. However, this is definitely a leapfrogging of lot size from the area north of here, which has quite a bit of development, single family housing units. There is still quite a strip between that developed area and the agricultural area. On page 4, regarding the character of the district. The first line says it is primarily agricultural. That is the reason the AG-80 was set up to protect the agricultural. I see this as a direct encroachment on what would be viable agricultural in this valley. It is not a truck garden valley. You have to hold together blocks of land that can be adequately farmed. Again, on page 4, the last consideration listed, the plan identifies the area for agricultural development and frankly I don't see this proposal as the appropriate use of the land. We are all affected by what happens. On the issue of retirement income, the property already has four saleable subdivisions within the designation of AG-80. What they are asking for is doubling that. Milt Carlson stated that the 20 acres has always bothered him since it was set up under the old subdivision law. Twenty acre tracts ended up all over the country and they have pretty much destroyed many counties in Montana. He went back to the City -County Master Plan, which is about 10-12 years old, and stated it is about time we brought it up to date. He quoted "Recognizing that highly productive agricultural lands are a finite natural resource, and it is appropriate to the public interest to be preserved in .this jurisdiction. It should be protected by allowing limited conversion of agricultural lands only in those areas which are not productive agricultural lands where these lands are needed for proper urban expansion." I don't see this as fitting into that category. Over one-third of the county's productive agricultural land is located within the municipal planning jurisdictions and each municipality needs to actively work to protect the agricultural base of the county. That is in our old Plan. Mr. Goodman read from the new County Plan, on pg 16. Through the two year process of dealing with the agriculture community throughout the county, with the update of the master plan, it was dealt with over and over again, and brought up as one of the biggest problems in the entire county. A paragraph was put in that stated: "That existing agricultural zoning in Flathead County is not considered effective or desirable. Mandated minimum lot sizes of 20, 40 or 80 acres deny farmers and ranchers the option of selling smaller pieces to satisfy financial needs and thus contribute to the rate of loss of agricultural land." That is why clusters and conservation easements and farm protection incentives are put into the entire county master plan. Since this adjoins the county, it is all part of that neighborhood. Where this jurisdiction ends, it is surrounded by county to the south. He agreed that there are legally saleable lots. Mr. Sanders is very fortunate compared to most of the farmers in the county right now.. Mike DeGrosky had a number of issues, things that have concerned him about the discussion. One of them is the goal of the Master Plan to preserve agriculture land. He is intrigued by the situation that Bob is in. It seems that his property should be grandfathered as to the legal 20's. He really questions the retroactivity of the law. His biggest concern is the Master Plan intent, where it is defined - "A district to protect and preserve agricultural land for the performance of a wide range of agricultural functions. It is intended to control the scattered intrusion of uses not compatible with an agricultural environment, including, but not limited to residential development." So, I keep asking myself even though we are saying AG-20 is an agricultural zone, is that really what the Master Plan is envisioning. Is AG-20 a legitimate ag zone? There are farmers that say yes, there are farmers that say no. That is something we really need to look at. The issue of Bob and his wife to use their property, I am certainly sensitive to those rights. We also need to consider the rights of the neighbors who want to keep farming. That is something we need to think about pretty hard. I am also concerned about the spot zoning issue. 9 1 Fred Hodgeboom's number one concern was whether or not this was a desirable precedent for developing that part of the Flathead Valley. We are in the unfortunate situation where the AG-20 is the border line between what is residential properties and what is truly agriculture. His main concern was about these type of subdivisions. If this sets a precedent for the entire Flathead Valley, what happens if this continues to go on. I'm really concerned about the cumulative effects of this kind of development, where people will have to sink wells in the aquifer. Most of us know that most of this Valley is sand and gravel, glacial and river worked sediment with very permeable fast infiltration rates, and it is just a matter of a few days after you flush the toilet that the septic water is back in the water you are pumping out of. We've seen this in Portland, we've seen it in the Rathdrum aquifer near Spokane. Do 'we have to let everyone exercise their property rights until the aquifer is polluted and then dig up all the streets to put in the sewers. I know it has happened in valley after valley in this country. It is a real dilemma. I understand the property rights issue, and yet there is the long-term future of all the citizens of this valley, and everyone is going to have to deal with it, with these continual