Loading...
02-09-88 Planning BoardKALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING MARCH 8, 1988 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by President Charles Manning at 7:40 AND ROLL CALL p.m. Those present were Fraser, Reynolds, Sloan, Stephens, Manning, and Hall. Those absent were Hash (excused) and Robbins. David Greer, Senior Planner, represented the Flathead Regional Development Office. MINUTES FEBRUARY Reynolds moved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 91 1988 February 9, 1988. Hall seconded the minutes and it passed unanimously. ELK'S CLUB RV Manning introduced the first agenda item of the preliminary plat PARK PRELIMINARY application for "Elk's Club RV Park", a ten (10) space RV Park being PLAT proposed in an area immediately adjoining the westerly perimeter of the Elk's Club facility in Kalispell. Manning called on Greer to give the Flathead Regional Development Office staff report. Greer drew the attention of the Board to a plat map on the wall. The access to the ten RV spots would be provided off of 18th Street West with a one-way road that loops around to the front of the Elk's Club facility. They propose to use the existing Elk's Club facilities for services without providing separate facilities for the RV park. The area of the Elk's Club is zoned B-2 (General Business) where RV parks are a permitted use. The proposed use is also in substantial conformance with the highway/commercial land use designation of the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. They also propose to provide water and sewer hook-ups to each of the RV spaces. Greer highlighted the public interest criteria that were included in the Flathead Regional Development Office Staff Report. Under the Kalispell Subdivision Ordinance the section under which RV Parks are reviewed is 3.19. Relative to public health and safety, there is an airport nearby but this area is not on the flight pattern. In terms of artificial hazards, access onto Highway 93 South from the RV Park will be gained from 18th Street West. That intersection during the summer is congested. There is a possibility of traffic accidents at that location. Traffic safety at that location may be a concern. There should be some dedicated lanes for the RV's in their circulation pattern from the RV Park around to the front of the Elk's Club facilities. The staff sees a need for a fence along the western boundary of the Elk's Club property. This will keep pets, automobiles, etc. from getting on the airport property. There are few impacts expected to wildlife and wildlife habitat. The topography of the area is low and might have drainage problems in the spring. An RV Park will likely increase the taxes to the Elk's Club by about $700 per year. There will be no affect on schools or parks and recreation (since they will have access to the Elk's Club facilities which includes a pool). This area is quite weedy with high grasses and fire danger could be a problem. There will have to be some groomed areas to avoid grass fires. The applicant's propose to gravel the one-way access road. The Subdivision Regulations require the road to be 1 paved. Paving will minimize problems with dust and spring deterioration of the road. There will be no affect on agriculture. There has not been any public comment to date. The Flathead Regional Development Office recognizes that RV use of the Elk's Club will be there regardless of whether there is a designated RV Park or not; therefore, this will be a dedicated area for the parking of that type of vehicle and fulfilling a need. In terms of compliance with the Subdivision Regulations, Greer stated that the city wants the approach to 18th Street to be a 90 degree angle and that the Subdivision Regulations do require paving of the access road. The applicant's are proposing a one-way street. The City standards do require at least a 24 foot wide road but in this case where the road is one-way and land is not being subdivided the Flathead Regional Development Office Staff felt that 18 feet wide would be fine. In conclusion, there will be a minimal negative impact on city services, natural environment and public health and safety and the Flathead Regional Development Office Staff recommended approval with 14 conditions. Greer briefly went through each of the conditions. Of final note, Greer stated that the Planning Board would be making a recommendation to the City Council and the City Council would be holding a public hearing. Manning asked the representatives of the Elk's Club if they would like to address any of the conditions. Robert Nieboer, Trustee of the Elk's Club, stated that the only reason they are interested in setting up an RV Park there is that they have found that is a demand for RV use in that area both from other Elk members coming to the area visiting and other tourists visiting the area. Right now the RV's are parking in our parking lot and they would like to have a facility that would adequately service their needs. He addresses a few of the concerns they had regarding the recommendation of the Flathead Regional Development Office. The two areas of concern were the traffic problem, installing a fence along the western boundary and paving the access road. He felt that the traffic generated by the RV Park at the 18th Street intersection would not be anymore than any other business in the area and much less than most. The RV's would already be in the area using