10-08-91 Planning BoardKALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
OCTOBER 8, 1991
CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Charles Manning, Vice
AND ROLL CALL President, at '7:00 p.m. Those present were Manning,
Dominick, Fraser, Gould, Lopp and Kennedy. Absent were
Hash, Stephens, and Sloan. David Greer, Senior Planner,
represented the Flathead Regional Development Office.
APPROVAL OF
Manning
called for
approval of the minutes of
September
MINUTES OF
10, 1991.
Gould so
moved and Kennedy
seconded the
motion.
SEPT. 10, 1991
It was
passed unanimously.
BAILEY ZONE
Manning
introduced
the request by
Betty Joan
Bailey to
CHANGE REQUEST
change
the zoning of
a tract of land
in the Willow
GLen
R-1 TO R-5
Zoning
District from
Residential
R-1 to Residential R-5.
Manning
asked Greer
to give the staff
report.
Greer stated that this zone change request had been tabled
by the Board several months ago and that the staff
.evaluation had basically not changed. Greer explained that
the applicant had expanded the area of the zone change
request from one tract of land to four tracts of land and
that the expansion addresses a few of the issues that the
Board expressed previously regarding spot zoning. Greer
stated that the new subject property adjoins another R-5
zoning classification and extends to both sides of Shady
Lane. Greer stated that the property is entirely located
within the 100-year floodplain and that an R-5 zone is not
appropriate as it would be prioritizing development into a
designated floodplain. Greer stated that staff feels that
development should be prioritized in other areas that have
less environmental limitations. Greer also stated that
though the issue of spot zoning had been addressed, it was
recommended that the zone change request be denied.
Greer's comments were a summary of Staff Report #FZC-91-2A.
Public Hearing Manning opened the meeting for comments from the proponents
of the zone change request.
Francis Webber, a property owner in the subject area,
stated if the zone change request was progress, then he is
in favor of it.
Paula Johnson, attorney representing Ms. Bailey, stated
that the property is ideally suited for mini storage
units, as they would require no water or sewer, and would
have minimal impact on the criteria addressed in the staff
report. Johnson stated that the Bailey property already
has a mobile home park and a motel; she also stated that
there is legislation under consideration that would require
mobile home parks to have storage buildings. Johnson
stated that the Board's previous concerns regarding spot
zoning had been addressed by bringing in additional
property and a petition signed by the property owners in
favor of the zone change request.
There being no other proponents, Manning called for
opponents to the zone change. There were no opponents and
the public hearing was closed.
Board Discussion Kennedy asked Greer whether the property just below the
property in question was zoned R-1. Greer said that was
correct.
Fraser asked if Shady Lane and the area along Conrad Drive
was in the floodplain. Greer replied it was; the area
zoned R-5 below the other mobile home park is in the
floodplain, and the other area zoned R-5 west of Shady
Lane, along Highway 2, is outside the floodplain.
Gould asked what percentage of the property would be used
for the proposed mini storage. Bailey replied that the
mini storage would occupy approximately one & one half
acres out of a total of seven acres. Gould asked Greer if
there was a way to allow this kind of use under the present
zoning without undergoing a zone change. Greer replied
that a text amendment to an R-1 classification is an
alternative but he did not feel that mini storage units are
appropriate to a rural classification. Greer stated that
the County has been evaluating mini storage over the last
few years and has decided that they are appropriate in some
of the multi -family zones and business zones where there
are higher density uses.
2
Gould asked, if it were desirable to permit this type of
use, whether it would not make more sense to allow it an
one acre as a conditional use under the existing zone as
opposed to changing the zone of the whole seven (7) acres.
Greer replied the only way t❑ accomplish this would be to
allow a broad text amendment that would allow mini storages
in any R-1 classification; that much of the zones in the
County, especially in the Evergreen area, are zoned R-1,
and this would open up opportunities for mini storages in
many other areas besides just the property in question.
Greer replied that you cannot contract zone to allow it on
this property an not allow it to happen on another property
with similar zoning.
Lopp asked if the zone change request to R-5 was approved,
and since the property is in the 100-year floodplain, will
additional housing units be allowed within this zoning
district. Greer replied that it would be difficult but
possible; for example if a property was vacant, a duplex
could be built provided a floodplain development permit
could be acquired and the septic system was located outside
the 100-year floodplain. Lopp asked if there was little
chance that the area would become higher density in this
area due to the zone change unless they were connected to
city sewer systems. Greer replied that was correct.
Fraser asked Greer how much of the property was in the
floodplain. Greer replied that the entire property was in
the floodplain. Fraser stated he felt that the property
�) was not in danger of actual flooding from the Flathead
River.
Motion Gould moved to adopt the findings of fact of staff report
#FZC-41-2A and.grant the request for a zone change from R-1
to R-5. Fraser seconded the motion.
Greer made a suggestion that if the Board were to adopt the
findings of fact and make a positive recommendation and
grant the zone change that some modifications to the
findings of fact should be made, as the staff report
recommends denial of the zone change.