developments on septic systems. That is the key thing that the County Plan is trying to deal with in providing options for landowners to do things that will alleviate this cookie -cutter approach to development. His second concern is the stepping out of this subdivision from the more densely zoned and subdivided areas. In essence, it does appear to be a spot zone, in that you will have a residential development surrounded by agriculture. We have all heard about the problems that pattern creates for everyone concerned. Walt Bahr made an observation that has brought up several times by some of the people in the audience, that agriculture land, while it is extremely desirable for a lot of people in the Valley, we are pricing the agricultural base out of this valley. We have become too popular and too attractive to use our land for farming. It is most unfortunate for those of us who have been here since day one. Yes, I am opposed to the zoning of this, but it is coming. Down the road there are three other parcels between them and a suburban residential zone. That's all it will take is those three to come in and this one is going to happen, and it will go all the way through the Lower Valley. That river is too attractive to have farming adjacent to it. If you travel the river, you will see that there are \1 homes doubling and tripling in number and the tracts are getting smaller. It is just too darn nice in the Flathead Valley to live here and to be able to afford farms of the size that we need. It is going faster It than we want it to. I don't approve of this rezone, but it is going to come. Therese Hash echoed what has been said. She encouraged not only the Board, but also the people who have spent the time to come here and consider this particular zone change, and any of the zone changes where we have what is called the "leapfrog" development, or a spot zone. Legally, spot zoning is not defined in terms of one acre or five acres. The legal problem with spot zoning is a change of a zone for the benefit of one landowner contrary to the existing zone. To me, the situation before us falls precisely within that definition. The second point is irrespective of whether it applies to an AG-80 or an AG-20 classification. The definition is to protect and to preserve, to control the intrusion, including residential development. Obviously, before us is a zone change, but overlying that zone change would be a development program. One does not wish to split their 80's into 20's and sell them with the idea of selling them to farmers. There is no question that some type of residential and n•on-agricultural activity would continue. I would have to agree that when you are talking 20 acres, you don't put it in lawn, or into gardens, and it becomes weeds. The law is that you are to spray for thistle. Well, my neighbors don't, and I have to spray to get the thistle off my land. I suspect that this kind of a problem is just exacerbated here. The comment about the damage to the water aquifer is very applicable. In more densely populated areas such as Evergreen we have seen what the damage has done. The big concern here is long-range planning. That's what we are all here for. That's what the rewrite of the County Master Plan is all about. Not just for today, and unfortunately not just for Mr. and Mrs. Sanders' retirement, but 20 years f rom now, what is going to happen here. The precedent which is noted in the staff report certainly cannot go unremarked. This type of zone does not exist in our general jurisdiction. It will start. All the farmers are faced with it. Heines, Fickens, I know your land - it's great that you can keep it in the family. You only hope that you can continue to do so. It is certainly a dilemma that we are faced with here and I think all over the country. Without knowing specifically what can be done, there are incentives, and some alternatives to cutting it up. As a last resort, Mr. Sanders does have some saleable land. He just won't make as much money. Pam Kennedy felt that the Board clearly does not 1 believe that AG-20 is agricultural. She agrees that a recommendation needs to be sent to the County Commissioners that AG-20 is not in the nature of the Lower Valley. I don't believe that it will uphold the agricultural integrity of the zoning district. I also 11 do not believe that proper notifications did not happen. At the public hearings we had people in attendance at our meetings. I am terribly sorry if Mr. Sanders did not hear about those meetings and was not in attendance, but it was clearly publicized and I know that the Daily Inter Lake also did articles in regards to it. I also understand and hear what those who have indicated that property owners should be able to do what they choose to do with their land, but you also have to look at the property owners that surround everyone, because all property owners have rights. We clearly heard from many of the farmers in the direct vicinity who would like to uphold the integrity of the AG-80 and be able to continue farming. The fear level of nuisance suits, is valid. The AG-20 would not be kept in agricultural uses. it is suburban agricultural. My recommendation to the County Commissioners would be to address that and to look at changing the definition of AG-20. Motion Bahr made the motion to adopt the findings of fact in report #FZC-94-23 and forward a favorable recommendation to the County Commissioners to approve the zone change request. Lopp seconded. On a roll call vote Carlson, Lopp, Kennedy, Bahr, Hodgeboom, DeGrosky and Hash voted