05-10-88 Planning BoardKALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
MAY 10, 1988
CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Charles Manning, President, at
AND ROLL CALL 7:31 p.m. Those present were Stephens, Hall, Frazer, Sloan, Hash,
Reynolds, Furlong, and Manning. Otis Robbins was absent. David Greer,
Senior Planner, represented the Flathead Regional Development Office.
APPROVAL OF MIN- Sloan moved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on April 12,
UTES APRIL 12, 1988. Hall seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
1988
GLACIER VILLAGE Manning introduced the first application on the agenda which is a
GREEN SUBDIVISION request by George Schulze for preliminary plat approval of Glacier
PRELIMINARY PLAT Village Green Subdivision, a major subdivision involving the division
of 31.9 acres into 95 residential lots. The proposed subdivision is
generally located on the north side of West Evergreen Drive between
Whitefish Stage Road and the Whitefish River. It is more particularly
described as being located in the S2 of the SW4 of Section 32,
Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M. and in the S2 of the SE4 SE4
of said Section 32, Flathead County, Montana.
Greer gave the staff report drawing attention to the location of the
proposed subdivision and the preliminary plat that each member of the
Board had. The 95 lots are proposed to be about 6,000 square feet
� each. The 95 lots are basically located in an area where a mobile
\�I home park had been previously reviewed in 1980, originally called
Fairway Park and now called Glacier Village Green. There are
currently five spaces in the area of the subdivision that have been
developed and are being leased. After the subdivision is approved
each lot can be sold as opposed to being leased and each lot is being
proposed to be occupied bya-single family residence. Agriculture is
still being practiced on the adjoining property to the north. Nearby,
there are two subdivisions known as Hillcrest Estates and Mission
Village. The zoning, on the property is R-5 which allows single family
dwellings and duplexes. What is being proposed is compatible with the
Master Plan. There. are: .;: some. covenants provided which are basically
what they had when the developers were leasing the lots so the
covenants do need some improvement. There needs to be something in
the Covenants that.addresses maintenance responsibilities and
ownership of the common .property. Telephone service is available to
64 of the proposed lots already. There is underground electricity.
Evergreen water is.already. available to the majority of the 95
proposed lots. Sewer will be collected by Village County Sewer
District.
There are eight statutory criteria addressed. The subdivision is
reviewed as a 95 lots and they are proposing three phases. There are
fire hydrants and the subdivision is within the jurisdictional area
of the Evergreen Volunteer Fire Department. It is within the
jurisdiction of the Flathead 'County Sheriff's Department. The
hillside on the west exhibits some slumping and -may cause a hazard to
1 ,.; , v.., L . _%
some of the westerly lots. Traffic is the main concern in regards to
artificial hazards. This subdivision will add to the congestion of
�1
the intersection of West Evergreen Drive and Whitefish Stage Road.
There may be additional children on the roads in the area. The soil
in this area is designated by the SCS manual as being unfavorable to
development because the characteristics of the soil such as
frost/heave potential, load bearing capacities, and so forth. There
will be significant impacts to schools with possibly up to 52 school
age children. The School District and the Sheriff's Department
expressed concern over pedestrian safety. A Homeowners' Park
consisting of 2.4 acres is proposed in the area adjoining West
Evergreen Drive. A Developer's Park consisting of 8.6 acres is also
proposed. The Developer's Park will be part of the golf course that
had been earlier planned in the Mobile Home Park. Currently, it
appears that the Developer's Park will be owned by the developer and
not be shared by the Homeowners. Maintenance and ownership of the two
parks is not clear yet because the Covenants do not address the
Homeowners' Association. The Fire Department requested that all
streets be named and signed, that all house numbers be visible from
the road, that there be a 40 foot radius cul-de-sac at the end of
each phase, no parking signs at the cul-de-sacs, and that the main
entrance would have a sign board stating road directions and house
numbers. A paved,private internal road system proposed. There are
some design issues. The road that goes northwesterly is long and
without any looping or cul-de-sacs. The Subdivision Regulations do
not allow roads to exceed 1,000 feet without looping or ending in a
cul-de-sac and this road is 1,900. The traffic will generally head
toward Whitefish Stage Road and will put more pressure on someone to
put a light at the intersection with West Evergreen Drive and it
might get more people talking about extending West Evergreen Drive
over to Highway 93. There are no sidewalks in the area at this time.