the services available there. The Elk's Club did not propose fencing the western boundary and the paving of the access road due to the additional costs they represent and the lack of funds by the Elk's Club to finance those improvements. If these two improvements are. required of the Elk's Club, it may be that the RV Park will not be developed. It is felt by the Elk's Club that the fence would be unnecessary since the topography does not lend itself to vehicles using the runway area to drive on, pets will be required to be on a leash, and pedestrians will likely go to the businesses along the highway rather than to the west since there is nothing there for the RV tenant to seek. In the future, we hope to lease some land to the west and if a fence were required at this time it would only have to be removed then. The Elk's Club feels that the amount of traffic on 2 the access road to the RV Park will not create that much dust since RV's will be traveling around 10 miles an hour. He noted that the Flathead Regional Development Office recommends that the RV spaces be delineated by curbs. He felt that the gravel surface abutting the grassed areas will be enough delineation as to the parking area for the RV. Eventually, we will probably fence the area and pave the area as well as the parking lot, which is deteriorating. Some of the other parking areas in the vicinity are currently gravel. He requested approval of the preliminary plat with the changes to the conditions recommended by the Flathead Regional Development Office as requested. Jay Billmayer, Engineer, stated that there are a number of businesses along Highway 93 in this vicinity that cater to tourists. The Day's Inn has a rail fence on its western boundary. Billmayer stated that he is on the airport board and has not found pedestrian traffic on the runway fields to be a problem. He stated that vehicular traffic has been a problem but the problem has come from west of the airport and in the area of the National Guard. As far as tourists straying onto the runway fields, they have been interested in the airplanes but have not been a pedestrian problem to the airport. As far as the requirement to pave a road inside of an RV park, he felt that the Flathead Regional Development Office was using the standard for a public road. He added that he has designed a number of RV Parks and never been required to pave the streets inside of the RV Park. The road is strictly an access lane to the RV spaces and did not see a lot of usage of the access road. With this RV Park being only 10 units, dust should not be a problem and the Elk's Club is on a tight budget. He asked the Board to reconsider the requirement for a fence and paving the access road. Billmayer also added that a fence at the location proposed would not necessarily lend security to the airport. Manning asked Jay Billmayer a question about the area that is to be graveled in relationship to that area that is currently paved. Billmayer stated that the parking lot of the Elk's Club is paved and if the access road were graveled then you would have gravel abutting pavement. Board Discussion Fraser asked about the plans for landscaping the RV Park area. Billmayer stated that they would plant grass compatible with the soil and place landscape ties around the parking spots. Billmayer added that there has been a dramatic improvement in the care of the airport property with an improved mowing program. This RV Park will vastly improve the landscape of the area. Sloan asked if there would be someone there to manage the use of the Elk's Club facilities on a 24 hour basis? Mr. Nieboer stated that in the rear there are some recreation facilities including restrooms. Currently, the plan is to issue programmed cards that will open the outside door to those facilities. Those renting spaces in the RV Park will be given a card for a fee that will be refunded when it is returned. Manning asked Billmayer if he felt that he could get adequate compaction of the clay soil to alleviate the rutting problem? Billmayer stated that there is a limited season that will further assist us in solving that problem but there is a developed base material that is good for this 3 type of soil. Billmayer was confident that this problem could be - solved as it would be a necessity of development to do so. Manning asked the Board members if they felt that there should be any alteration to the recommended conditions submitted by the Flathead Regional Development Office. Reynolds felt that the fence may not be necessary nor did he feel that it was necessary to pave the access road. Sloan asked Jay Billmayer what the cost difference was between graveling the access road and paving it? Billmayer suggested that it may be around $10,000 more. Stephens suggested that conditions 4 and 6 be omitted. Manning asked if the Board felt that condition 5 should remain as is? Sloan suggested that landscape ties would be fine if they are properly maintained. Jay Billmayer stated that if what the developer proposes is approved there will be a drastic improvement over what is currently there. Stephens suggested that condition #5 should be changed to "That the individual spaces be graveled or paved and properly delineated." Greer stated that if the Board is going to allow a gravel road they will have to make findings of fact to give a variance to the paving standards of the ordinance. He added that the Board will also have to adopt findings