no. The motion failed unanimously on a 0-7 vote. Discussion & The Board proceeded to make findings of fact in Findings For accordance with the statutory criteria for the Denial evaluation of a zone change, as follows: On the second criterion, DeGrosky questioned whether AG-20 was a legitimate agricultural zone. The definition is to "protect and preserve agricultural land", which a zone change such as this would not do. The intention of AG zoning would be to control residential development, which again, this zone change would not do. The Board made findings as follows: Does the Requested Zone Comply With The Master Plan? The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. According to the master plan, the property is currently designated as agriculture. This request is not in conformance with that designation. The AG-20 zone, not yet occurring in this area, will set the pattern for future zone changes in the area. Will The Requested Chancre Promote The Health And General Welfare? The general purpose of the County's zoning regulations is to promote the general health and welfare and does so by implementing the Master Plan. The City/County 12 I 1 Master Plan would support the requested zone change. Any traffic generation that the proposed change allows would be mitigated at the time of development. Any impact to or due to floodplain, stormwater runoff, septic systems, and water would be addressed at the time of development proposals. The zoning regulations provide a mechanism for public input and review for all zone change and subdivision requests. This process offers an opportunity to ensure that any changes to the Official Zoning Map are done in the general public interest. It is the opinion of this Board that the zone change would not be in the general public interest due to the impacts of residential development on neighboring large agricultural operations, opening them up to nuisance lawsuits, with the potential for additional zone change requests and approvals, thereby having a domino effect and the destruction of agricultural areas. Will The Requested Zone Change Prevent The Overcrowding of Land? Overcrowding of land occurs when development out -paces or exceeds the environmental or service limitations of - the property. The property is not within an area able j to be serviced by a water and sewer system. Will The Requested Zone Avoid Undue Concentration Of People? Concentration of people relates to the land use permitted by a particular zone. The proposed zone change would increase the intensity of residential use on the 186 acres. Currently, there appears to be four (4) legally created parcels: one 35 acre, one 80 acre, and two 40 acre parcels. Will The Requested Zone Facilitate The Adequate Provision Of Transportation, Water, Sewer, Schools, Parks And Other Public Requirements? The additional demands for transportation, water, sewer, schools, and parks would be evaluated pursuant to individual development proposals and subdivision review. Despite the density limitations of this zone significant negative impact could be expected. Does The Requested Zone Give Consideration To The Particular Suitability Of The Property For Particular Uses? This was considered one the major issues, and was made as f o'l l ows : 13 1 The subject properties are relatively level and considered prime agricultural lands, have good exposure to the roadway system, and are relatively close to the City of Kalispell and emergency services. The requested zone does damage to continued agricultural use. Significant negative impact is expected on existing agricultural uses for this land and surrounding properties. Does The Requested Zoning Give Reasonable Consideration To The Character Of This District? It was felt that this would set an undesirable precedent for the agricultural areas in Flathead County, and the finding was made as follows: The intent of this district is primarily agricultural. The uses that would be expected to occur as a result of this zone change would be an estate or ranchette type of land use with horses, equine, or other small farm type facility, which would not preserve and protect the agricultural character of the district. Will The Requested Zone Change Encourage The _Most Appropriate Use Of The Land Throughout The Jurisdiction? The Plan identifies this area for agricultural development. As the City grows the entire jurisdiction will continue to transform. There are no areas of AG- 20 in the Kalispell City County Planning Jurisdiction. A change would set a precedent for this area by creating large lot estate/ranchette development in this jurisdiction, which is not consistent with the land use throughout the jurisdiction. Motion Kennedy made the motion to adopt the findings of fact as proposed by this Board and forward this as a basis for denial of the zone change request in FRDO report #FZC-94-23. Lopp seconded. On a roll call vote Bahr, Hodgeboom, DeGrosky, Kennedy, Lopp, Carlson and Hash voted unanimously in favor of the motion to deny the zone change request. * A call for votes in opposition to the motion was made. None was heard. CLOVERLEAF As a point of procedure, a public hearing was held on ESTATES a request by Robert and Marjorie Sanders for PRELIMINARY preliminary plat approval of a nine (9) lot subdivision PLAT to be known as Cloverleaf Estates. The property was the subject of the above zone change request. Staff Report Parsons presented report #FPP-94-26 which reviewed the request for preliminary plat approval based on the 14 proposed AG-20 rezone. Based on that evaluation staff recommended approval subject to 17 conditions. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to proponents of the proposal. In Favor Ray Sanders, south of the proposal, was in favor. He referred to his previous testimony which would be the same for this proposal. Horace. Sanders, sees no problem with this proposal, and feels that there should be a provision to reimburse somebody for the difference in the price of land if decisions are going to be made like this. Bill Frey, said it seems to him that since the zone change was denied, this is a moot point. He said he sat and listened to about 3 to 1 in favor of the Sanders subdividing their land. Then he saw a bunch of pencil pushing parasites deny it. He doesn't think that's right, because the neighbors who live next to Bob Sanders all respect him, and the Board ought to give more weight to that than they did. John Dyer, said he has property near the Sanders, and he fully intended to do the same thing when he retires. Jack Barrett, spoke in favor of this subdivision. He thought the land belonged to them, but apparently it doesn't. They just had the privilege of paying taxes on it for the last 30-40 years. He can't believe folks can just jerk it out from under them. If you don't like it, find somebody to buy them out. Bob Sanders, the applicant, wanted it noted for the record that there were over 200 names in favor of the proposal, all Flathead Valley residents, not just the 4 or 5 in opposition. As to the subdivision, he had no problem with the requirement for a 60 foot right of way. However, he did have a problem with the length of the cul-de-sac. He quoted from the County Subdivision Regulations "the County may require multiple accesses into a subdivision ... where the primary access road is over 2500 feet long". His proposed road would be 2600 feet. He feels the exception does relate to this road. Jeff Larson, engineer/surveyor on the project, said they are in agreement with all the conditions of approval, except for the length of the cul-de-sac. There are several reasons to justify granting the variance request. (1) The lots will be large 20 acres in size, and there will be ample separation between the houses to minimize the fire danger. (2) The flat topography allows fire vehicles to go cross country. (3) The area is cultivated and the vegetation would be a low fire danger. (4) The cul-de-sac will act as an 15 excellent fire break. (5) It is cost prohibitive to put in a loop system or a multiple access because of the large size of the lots. (6) There will not be future development in the area, because the requested zone was AG-20. (7) Only four lots have to use the cul-de-sac, Lots 3 and 4 could actually access off of Somers Stage Road. Section 3.8 of the Flathead County Subdivision Regulations does say that 2500 linear feet is allowable for primary access. He addressed the issue brought up about septic systems and wells. They do a lot of septic systems and wells in the county and they aren't finding any significant impacts on water tests or sewer systems. All the water tests come back with minimal nitrates in them, and we just aren't seeing it. They are doing a lot of different ones all over the valley, so he doesn't see any evidence of impacts. A 20 acre parcel is large enough to satisfy the requirements for individual sewer and water systems. Therefore, he feels that is not a reason to deny the subdivision. Lee Tower, lives in Kalispell and said that he would like to move out of Kalispell, but there isn't any place to go. In observing this whole operation, he has seen a lot of non-agricultural folks make agricultural decisions. He thinks it is a shame that the Board didn't follow the recommendations of the neighbors in the area that know what agriculture is. There were no further proponents of the subdivision. Opposition The public hearing was opened to those in opposition to the subdivision. No one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board deliberation. Discussion Kennedy noted for the record that the persons in opposition to the subdivision left due to the recommended denial of the zone change. She did not agree with Mr. Tower saying that non-agricultural people are making decisions for agricultural people, and that we are not listening to the neighborhood, because there were neighbors who are farmers in the area that did speak in opposition to this zone change. We did pay attention to the people. With regards to the 200 people who signed the petition, the majority do not live in the immediate area. I take personal offense to being called a "pencil pushing parasite" by Mr. Frey, and would hope that at future meetings there is not that type of discussion process that happens or comments made against people who volunteer their time on Boards like this and try, to come forward with the best recommendations that they believe they can. DeGrosky feels that since the zone change was denied, this is a moot point. 16 ! 