Gould recommended amending the last paragraph of the staff
to read "It is recommended that the zone change request
from Residential R-1 to Residential R-5 for the property
described in Exhibit A be approved." Greer stated that
when a zone change is granted, it is implied that the zone,
in general, is appropriate to the property as opposed to a
particular use within that zone.
Mike Fraser recommended also deleting the last two
sentences in the second to last paragraph, and change the
first part of the paragraph t❑ read "By definition, an R-5
zoning classification is appropriate since this area will
be served in the future by a full range of public
services".
Question Question was called on the original motion to accept the
findings of fact and to change the zone from an R-1 to and
R-5. Lapp abstained, Manning voted no, Fraser voted no,
Kennedy voted no, Gould voted no, Dominick voted no. The
motion was denied.
Board Discussion Several members had questions and concerns regarding when
the subject area would be added to the Evergreen Sewer
District and the additional development potential when it
occurs, and compliance with the Master Plan. Some members
felt that a conditional use permit or a text amendment
would be more appropriate than a zone change.
Motion Fraser moved to amend the findings of fact of FRDO staff
report #FZC-91-2A follows:
1. Change the paragraph which mentions compliance with the
Master Plan to indicate the existing uses are appropriate
for the R-5 classification and should have been considered
so in the original zoning of the area.
�J
2. Eliminate the first two sentences of the second
recommendation paragraph; amend the third sentence to state
that the R-5 classification is appropriate since it will
eventually be served by a full range of public services;
and delete the last two sentences of the paragraph.
3. Revise the last sentence of the report t,o read that the
zone change from R-1 to R-5 be approved.
Lapp seconded the motion and the motion was passed
unanimously by roll call vote.
�� 4
FOYS LAKE ESTATES Manning introduced the request by William T. and Linda
PRELIMINARY PLAT Bolstad for preliminary plat approval of a 9-lot single
family subdivision on 99.6 acres between Middle Foys Lake
and Upper Foys Lake off North Foys Lake Drive. Manning
asked Lisa Rice to give the staff report.
Fraser excused himself from participation in the agenda
item due to a conflict of interest.
Rice gave the staff report, stating the subdivision will be
served by a private road and the developers are proposing
individual wells and septic systems for each lot. A
homeowners' park and natural area are also proposed. Rice
stated there are other subdivisions in the area, and that
the Kalispell City -County Master Plan indicates Suburban
Residential and Silvicultural designations for this
property, and that due to the large lot sizes, the proposed
subdivision should prove to be a natural transition between
the residential and silviculture land uses and is therefore
in conformance with the Master'Plan.
Rice stated that the Smith Valley Fire Department and the
Fire Supervisor for Montana Department of States Lands, who
reviewed the subdivision together, expressed some concerns
regarding Wildflower Lane. Rice stated that both agencies
felt a secondary access is necessary, and proposed that
Wildflower Lane be extended in a southerly direction
between Lots 7 and 8, then easterly below Lots 8 and 9, and
exit to either North Foys Lake Drive.or to Wildflower Lane
in Lot 1.
Rice stated that on October 7, 1991, a response from
Lakeshore Heights and Lakeshore Coves Homeowners'
Association was received. The Homeowners' Association
expressed concern regarding the ground water aquifer and
will take any action necessary to protect their ground
water rights. Rice read the letter to the Board.
Manning asked that Rice make references to the covenants
when reviewing the conditions of the staff report. Rice
then commented on each of the proposed conditions of
approval as set forth in the staff report.
5
Public Hearing Manning opened the meeting for comments from the proponents
of the proposed subdivision.
Dean Jellison, the attorney representing Mr. and Mrs.
Bolstad, stated that as developers of the subdivision, they
had strived to make it a first class project. Jellison
stated that in response to one of the criteria, a need for
the subdivision, he had received letters from Coldwell
Banker, Greg Bain and Company, Ted Dykstra & Associates,
and Glacier Realty all stating they felt there was a
definite need for a subdivision of this caliber.
Jellison stated the major disagreement with the staff
report related to the question of the community water
system versus individual wells. Jellison passed a letter
to the Board from the well driller, Mr. Bill Osborne, which
stated that the use of individual wells would be the
practical approach; that the 2000 foot well the Bolstads
had drilled was not from necessity but to get what they
felt was an adequate water supply for the structure and
uses they intended to make of that water, which includes
some irrigation and domestic uses above and beyond the
normal. Jellison stated that the question of the water
system should be a question for the State Department of
Health and Department of Natural Resources, and could not
be properly dealt with in a planning board meeting.
Jellison stated, in response to Condition #20 requesting a
school bus turnout be provided on Lot 1 fronting North Foys
Lake Drive, that the entry to Wildflower Lane was designed
for that purpose.
Jellison stated that there was confusion of ownership of
the property between Foys Lake and the roadway, and that
the confusion was discovered by the Bolstads at the time
of purchase of the property; Jellison also stated that
litigation was on going in a quiet title action. Jellison
stated that if the action is successful, then the Bolstads
will hold title to the strip of property, approximately 30
feet wide, and a dry hydrant will be provided as requested
in Condition #16.
