Loading...
08-11-92 Planning Board�> KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING AUGUST 'll, 1992 CALL TO ORDER President Hash called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. AND ROLL CALL Robert Lopp had an excused absence. All other Board members were present. APPROVAL OF Hash called for approval of the minutes of the joint MINUTES / meeting of the Flathead County Planning Board and JULY 14, 1992 Kalispell City -County Planning Board and the minutes of the regularly scheduled Kalispell City -County Planning Board of July 14, 1992. Sloan moved to adopt both sets of minutes as published. Fraser seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Jentz introduced the new staff member, Brian Wood, to the Board. REQUEST FOR Hash introduced a request for preliminary plat by A. G. PRELIMINARY and Ruth Anderson for a 6-lot subdivision called Andy's PLAT APPROVAL/ Acres. The property contains 25.4 acres of land and is ANDY'S ACRES situated on the west side of Demersville Road beginning approximately 200 feet south of Lower Valley Road. More specifically the property lies in the SE4 NW4 and the NE4 SW4 of Section 28, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. The property is unzoned. Staff Report Jentz gave the staff review of Andy's Acres, Subdivision Report #FPP-92-19. This is a 6-lot subdivision requiring a public hearing. This area is currently unzoned, but is proposed' for a SAG-5 designation. The staff recommends approval subject to the 12 conditions as set forth in the Report. Public Hearing The meeting was opened to anyone wishing to speak in favor of the subdivision. Lisa Rice, representing the applicant, Andy Anderson, stated that they are in agreement with the staff report, however, question the responsibility of the developer to improve a county road that has been in need of improvement long before this subdivision proposal. They are also opposed to condition #11, as this 6-lot subdivision may be exempt from the parkland dedication requirement. The cash -in -lieu amount was figured as 1/9 of the fair market value of the undeveloped land, however for a"greater than 5-lot subdivision, it should be figured as 1/12. Andy Anderson, the applicant and property owner, objected to the requirement to improve the county road. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. 1 Discussion The issue of parkland was discussed. The Board could entertain a recommendation to address the method of figuring cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication. The issue of widening the county road in front of the proposed subdivision was discussed, as well as the problems of an emergency vehicle turn -around, and multiple driveways onto Demersville Road. Motion Fraser made a motion that condition #7 be amended to read that the subdivision be accessed from a single point subject to approval by the County Road Department, that an internal road system be developed and delete condition #12. DeGrosky seconded. The motion carried unanimously. DeGrosky made a motion that condition #11 be amended to read that cash -in -lieu for parkland dedication for lots 1-5 be paid to Flathead County at the time of final platting, and that Lot 6 will be subject to parkland dedication at the time of subdivision. Sloan seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Fraser made a motion that FRDO Subdivision Report #FPP- 92-19 be accepted as findings of fact with the recommendations contained therein, with the amendments as approved. Kennedy seconded. The motion passed unanimously. LOWER SIDE Hash introduced the next item on the agenda at ZONING approximately 6:20 p.m. There were approximately 40 DISTRICT #80 persons in attendence. The Lower Side Zoning District ADOPTION #80, a County zoning district within the planning jurisdiction of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission. Said zoning district will be adopted under the provisions of 76-2-201, et.seq., MCA. The proposed zoning district is generally situated southerly of Kalispell. Most of the affected areas lie south of Cemetery Road/Lower Valley Road and north of Rocky Cliff Road. In addition, it includes such areas as Foys Lake, Whalebone Drive, Orchard Ridge, Wapiti Acres, Green Tree Meadow, Foys Bend, Valley View Drive and their surrounding vicinities. The zoning proposal also includes the unzoned portions of Sunrise Terrace and the immediate neighborhood. Various zoning classifications are proposed within the perimeter boundaries of the district. The zoning district will be regulated in accordance to the Flathead County Comprehensive Zoning Regulations, permanent file #16,137, Flathead County. A public hearing was held on June 9 and July 14 regarding this proposed zoning district. An informational