1 Hodgeboom suggested an additional condition in the event that this plat is approved. "All purchasers shall be notified in the covenants that their lot lies within an agricultural area and will be subject to all normal activities associated with agriculture and livestock operations which may conflict with residential uses." This type of condition should be in there to protect the interests of the adjacent property owners. By concurrence this language was added to Condition #4, if this subdivision is approved. Hash expressed her concern which dovetailed with the decision regarding the zone change, in that Mr. Dyer had indicated that this is precisely what he wanted to do upon his retirement, was to split his property. That just highlights the concern the Board has that this general area will be split up. She wanted to reiterate the concerns and the empathy we all have for the problems that the farmers, as well as any other business person in the Valley is being faced with right now. But the fact that Mr. Dyer admits that he wants to do it too, then we are going to get the domino effect. The Fickens have farmed for a long time, the Heines are out there with their property. Many of you here have property, which T suspect that you would like -1 to keep farming. We are talking long-range planning. We have to try to meet competing needs of not only Mr. Sanders, but Mr. Dyer and the parties who were opposed to the zone change. Motion Lopp moved to adopt report #FPP-94-26 as findings of fact and forward a favorable recommendation to the Commissioners subject to the conditions as amended. Hodgeboom seconded. On a roll call vote Carlson, DeGrosky, Kennedy, Bahr, Lopp, Hodgeboom and Hash voted nay. The motion failed on a 0-7 vote in opposition to granting preliminary plat approval for Cloverleaf Estates. Motion DeGrosky moved to send a recommendation to the County Commissioners to deny the subdivision because of the denial of the zone change request. Lopp seconded, on a roll call vote Kennedy, Bahr, Hodgeboom, Carlson, Lopp, DeGrosky and Hash voted unanimously in favor of the motion to deny the preliminary plat for Cloverleaf Estates. During discussion of the zone change and subdivision, it was recommended that the County Commissioners initiate a text amendment to redefine AG-20 as a suburban agricultural zone. Robert Sanders returned to his seat on the Board for the remainder of the meeting. 17 KALISPELL The next scheduled public hearing was on a request by TEXT AMENDMENT the City of. Kalispell to amend the Kalispell Zoning NONCONFORMING Ordinance Text, Chapter 27.25, Nonconforming Lots, Uses USES and Structures. This amendment will consider allowing, under certain circumstances, structural alterations and additions to existing nonconforming residential structures. A letter was received from the City of Kalispell requesting that this matter be continued until the February meeting. Motion Kennedy moved to grant the City's request to continue the public nearing on the Kalispell Zoning Text Amendment until the February Planning Board meeting. Bahr seconded. By acclamation vote all members voted aye. PACK ZONE Hash introduced a request by Ron and Margaret Pack and CHANGE / Colin and Kathleen Andrews for a change in zone from RA-1 TO RA-2 RA-1 (Low Density Residential Apartment) to RA-2 (High Density Residential Apartment) in Kalispell. The property is located south of Two Mile Drive; Ashley Creek crosses the property and borders the east side of a portion of the property; Greenbriar Subdivision is to the west; the southern boundary is about 600 feet north of Highway 2. The site contains approximately 30 acres. Staff Report Parsons presented an overview of report #KZC-94-04. The request was evaluated in accordance with the statutory criteria for a zone change, and based on the findings staff recommended the zone change be granted. He noted that the most significant impact is that the by-pass alignment is shown to go through the site. The requested zone change will double the density allowed on the site. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to proponents of the proposal. In Favor Ronnie Pack, the applicant, explained that the reason for the requested RA-2 zone was because it is designated in the Master Plan for high density. With regard to the by-pass alignment, he has been in contact with Larry Brazda at the State Highway Department, and was told that we will never see a by-pass through there in our lifetime. When the time comes to construct the by-pass, the State and Federal government will buy out the least expensive route. Parsons indicated that Larry Brazda did not have the authority to change the Kalispell City -County Master Plan and EIS which indentified the Hwy 93 by-pass route. 0V] No one else spoke in favor of the zone change. The hearing was opened -to opponents. Opposition Kathy Britten, 490 Two Mile Drive, stated that there is already a buffer of apartment buildings between the commercial and residential zones. The area which he is requesting to have the density increased is largely residential uses now, which isn't as depicted on the Master Plan, but that is how it is developing. Bob Cole, 1470 Hwy 2 West, is opposed to the 10 acres behind his property being developed as high density. They requested their zoning of R-1 in 1985 which allows them to have horses. They have zoning which is restrictive, but flexible. He pointed out that he had the first right of refusal to purchase the subject property, but he didn't want to buy it because it was zoned RA-1. He feels that the high density RA-2 zone would substantially lower the value of his property, because of the increased noise, activity, and traffic. High density usually means high rise which would block their view, and that is a concern of theirs. Donna Therkelson, owns a home and a business in the area,. and she feels that the RA-2 zone would affect the entire area. She expressed concern about the environmental impact on the creek which runs through the property and hoped that this would be addressed. The area is already densely populated and to double the density would affect the comfort of