There is a concern about the sewer system. Who is going to maintain
the system as more and more people are added to it? There will have
to be a more routine maintenance program than what they have had in
the past. This is prime agricultural soil and farming still persists
on most of the property but it is recognized that the area area of
the 95 lots has already been committed to non-agricultural uses
because water, sewer and roads have already been extended to the
area. The adjoining property owners were sent certified letters and
so far there has been no response. A few years ago this was being
promoted as a retirement mobile home park with a golf course etc. Now
this will allow lots to be sold as opposed to being leased. Currently
the staff does not see a specific need for this subdivision. The area
where the subdivision is being proposed has already been committed to
urban uses. Conditional approval is recommended with 22 conditions.
All conditions were read. Greer explained that condition #3,
requiring that the previous approval of Fairway Park (Glacier Village
Greens) be null and void with the approval of this subdivision, is
there because at this point they are actually dividing the land as
opposed to leasing the land which is a substantial modification.
Also, according to the records of the Flathead Regional Development
Office the developers of the mobile home park never received final
i
approval of their 1980 application..
2
Public Hearing Manning opened the meeting to the public hearing calling for comments
from the proponents of the preliminary plat.
George Schulze, developer, stated that he did not feel that this
proposal is a major change from the previous mobile home park. The
difference is that now the lots previously made available for lease
would not be available to purchase. Schulze stated that none of the
lots were ready for lease until last fall and since then we have
discovered several problems with the lease proposal and the need for
people to purchase rather than lease. The change is being requested
in order to facilitate a marketing need that has arisen in the
marketing of the lease lots.
Charles Shelton stated that as a marketer of double wide mobile homes
the subdivision is a great asset to the community and there is a need
for them. He stated that he is of the impression that Mr. Schulze
wants to be able to give the prospective dwellers a choice to buy the
lot or lease it.
Ted Holmquist voiced his support of the subdivision.
There being no further proponents, Manning called on opponents for
their comments.
Eileen Williamson, lives right across the street from the
development, stated that this appeared to be like changing horses in
the middle of the stream. She cited the concerns expressed by
residents when the mobile home park was granted preliminary approval.
One of the things that the neighbors were assured when the previous
application was made was that if the developers retained ownership
this would assure that this would not become a huge shoddy affair.
She wanted to know what assurance there would be for enforcement of
the covenants etc if the developers are not the owners.
James Williamson stated that his biggest concern is the aquifer there
since the water table is high. He felt that septic tanks should not
be allowed in this area because they would have to bury the tanks in
water. He felt that some tanks had already been buried and felt that
was against state regulations.
Manning closed the public hearing when there were no further comments
from the opponents.
Board Discussion Manning asked Duane Bitney if he would address the concerns of the
Williamsons.
Bitney stated that this proposal originally took three years to get
approved because it had to go through 24 agencies. To date there are
over $1 million invested in this project. Bitney stated that the
reasons for the name change was because when they filed incorporation
papers the name was already in use and it had to be changed. The
school system is full because the New Edgerton School is filled of
students bussed from all over the elementary school district. He
Uadded that there are no septic tanks there at all and there is an
3
installed sewer system. Bitney stated that they have a sewer bill
that has to be met and the only way that they can meet the debt is to
sell some lots. Today's financing situation is that the lending
institutions would rather not loan on a mobile home that is placed on
a permanent foundation on a leased lot but rather will loan on a
double wide mobile home placed on a permanent foundation that is
located on a purchasable lot. These lots will provide very affordable
housing possibilities for people. He felt that this is the kind of
subdivision that should be supported since it is one of the nicest
proposals available anywhere.
Sloan asked Schulze if he had any problems with the conditions?
Schulze stated that there are a couple of the conditions that he has
problems with. The first one is condition #3. He disagreed that this
proposal was a major change from the previously preliminary approval
granted the mobile home park. Schulze stated that he is not in a
position to give up the approvals that they previously had. He also
had a problem with condition #18 requiring a sign board at the main
entrance.
Duane Bitney asked how condition #3 is allowed to exist after all of
the work and money that is spent by the developer based upon those
approvals granted previously? He did not feel that it was right. The
same office prematurely pushed us into the sewer system based on
those previous approvals.
Sloan asked Greer to explain. Greer stated that this was a
substantial modification from the previously approved preliminary
proposal and has to stand on its own merit. He added that he
consulted the county attorney's office and they agree with this
interpretation. Also, our records show that they have never gotten
final approval of the previous application. If this gets approved
they will have 95 lots only. Greer stated that the developers were
granted at least one extension on their original preliminary plat
approval and the last extension they posted a subdivision
improvements agreement which they failed to complete. One of the
conditions was that they not lease any of the lots until they have
final approval and they never went through final approval. It is the
opinion of the Flathead Regional Development Office and the
Commissioners Office that the developers do not have final approval
for their mobile home park. Stephens felt that condition #3 is not
necessary then since the approvals for the previous applications do
not exist anyway. Greer stated that what the staff is saying that
this is a new application and it is reviewed under new circumstances
and unless it is reviewed in relationship to the other purported 700
lease lots we are just reviewing a 95 lot subdivision. Greer stated
that the extension was granted in 1982 and that the subdivision
improvements agreement gave them until October of 1983. He added that
with Mobile Home Parks, a final review simply means that the
developer comes in and shows that he has met all of the conditions of
approval and that was never done nor have the required improvements
been completed to date.
rd
Bitney stated that the letter of credit was to be used to install 40
home sites and 6 fairways but because the sewer had to be installed,
100 sites and no fairways were installed.