study session was held on August 4, and there have been several articles in the paper. There has been much public comment and many letters have been received. Numerous issues are before this Board to address. I \� Staff Comments Jentz noted for the record that this agenda item has been presented at the last two public hearings. We are looking at extending County zoning south of Kalispell as reflected on the map. The overall Master Plan for the area is one of the guiding factors that we are bound to follow for establishing zoning. From the letters and comments, Jentz highlighted the following areas of concern which have been raised. (1) A property owner in Greentree Meadows requested that a commercial zone accomodate his intent to put in a convenience store, mini -storage and RV park. However, an intense commercial zone is not in conformance with the proposed R-2 zone' designation. (2) Jentz distributed a map the Valley View Drive neighborhood showing the actual letters received. This area generated considerable public comment at the last public hearing and a number of form letters were received in the office requesting an R-1 or R-2 zoning designation. From the staff's standpoint it is difficult to recommend R-2 given the steep topography, high fire hazard, environmental problems, limited road development, and lack of services. An R-2 designation requires that the infrastructure be in place. The report recommended that the upper part be zoned R-1 and the rest be AG-40. Staff offered a compromise of SAG-5 in place of the AG-40 classification. (3) The property from the 4-Corners Bar to Ashley Creek is the third "hot spot". The map shows that it is proposed as SAG-5. Many people in the area have demanded that it be considered commercial property. The long-range development plan does not project this as a strip commercial zone. Public Hearing President Hash opened the meeting to all those in favor of the proposed zoning district. Ted Mead, Department of State Lands, spoke from a fire protection standpoint in favor of the AG-40 proposal for those timbered areas adjacent to State Lands and running through section 36. Problem residential development is lessened with a 40 acre minimum. He submitted a letter to the Board outlining the agency's concerns. Randy Feller, `�"` `�� `,��`�\ W voiced his concerns regarding the ability to provide services, fire protection, and the roads are inadequate for a high density of development. There being no further proponents, the meeting was �-\ opened to all those wishing to speak in opposition to J the proposed zoning district. Rosella Proefrock, 695 Valley View Drive, stated that the map is wrong. The road goes about 3000 feet beyond what the map shows. 3 Mrs. Taylor, 655 Valley View Drive, said the road goes by her house, and along the road are small parcels. She is against the AG-40 designation. John Taylor, 655 Valley View Drive, has fought fire for the County. He did not feel there was a wild fire hazard in this area as it has been logged off. He also felt that there was no problem with getting a sewer line across Ashley Creek. With an AG-40 only 4-5 people would be able to divide their land. Ed Martin, 2988 Hwy. 93 South, was opposed to SAG-5 designation on the highway. He and his family have operated a welding business there for 50 years. He feels this area should be zoned commercial. Horace Sanders, Lower Valley Road, had questions on the "grandfather clause". Victor Guest, Valley View Drive, bought 200 acres 42 years ago and has subsequently divided and sold parts of it, as well as giving acreage to his children, with the intent of letting them subdivide and develop the land. He passed around aerial photos for the Board to see the suitability of this land for homesites. ( ) Dr. Little, property owner of approximately 74 acres, which he acquired piecemeal over the years. With the proposed AG-40 zone, he can't sell any of this property in less than 40 acre lots. He is opposed to this zone. Rich DeJana, attorney representing Dolly Siderius, whose land is being held in trust. This land is a part of the Ashley Industrial Park, which is presently in litigation. Before we get into any misunderstanding, he recognizes that you have the constraints of a 1986 Master Plan. Questions answered in relation to that Master Plan, that in its own terms should be updated annually or semi-annually. Having to make comments constantly that "that's a grandfathered use", then perhaps the Master Plan - (can't hear) - and if that's the case, the Master Plan is based on the planning. But, that's not really the purpose. What is important, is that we have some questions. Notice we are dealing with this zoning district, and I guess I have a question for the planning staff, do we have one