those living there and could become a slum.. There being no speakers either in favor or in opposition, the public hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board discussion. Discussion The doubling of the density was addressed and the range of differences in the intensity of uses between the two zones was identified. There is only one other RA-2 zone in Kalispell. It was noted that Greenbriar which is immediately adjacent to this property is single family residents, protected by covenants. Bahr noted that RA-2 is defined as inner city and urban uses, not for suburban. This may possibly require a text amendment. The consequences of development within the by-pass alignment was addressed in terms of condemnation lawsuits and the increased costs from high density development in the alignment. Lopp agreed that the concern regarding Spring Creek was valid. He lives upstream and has seen it 10 feet wide and 4 feet deep. one summer it was nearly 35 feet wide. This property is downstream below where other drainages feed into it. He distinguished between the 19 Master Plan designation and zoning. When the Master Plan says high density, that designation covers a number of zoning options and RA-1 qualifies as high density. Therefore, the RA-1 is already compatible with the Master Plan and does not need to be changed. There is only one other piece of RA-2 in Kalispell, and the tremendous difference in density is achieved by additional building height.. There is a lot of multi- family development out there. We are very adequately meeting the needs of the community by providing multi- family housing. The proposed zone change is adjacent to a single family development by covenant agreement with City and the residents of Greenbriar. The RA-2 is an incompatible density. The RA-1 designation adequately meets the Master Plan, meets the character of the neighborhood, and provides a base to add to the multi -family housing. DeGrosky did not feel that the RA-2 was an illogical progression, it will promote infill development and affordable housing. Hodgeboom didn't see much difference between the two zone designations either. Hash noted that RA-2 is intended for central and inner city use. This particular piece of property borders the city limits, and that would constitute suburban property. This is a request by one landowner for one parcel which could again raise the question of spot zoning. The concern regarding condemnation for buildings in the by-pass alignment was discussed. Carlson expressed concern about the access of that dense of a development onto Two Mile Drive, but his main concern was for Ashley Creek. Putting that amount of density on the waterway is asking for more trouble. Kennedy believes the property is suitable for the density, the access would be onto Hwy 2 and Corporate Way, and a conditional use permit would be required. Lopp compared this proposal to Meridian Pointe, which is zoned RA-1. There has been considerable amount of flack over that development. This proposal is double the density. That area of town is doing far more than its share of providing housing of all kinds. It is a very heavily impacted area. Motion Kennedy moved to adopt FRDO staff report #KZC-94-04 and forward a favorable recommendation to City Council -to approve the zone change from RA-1 to RA-2. DeGrosky seconded. On a roll call vote Hodgeboom, Sanders, Kennedy and DeGrosky voted aye. Lopp, Bahr, Carlson and Hash voted no. The vote was tied at 4-4. Motion Kennedy made a motion to continue Board discussion with regards to #KZC-94-04 for a zone change request from RA-1 to RA-2 on the Pack and Andrews property to the February meeting to allow for a full Board vote. 20 Hodgeboom seconded. On a roll call vote DeGrosky, Hodgeboom and Kennedy voted aye. Sanders, Lopp, Bahr, Carlson and Hash voted no. The motion failed on a 3-5 vote. HERITAGE Next, was a request by Ron Gersack on behalf of Lantis PLACE / Enterprises for a conditional use permit in the H-1 CONDITIONAL zone to construct an addition to the north side of the USE PERMIT / Heritage Place - Extended Care Facility in Kalispell. EXPANSION The expansion would include a dining room, activity EXTENDED CARE area, and nurses station for specialized care. The FACILITY site is located on the north side of Heritage Way approximately 400 feet east of Highway 93 on the northwest corner of Windward Way and Heritage Way. The property is described as Lot 1 of Heritage Place Subdivision in Section 6, T28N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County. Staff Report Parsons presented report #KCU-94-20. Staff recommended granting the conditional use permit subject to seven (7) conditions. He pointed out that the construction of the addition has begun with a valid permit for the foundation. However, the city water main is under the addition and is an issue which must be resolved prior to the completion of this project. This matter is addressed in the conditions of approval. r " Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor. In Favor Ron Gersack, administrator of Heritage Place, said they ate still working with the City on the resolution of the water main. He asked for clarification of condition #4 pertaining to the driveway/fire lane and parking. He went on to explain the project. At the present time, two rooms have been combined to create a dining room and nurses station. The addition to Heritage Place will provide this activity area so the rooms can be put back in use as the demand for a special care unit for alzheimer and dementia patients increases. He was anxious to continue construction as they had a waiting list of patients. Opposition No one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed and it was opened to Board deliberation. Discussion Resolution of the issue of who has authority of the city water main was discussed. Motion Bahr moved to adopt report #KCU-94-20 as findings of fact and recommend to City Council to grant the conditional use permit subject to the conditions set forth,'with the omission of condition #4 to delay the -- paving requirement until the hospital presents its overall PUD. Carlson seconded. 