Sloan stated that she could not understand what is being taken away
from the developers by leaving in condition #3. Schulze stated that
supposing we do not wish to sell any more than the 95 lots and now
wish to lease the remainder. Greer stated that further development
whether it is leased or sold would have to be reviewed subsequently.
This application supersedes previous applications.
Hall asked if there are currently 800 lots there? Sloan said no and
Bitney felt that there was according to what the County Attorney's
office said. Greer stated that the approval in 1980 was for a mobile
home park that never came for final review. There is a big difference
between a mobile home park that would have one ownership and be a
retrievable commitment of land as opposed to a land subdivision that
permanently divides the land and is not a retrievable commitment of
land. Bitney stated that he talked with Jonathan Smith and was told
that the remainder of the property would still be lease lots as
previously submitted. Greer stated that he talked to the same
attorney and got a different response. Manning stated that whether or
not the 700 lease lots remain intact is a legal question that the
Board is not prepared to answer or are they being required to answer
by this subdivision proposal.
Hall asked why we would be asking him to build a bike path all the
way to Edgerton School? Greer stated that the bike path would be on
the property of the subdivider. Hall felt that it was unfair for one
person to pay for the inadequacy of a road that belongs to the
County. Manning asked Hall to think of who is creating the impact? Is
it the subdivider or the School?
Mrs. Eileen Williamson stated that back in 1982 when the mobile home
park was being reviewed the Commissioners did accept the
responsibility to put in a bike path along West Evergreen Drive. She
added that the developers were to reserve 10 feet for that purpose.
Greer stated that one of the conditions of approval of the mobile
home park did state that the developer "provide improved pedestrian
and bike accessways to connect the proposed development with the
anticipated commercial and school sites located on the bluff west of
the development."
Reynolds asked if they would follow the covenants that were provided
in the original application? Schulze stated they would. Reynolds
stated that there are 17 of them and many of them refer to a
retirement home development.
Furlong asked what George Schulze objection was to condition #18?
Schulze stated that what appears to be requested is a large sign
board that would give the street name and direction and what lot
numbers or street numbers were in which direction. Schulze did not
feel that there was a necessity for such a sign. Sloan stated that
1 she did not feel that the sign had to be very large. Manning asked
5
Greer for input? Greer stated that normally the subdivider would
consult the fire department to find out what they would like. Manning
stated that could be made part of condition #18.
Furlong stated that he felt that condition #15 would cover it. He
added that in their letter of comment it seemed to him that their
request had only been that house numbers be visible from the street.
He felt that conditions #15 and 16 eliminate the need for condition
#18.
Stephens wondered how to handle condition #3? Hall suggested that the
developer and planning staff meet with the County Attorney together
and get the verbiage correctly. Frazer felt that the Commissioners
would address this problem when it is presented to them.
Manning suggested rewording condition #15 so that all roads and house
numbers be signed in a manner acceptable to the Evergreen Fire
District.
Motion Furlong moved to adopt the findings of fact as found in the report
from the Flathead Regional Development Office. Hash seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously in a roll call vote.
Motion Frazer moved to recommend approval of the proposed.subdivision to the
County Commissioners amending the 22 conditions presented by the
Flathead Regional Development Office by deleting condition #18 and to
change the wording of condition #15 to "That all roads and house
numbers be signed in a manner acceptable to the Evergreen Fire
District." Sloan seconded the motion. Stephens requested amending the
motion by adding to condition #3 that the developer and planning
staff meet with the County Attorney to discuss condition #3 before
this is presented to the County Commissioners. Reynolds seconded.
Frazer accepted the change to the original motion as did Sloan. The
motions became one.
Furlong spoke against including the amendment to Condition #3 saying
he felt that this would open the door for the developer to have
things both ways. Hall and Reynolds both felt that it should be
included.
Question The question was called and the motion passed unanimously in a roll
call vote.