zoning district or do we have 20? Jentz replied that there are about 20 zoning classifications in a single zoning district. DeJana wanted to know what the Board thinks. Are we creating a zoning district that has different uses in different areas. I would like the Board to know what it is, because you are passing it, and my client's plans are dependent on knowing this. 4 Jentz explained that rather than getting the Board tongue-tied on the spot of adopting that map with the zoning classifications, the Board only has to understand what these classifications are. It is up to our County Attorney as to whether each one of those is a separate district. DeJana said, "so, you don't know how immaterial it is for the purpose of this hearing." The next question for the zoning Board, assuming that Mr. Anderson -can't get his plat done before zoning is in effect, then can you explain how the grandfather use, is his plat grandfathered? Mr. Jentz just said that preliminary plat approval is a contract with the governing body. Now, as I understand the Comprehensive Plan, and I think is important to be said that there have been developments since 1986. Comments on the Plan, it is not just a map, it is a text. And when the Comprehensive Plan is evaluated, the entire plan is evaluated. I find a written comment dealing with highway development, found on pages 41-42, basically dealing with commercial development along Highway 93 south from 13th Street. So, the comment is that perhaps we are not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, or at least the Plan is 'interpreted inconsistently. President Hash suggested that in view of the many people in attendance at the meeting, that perhaps Mr. DeJana could hold his comments until the others had a chance to speak. Ted Mead, Department of State Lands, spoke against the portion of the zoning designated as R-1 on Valley View Drive, because of the steep topography was unsuitable for the density of development from a wild fire point of view. The photos which Mr. Guest brought were very telling in that you can see the cliff areas, which would be a real problem if there was a fire. The other areas of concern are the SAG-10 proposals adjoining the Orchard Ridge and wapiti Acres Subdivisions. Again, given the steep slopes and fuel types, it would provide a situation, at full build out, that would be indefensible from the standpoint of a wild land protection agency. Andy Anderson, 94 Lower Valley Road, owns property along Highway 93 South, and are opposed to the agricultural zone proposal. He requested it be zoned I-1 Light Industrial or commercial. Hugh Lowden, Snowline Road, owns property along Highway 93 South, is opposed to the SAG-5 and would like to see it zoned I-1 or commercial. 5 Julie Olson, 3320 Hwy. 93 South, spoke against 'the proposed SAG-10 designation for her property. She would prefer an R-1 zone. Brian Cannavaro, 3238 and 3240 Hwy. 93 South, owns the Patchbox and the Museum of the Great Divide and lives in the homestead there. He would like to expand his business in the future. He is opposed to the SAG-5 designation. He does not feel that this area does not lend itself to agricultural or residential use because .of its close proximity to the highway. For the record, Montana Log Homes has applied for a class III landfill. Ed Mitton, Rocky Cliff Drive, wants the option to subdivide his land. Tom Little, 150 Snowline Lane, owns property bounded by Ashley Creek, Hwy. 93 S, and he shares a boundary with the industrial park. He is opposed to the SAG-5 zone, and wants to see it zoned industrial. John Taylor, Valley View Drive, indicated that he had a problem with the wild fire issue. Designating 40 acre minimum lot size is not going to cure the fire problem. That does not make sense. The property owners want the option of subdividing their land in the future. They fight their own fires in this area. There are roads all over that land. Rosella Proefrock, Valley View Drive, was raised on this land, and the it is not vertical, steep slopes. There are roads all over. She invited Mr. Mead to take a tour of the property. Dr. Little reiterated that he was opposed to the AG-40 zoning designation. Mrs. Taylor, Valley View Drive, is strongly opposed to this fire issue. There is no danger on this hill. Richard DeJana, apologized to the Board, but this is important to the taxpayers. The facts are that this zoning for SAG-5 agricultural does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan told us on page 73 what we are supposed to do with agricultural lands. Inventory and map the important areas, develop a profile of agricultural industry in the county, including its needs and the impacts of agri-business on the economy. I can tell you, that at least for the people