21 Amended Motion Kennedy amended the motion to add condition #4 to read: That the southwestern access from the parking lot to the access road and Heritage Way be closed, with an emergency access gate, to the satisfaction of the Kalispell Fire Chief, or pave the access road." Bahr seconded the amendment to the motion. A roll call vote was taken on the amendment to the motion. The motion carried unanimously in favor. on a roll call vote Bahr, DeGrosky, Kennedy, Sanders, Hodgeboom, Lopp, Carlson and Hash voted unanimously in favor of granting the conditional use permit for the expansion of Heritage Place. EATON ZONE Hash introduced a request by Terry and Pamela Eaton to CHANGE / amend the West Side Zoning District Map by changing the R-5 TO B-2 zoning on approximately 15,000 square feet from R-5 (Two family residential) to B-2 (General Business). The property is generally located on the northwest corner of Welf Lane and Highway 93, and is further described as Assessor's Tract 11L, in Section 29, T28N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County. Staff Report Parsons presented an overview of report #FZC-94-24. Based on evaluation of the necessary statutory criteria for a zone change, staff recommended approval. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the zone change. In Favor Bill Frey, who owns property immediately crest of this site, which has storage units on it, spoke in favor of the Eatons' zone change request. All of the property in the vicinity is business, and the trend is to continue that way. The Eatons have made tremendous improvements to the place, they work hard and deserve the zone change to allow them to get on with their lives. Terry Eaton, the property owner, is in agreement with the staff report and requested the Board grant the zone change. He was available to answer any questions. No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the zone change request. The public hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board discussion. Motion Kennedy made the motion to adopt staff report #FZC-94- 24 and forward a favorable recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to change the zone from R-5 to B-2 (General Business). Lopp seconded. on a roll call vote the members voted unanimously in favor of the zone change. The motion carried 8-0. Fxa WHITE BIRCH The next item was a' request by Joan Bailey for PRELIMINARY preliminary plat approval on approximately 6.9 acres of PLAT property zoned R-5. The subdivision proposes to create 3 parent lots: Lot 1 would have the existing motel and mobile homes; Lot 2 is proposed to have a 41-space RV park and 4-space tent campground on it; and Lot 3 would contain the existing mini -storage. The property is located on the east side of Shady Lane on the south side of Spring Creek. The subdivision is to be known as White Birch RV Park and Campground. The site is further described as Assessor's Tract 41 in Section 4, T28N, R21 W, P.M.M., Flathead County. Staff Report Parsons gave a detailed presentation of subdivision report #FPP-94-30. Preliminary plat approval is recommended subject to eight (8) conditions. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the proposed subdivision and RV park and campground. In Favor Paula Johnson, attorney representing Joan Bailey on this 'matter, said that basically they do not have a problem with staff's recommendations except for the following: on page 5, lb. Adequate Access. she would like to have it clarified that the paving requirement is 20 feet and not 24 feet. That makes a difference of about 20o in the cost of paving. Subdivision Regulations require only 20 feet of paving, so she would like that language inserted in the report. Parsons explained that the road would have to be paved in accordance with the subdivision regulations to AASHTO standards at two 10 foot wide travelways, with a two foot shoulder on each side. Ms. Johnson also objected to condition #3 which says to connect individual RV spaces to the sewer system. They have an argument with hooking all 40 spaces to the sewer. She said that water, sewer and power will be available to 24 individual spaces, not all 40 spaces. It is not required under the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, and she felt that it is not the county's concern regarding the rentability of the sites. The concern would be with the health regulations as to how many spaces are hooked up to the sewer, and what the requirements are for a dump site. Individual hook-ups would incur more expense for her client and it is not required by the regulations. Bob Hafferman, engineer for the project, stated that there is no point in having every RV site sewered. '., There are various types of RV's such as a camper that does not have a sewer connection. He said that he has been in the recreation business since 1956. Within the last three years he has designed and had approved by the Commissioners a number RV parks and campgrounds, 23 