There being no other proponents, Manning called for
opponents of the proposed subdivision.
Frank Thomas, 426 North Foys Lake Drive, asked who the
actual owner of North Foys Lake Drive was, and if it was a
deeded County roadway. Thomas stated he was not opposed
to the proposed subdivision.
Bolstad replied that the road was deeded in 1906 or 1908 to
the County and redeeded in 1968.
6
Board Discussion
Thomas expressed concern that North Foys Lake Drive could
not handle the additional amount of traffic generated by
the proposed subdivision and other development going on in
the area, and the problem should be addressed by the
County.
Thomas also wanted to know if there were any plans for
development of the piece of property left by the lake.
Bolstad replied the piece of property was too small and had
no plans for it.
Laverne Claire, an adjoining property owner, asked if the
subdivision and the proposed county wide zoning would place
any restrictions on his property.
Greer replied that the conditions of the staff report only
applied to the proposed Foys Lake Estate Subdivision, and
that the proposed county wide zoning was a separate
process.
Fred Andrews, homeowner on Foys Lake, asked to have the
parkland issue clarified.
Jellison replied that County regulations require that if
each lot in a subdivision is 5 acres or larger, any
requirement for a parkland dedication or cash -in -lieu of
can be waived. When originally designed, the subdivision
reserved the possibility of creating at least one lot that
would be less than 5 acres, and that land had been
designated that could be used as park land. Jellison
stated that the land was basically unsuitable for park
land, and the developers were now proposing to eliminate
that parcel and have no provision for any common park land
within the subdivision, but that there would be a common
area that would be jointly maintained by the homeowners.
Jellison stated that this plan would mean the lots that
front on Middle Foys Lake would have access to the lake and
those that do not front on the lake would have no access,
and there would be no cash -in -lieu.
There being no other opponents, Manning closed the public
hearing.
Dominick stated for
not acceptable to the
#24, #25 and #26. There
several board members
wide enough or too st
access off North Foys
school bus off the road.
�� 7
clarification that the conditions
developer are Conditions #3, #23,
was discussion on Condition #20 by
on the turnout, and whether it was
eep. Rice stated that the 100 foot
Lake Drive was adequate to pull a
Dominick asked whether, in regards to Condition #23, this
changed the recommendation of the staff report in regards
to the community water system, as the City -County Health
Department only suggested that a multi-user system be
installed.
Rice stated that if the recommendation is denied, that a
certified hydrologist report should be required to state
that there is adequate and available water for individual
wells.
Jellison expressed concern that the planning board should
be the ones requiring the need to obtain a hydrologist's
report, since one will be required from the State anyway.
Greer responded that, in a situation where the impacts of a
subdivision are being evaluated, a recommendation to the
Commissioners for approval should carry some assurance that
there is an adequate water supply and such assurance should
be based on a qualified engineer's evaluation.
Jellison stated that the report submitted by Bill Osborne
is assurance of adequate water, and the Department of
Natural Resources should be the one to decide on the type
of water system used.
Kennedy asked whether, with the increase ❑f the lots to 5
acres, the staff would have a problem with no dedicated
_ park land.
Rice responded that the land is a recreational area and
that the other homeowners should have access to Middle Foys
Lake, and that hiking trails, etc. should be established
along the area originally set aside as parkland.
Gould asked whether the Lakeshore Heights property included
any common area that would adjoin the Foys Lake Estates
common area.
Rice stated that it did abut the property.
Gould stated that the developers should provide at least
an easement along Middle Foys Lake so that owners from both
subdivisions could take advantage of the common area.
CJ s
(notion Kennedy moved to adopt the findings of fact of Staff Report
#FPP-91-29 and recommendations with the following changes:
Condition #1-#19 remain the same; Condition #20 is
eliminated; Condition #21-#22 remain the same ; Condition
#23 be changed to read "that a community water system be
used unless deemed otherwise based on a certified
hydrologist's report that there is sufficient water
availability; Condition #24-#25 remain the same; eliminate
Condition #26; Condition #27 remains the same.
Question Question was called on the motion and it was passed
unanimously by roll call vote. Fraser abstained from
voting.
OLD BUSINESS Rice stated that the Tom Tonkinson zone change request
should remain an the table, since it is to go before the
Commissioners on October 12, 1991. Rice stated that the
Tonkinson's are requesting a zone change and text
amendment, and are awaiting the decision by the
Commissioners on the text amendment request; if denied,
they will withdraw the zone change request.
NEW BUSINESS: Gould thanked the staff for getting the materials to the
Board in such a timely fashion.
Adjournment Manning moved to adjourn and Kennedy seconded th'e motion.
0 The meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m.
-------------- -- --- ---_ --------
Charles Mannin , Vice esident Sandie Mueller, Recording Secretary
Approved: As corrected - H[14/91
Stephens stated he had notified the FRDO in advance that he would be out of state.
\J 9