on the Hwy 93 strip, it is not agricultural land. But the zoning out there is to be based on progressive alternatives to traditional planning. That is what the Master Plan says. The point that hits me, is that now we are looking at something that is based on the Master Plan for vast areas, especially along Hwy 93, potentially agricultural in some places, but we A can't produce a farmer or a rancher who owns that land - out there who can make that strip produce anything by farming, or dairying, or pasture, or as grazing land. That tells me there is a problem. And finally, when I look at the zoning itself, I have to ask, what are the SAG's buffering? The other concern, is that if we are about to have 20 districts, then the SAG-5 along the corridor has a unique feature, on a national level there are comparable relationships. What we are saying is that a mix of commercial, residential, farming along the Hwy 93 strip, somehow there is a relationship and zoning category with Orchard Ridge and Wapiti Acres. What I am going to submit to you that the reason they are there is gerrymandering. It is to prevent the 40% protest of the separate district of those people along the strip. I would like to say that we have people here telling you that the land doesn't work. If we are concerned about planning and giving fair hearings, and if you are concerned about the Comprehensive Plan, then you better get it updated before you zone. The public hearing was closed at 7:30 p.m. Discussion The meeting was then opened to Board discussion. The first area for discussion was Valley View Drive. The Board spent considerable time struggling with zone alternatives to address the neighborhood concerns that AG-40 was too restrictive. Numerous options were considered and discussed, in an attempt to reach Board concensus. Kennedy made a motion to amend the proposed zoning to have a SAG-5 designation for Tract 9, 10, 10A, the bottom half of the R-1 zone, and as designated on the map. Ellingson seconded. By roll call vote, Kennedy and Ellingson voted in favor, all other Board members voted nay. The motion did not carry. The original proposal of AG-40 for this area remained. The next request discussed by the Board was a 32 acre tract on Ashley Creek, which was proposed as SAG-10. The property owner had already split off two 5 acre lots, and requested a SAG-5 designation for the remainder. Sloan made a motion to revise the zone to SAG-5. Stephens seconded. Hash voted nay. All other Board members voted aye. The motion carried. The Board considered options for property adjoining an existing I-1 zone and proposed as SAG-5. It was requested that the proposed zoning reflect the existing industrial activity on the highway. After lengthy discussion, a consensus was reached to leave the -�� proposed zoning as SAG-5. A written request to the Commission from a property owner in the Green Tree Meadows Subdivision to allow a convenience store, mini -storage and RV park was considered. This is a growing residential area and is 7 proposed as R-2. The neighborhood does not lend itself to commercial and/or light industrial use. The Board agreed , by concensus to leave this as an R-2 designation. The final "hot spot" considered by the Board was zoning along the Hwy. 93 corridor. This area is proposed as SAG-5, in conformance with the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. A petition with eleven signatures was submitted to the Board demanding the property from Lower Valley Road to Longs Machinery be zoned commercial or light industrial. Written and oral testimony also requested commercial or light industrial for this area. After considerable discussion of the Master Plan, the Board voted to maintain the SAG-5 classification. Fraser made a motion to accept FRDO Zoning Report #80 as findings of fact, with the recommendations discussed therein. Sloan seconded. By roll call vote, Stephens voted nay, all other Board members voted aye. The Tower Side Zoning District will be recommended, as discussed, to the County Commissioners. OLD BUSINESS Under old business, the Board requested that staff look into the extension of their jurisdictional boundaries, l to be addressed at the next meeting. The Board �J discussed updating of the Master Plan. NEW BUSINESS The September meeting will be held on Thursday, September 10, at 5:30. The subject of developer's off - site impact fees were discussed. The Board requested the staff to obtain drafts from other jurisdictions as to how this is being addressed. It was agreed to show the Department of State Lands',14-11fi-jp?n wild fire at a winter meeting. ova ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. APPROVED: 0 RAMAJ4 ` //Cfit Therese Fox Hash, President E izabeth Ontko, Recording Secretary L3