some of which have been constructed, others are in the process. He read off several examples. Most of the campgrounds that have been recently approved had sewer to half the sites, half without, plus .shelter sites that had central "comfort stations" equipped with restrooms and showers. The DHES does not require a sewer connection to every site. They do have to provide facilities for those sites that do not have connections. It is not good planning to have all sites sewered. It is a waste of money. The conditional use permit does not require individual sewer hook-ups, as stated in condition #10 of the conditional use permit. It will be hooked into the Evergreen Sewer District. It has to. That is what makes this whole project feasible. They are proposing 24 sites with full hook- ups, 16 sites without, and 5 campsites. He asked the Board to let them, through their experience with RV park and campground construction design the RV park and campground. They will follow the rules and follow good practices. He urged the Board to correct the staff report on page 5 where it states that hooking in to the sewer will improve the environmental integrity of the area, because this is not a fact. He requested that condition. #3 be deleted. Paula Johnson, addressed whether a central dump site would be required on the location. She cited from the regulations whereby the law does not require one if there is a central dump station within 15 miles from the campground. There are a number of dump stations in and around Kalispell. Jack Barrett, an adjacent property owner, was in favor of the proposal. This is a good use for the property, and it is a benefit to the City. It keeps campers out of the Park, so that the cities get the money instead. Joan Bailey, the applicant, said the only complaint she had was with the dump station. Based on the regulations, there is no reason for it. She lives within one mile of Spruce Park, where they charge $3 for anyone who doesn't stay there and if they stay in the campground, then they can dump for free. There are four dump stations that stay open year round in Kalispell area, and ten in the whole area. No one else spoke in favor of the proposal. No one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed. The meeting was opened for Board discussion. Discussion Hash announced for the record that Mr. Lopp had been \�) excused from the Board. Kennedy said that she is not in favor of making a text amendment as requested by Ms. Johnson, regarding the paving of 20 feet. She referred to the conditions of 24 the conditional use permit, item #14 that says "All internal roads, including all access road, shall be paved from the existing pavement. Two way roads shall be paved to 24 feet and one way roads paved to 12 feet." This indicates that the shoulder shall also be paved. This is a condition of what is already passed. As it stands under recommendation #1 of preliminary plat approval, the conditions of the conditional use permit must be met. She did agree, however, that not all the RV spaces need to hooked up to sewer. DeGrosky asked about the fact that the county has changed its road standards in the interim? Parsons replied that the conditional use permit will take precedence. The recommendation for individual sewer hook-ups was discussed and the Board determined that the applicant made a good argument that the requirements will be in compliance with the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences regulations, and it is covered in the conditions of the conditional use permit. The Board agreed that it was not necessary to change any wording in the staff report. Motion Kennedy made the motion to adopt subdivision report #FPP-94-30 as findings of fact and recommend to the County Commissioners that preliminary plat be approved with the 8 conditions as written. Bahr seconded. On a roll call vote Hodgeboom, Sanders, Carlson, Bahr, DeGrosky, Kennedy and Hash voted in favor of.granting preliminary plat approval for White Birch RV & Campground. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS Kennedy addressed the issue of electing the member -at - large at the December meeting so that that member can sit at the January meeting to constitute a full Board. Parsons noted that all the planning boards members for the cities and Flathead County are appointed at the same time. Since new members are appointed on December 31st, those Board members must be allowed to vote for the member -at -large. Retiring Board members would not vote for the 9th member. Motion Kennedy made a motion to send a recommendation to the County Commissioners that they request the FRDO staff to look at the definition and intent for AG-20, to possibly change it to SAG-20. Bahr seconded. By acclamation vote all members present voted aye. The adopted North Meridian Neighborhood Plan and Resolution was passed out to the members to include in their books. 25 Zoning in conformance with the Kalispell Airport Neighborhood Plan will be corning before the Board. Craig Kerzman, Kalispell Building Official, asked to be recognized. He explained why a building permit was issued to Heritage Place for the foundation. Often permits are issued for foundations so construction can begin as weather dictates. They are issued subject to the contractors or developers assuming all risks. It was a valid permit. The permit for construction of the superstructure was not issued. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:18 p.m. V, 4! Therese Fox Hash, President iza h Ontko, Recording Secretary r APPROVED: 6W �� a 26