LEARN ACRES Manning introduced the next agenda item of a request by Randy Saunier
PRELIMINARY PLAT for preliminary plat approval of Learn Acres, a minor subdivision
involving the creation of four (4) residential lots. The proposed
subdivision generally adjoins the westerly side of Learn Lane in the
area of Foy's Lake Road. It is more particularly described as being a
resubdivision of Lot 2 of Saunier's Acres, a plat of record in the
office of the Clerk and Recorder, Flathead County, Montana.
Greer gave the staff report saying that the subdivision is for four
lots. About one month ago the area consisted of one tract of land
which was split off creating a lot and a remainder. Now they are
0
creating lots 2 - 5. Since this is the second minor subdivision from
the same tract of land it requires a public hearing before the
planning board. There is a house on the area now and the rest is used
for grazing. There is high ground water in the area so a big concern
is the sewage disposal. Lot 1 required an engineered system. It is
anticipated that the rest of the lots will also require similar
systems. The soils are not prime agriculture soils and because of the
water content there is some constraints to development. The amount of
parkland required is 1.59 acres and based on the sale of lot 1 it is
determined that the value of the land is $2,000 per acre. Therefore,
the required parkland fee -in -lieu would be $3,180. There does not
appear to be a need for the subdivision. One letter was received
today expressing concern about groundwater and water quality. The
Flathead Regional Development Office recommended conditional approval
with four conditions.
Public Hearing Manning opened the meeting to the public hearing calling for
proponents to speak.
Tom Sederstrom, representing Thomas, Dean and Hoskins, stated that
all of the sewage disposal systems will be engineered and there is no
anticipation of groundwater contamination.
There being no other proponents, Manning called for opponents to
speak.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Manning closed the public
hearing.
r�
Board Discussion Manning asked Tom Sederstrom what is meant by a pressurized sewer
system? Mr. Sederstrom stated that this means the sewage is pumped
out to the drainfield and distributed evenly under pressure.
Furlong asked for clarification on the area being subdivided. He
further asked how many resubdivisions can be done? Greer stated they
could have as many as they wanted as long as approval can be obtained
from the sanitation department and the subdivision is still in
conformity with the zoning in existence, which allows for minimum
lots of one acre.
Motion Stephens moved to accept the findings of fact as found in the
Flathead Regional Development Office staff report #FPP-88-6. Hall
seconded the motion and it passed by a majority of those voting.
Frazer abstained from the vote.
Motion Hall moved to recommend approval of Learn Acres to the County
Commissioners with the conditions as stated in the Flathead Regional
Development Office Staff Report #FPP-88-6. Seconded by Reynolds and
passed with a majority of those voting. Frazer abstained from voting.
AIRPORT ROAD Manning introduced the next agenda item concerning the consideration
ZONING DISTRICT of the Airport Road zoning District, a proposed county zoning
district generally located in and around Airport Road and south of
Cemetery Road.
7
Greer gave a staff report on the proposal stating that the residents
in this area have requested the Board of County Commissioners to
create a County Zoning District in accordance to Section 76-2-201,
which is basically Commissioner initiated zoning. The request is for
SAG-1 (Suburban Agriculture). A public hearing will be held at the
Commissioner level. There are 12 criteria established by state law
for reviewing zoning district requests. Greer addressed all 12
criteria. The predominate character of the area consisting of 600
acres is grazing of animals. The proposed zoning would be regulated
by the Flathead County Comprehensive Zoning Regulations. The proposal
is consistent with the Master Plan and will help to maintain the
rural land use of the area. He added that property values would be
protected by keeping out land uses that are not compatible with the
current land use patterns.
Hall asked why SAG-1 was chosen? Greer stated that the Master Plan
shows this area to be "agriculture" and the zoning of SAG-1 is more
agriculturally oriented as opposed to R-1. R-1 promotes residential
uses whereas SAG-1 promotes agriculture uses.
Manning asked what the percent of the freeholders of the proposed
zoning district support the petition. Greer was unsure but thought
that all but two property owners have signed or agreed to the
petition.
Clem Wisher wanted to know just where the area of the proposed zoning
district is at. Greer pointed it out on the wall map.
Ron Swartzenberger stated that he felt this was a plot because when
he purchased the property there was no zoning and he established a
business on the property. Three weeks after he purchased the property
the petition is being generated to create the zone. He has plans of
putting a wrecking yard there.
Nick Aimesegger stated that the soil in that area is alkaline and
clay and he felt that the soil is not suitable for agriculture uses
and would be better used commercially.
Phil Fisher spoke for the petitions stated that they would like to
zone the area to protect their property values.
Hash asked if Swartzenberger's use would be grandfathered in as a
non -conforming use. Greer stated that this is questionable. Recently,
they brought in a used truck sales business onto the property and
until a few weeks ago the property was vacant.
Swartzenberger stated that the property which he purchased had been
for sale for ten years and he checked the zoning before buying it.
Sloan stated that when the Board was looking at this general vicinity
during the consideration of the West Side Zoning District it was the
intent of the Board to try to keep the area agricultural in
characteristic and zoned accordingly.
9
Motion Sloan moved to adopt the findings of fact as set out in the Flathead
Regional Development Office staff report #54. Stephens seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously in a roll call vote.
Motion Furlong recommended the boundaries of the Airport Road Zoning
District be the same as shown on the map submitted by the Flathead
Regional Development Office encompassing approximately 600 acres and
Exhibit A stating the metes and bounds of the zoning district. Sloan
seconded the motion. The motion passed with Manning, Sloan, Hash,
Hall, Stephens, Furlong, and Frazer being in favor and Reynolds
voting against.
Motion Hash moved to recommend to the County Commissioners that the proposed
Airport Road Zoning District jurisdictional area as defined by
Exhibit A be zoned SAG-1 under the Flathead County Comprehensive
Zoning Regulations. Sloan seconded the motion. Frazer asked when the
petition was brought in? Greer stated that it was brought in around
one week prior to the Commissioners reviewing the petition on April
22. Reynolds asked Swartzenberger when he purchased the property?
Swartzenberger stated that he purchased the property on March 31,
1986. The question was called and the motion passed with Manning,
Stephens, Hall, Frazer, Sloan, Hash and Furlong voting in favor and
Reynolds voting against.
OLD BUSINESS Manning asked if there was any old business to take care of.
Motion Furlong stated that, since he voted on the prevailing side of a
!� motion taken April 12 regarding the proposed B-3 zoning text
amendment, he moves to reconsider the Board's action on the B-3
-___ zoning classification for the property north of the Burlington
Northern right-of-way on First Avenue East North directly behind the
Firestone business. Sloan seconded the motion.
Furlong explained the reason for raising this question. He felt that
the Board had been tired at the time of the vote and may have not
paid the question as much attention as should have been. Some of the
concerns expressed at the time of the original vote were that what
the Firestone Company wanted to do was not compatible with the
existing character of the area. Secondly, it was felt there is a
possibility that the Burlington Northern may do something real great
with their land east of Main Street sometime in the future. Also it
was felt there was a potential for a Raks Restaurant on the north end
of the block replacing the current Kalispell Cabins. If Raks
ultimately builds there, they have asked to close the alley to
provide parking and beautification of their plot. Everyone in that
block has supported the closing of the alley up until our action one
month ago. What Firestone proposes to do with the property is put a
fence around it and use it for storing the Ryder Rental Trucks. What
was asked for was text change in the B-3 zone to allow for the
storage of single axle trucks up to the 20,100 gvw. Currently it is
allowed directly across the street. He felt that there is a potential
for a beautification of the area. Firestone has agreed to use a wood
(� fence to screen their storage yard from the Raks property on the
9
north. This storage would also ingress and egress on First Avenue
East North and not on Main Street.
Reynolds asked what the opinion of the attorney who has redone his
business area? Furlong said he has not asked him.
Sloan suggested that this area is in the Redevelopment area and would
be under the review of the architectural committee. Therefore,
whatever they propose to put in there would have to be reviewed by
that committee. Manning stated that there would probably have to be a
green buffer and that would cut down the usable square footage of
that lot. The committee would have some control.
Greer stated that you should not be considering site plans. The
question is whether or not the suggested use is appropriate for the
zoning classification. When you talk about sites you are talking
about contract zoning which is illegal. Your evaluation should be
based on whether the use is compatible to the whole district.
Hash stated that it is true that the proposed use would be allowed in
any of the B-3 zoned areas in the city. She did not feel that this
use would fit the vision that this Board has for B-3 uses.
Greer quoted some of the other uses allowed in the B-3 zoning
classification. The vote should not be centered on that property and
its location. The vote should be based upon whether or not it is
compatible to the zoning classification and the uses currently
permitted in that classification.
Question The question was called on the motion to reconsider the vote of the
Board last month and it failed. The vote was Stephens, Hall, and
Furlong in favor and Frazer, Sloan, Hash, Reynolds, and Manning
opposed in a roll call vote. The motion to reconsider failed.
NEW BUSINESS None.
ADJOURNMENT Hall moved to adjourn and Furlong seconded. The motion passed
'1 unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m.
Charles Manning re 'dent Debbie Liverman and Ava Walters
Recording Secretaries
Approved: (n�/ I d61
10