of fact for the adoption of the subdivision. He stated that the first thing to do is adopt the findings of fact as per the staff report. Then if there are to be any variances to the subdivision regulation, findings of fact will have to be adopted to allow the variance and then the vote for the entire subdivision will be called for. Greer stated that the questions to be answered concerning findings of fact for allowing any variances are found in Section 6.1 of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations. Jay Billmayer asked where the paving requirements are found in the Subdivision Regulations that would necessitate the variance? Greer cited Section 3.19 B.3 and Section 3.18 B.4. Greer read the four questions that have to answered to grant a variance. The Board felt that the variance could be granted because the RV Park will be used seasonally and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; because there is no other RV Park in or around the City of Kalispell with paved roads (Glacier Pines, Spruce Park, and Greenwood Mobile Home Court); and because the variance would not in any manner vary the provisions of the Zoning Regulations or the Comprehensive Plan. Motion Sloan moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat of Elk's Club RV Park based on the findings of fact found in the Flathead Regional Development Office Staff Report with the following conditions: 1. That the RV Park be licensed as an RV Park by the Food and Consumer Safety Bureau of the State Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. F' 2. That all water and sewer utility extensions be built by the "subdivider" in accordance to plans approved by the Director of Public Works. 3. That the approach from Eighteenth Street be paved to a 24 foot width and meet the intersection standards of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations. 4. That the one-way road be improved to an 18 foot width and signed to designate the direction of the traffic. 5. That the individual spaces be graveled or paved and properly delineated. 6. That trees and shrubs be planted as described on the face of the plat. The entire open space extending from the parking pads to the boundary line shall be planted with grass and routinely mowed as a means for controlling weeds, dust and fires. 7. That an area in the southwesterly parking lot of the Elk's Club be designated for "through traffic" to accommodate the vehicle flow of the recreation vehicles and to prevent blockage of the exit from the RV Park. B. That drainage improvements be installed in accordance to a plan approved by the Director of Public Works. 9. That the proper certification from the State Department of Health and Environmental Sciences be obtained for connection of the RV Park to city water and sewer facilities. 10. That the toilet facilities of the Elk's Club be available on a 24 hour basis to the "tenants" of the RV Park in accordance to the service building requirements for RV Parks. 11. That garbage facilities be provided within 150 feet of each space. 12. That the subdivider submit a "revised preliminary plat" to verify compliance with the conditions of approval as per Section 2.8 D, Kalispell Subdivision Regulations. 13. That no space be rented, leased, or otherwise occupied until all required improvements are completed or guaranteed for completion with a Subdivision Improvements Agreement. Fraser asked if there is any kind of fence that would be acceptable to the developers? They stated that they have not given it much thought at this time. Reynolds seconded the motion. In a roll call vote, all those present voted in favor of the motion. 5 Motion In Board discussion, the findings of fact to allow a variance to condition #4 requiring the paving of the access road were determined that the variance will not be detrimental to the general welfare, public health and safety because of the small size of the RV Park and the location of the RV Park spaces, there are some unique conditions associated with the subdivision such as its seasonal nature, there are no unique physical conditions associated with the property, and the variance will not vary the conditions of the Zoning Regulations of the Comprehensive Plan. Reynolds moved that since three of the four requirements for granting a variance were positive then the variance is recommended to be allowed. Stephens seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. WILLOW PARK Manning introduced the second agenda item of the preliminary plat PRELIMINARY PLAT application for Willow Park, a two -lot residential subdivision involving the resubdivision of Lot 6A of Greenacres. Manning asked Greer for a staff report. Greer stated that this is a two -lot residential subdivision in which the applicant proposes to split Lot 6A. The reason for a public hearing is that this is the second minor subdivision on the same tract of land. The subdivider will create two lots, one (Lot 6AA) .5 acres and the other (Lot 6AB) .75 acres. There is a house on Lot 6AB with a well which is being proposed to supply water to a future residence on Lot 6AA. There is a drainfield easement for the house on Lot 6AB on Lot 6AA. The adjoining land uses are mostly residential. There are some vacant lots to the south and rear of the property. The area is zoned R-2 and the subdivision complies with the zoning. As far as effects on public health and safety, Greer noted that public services are conveniently located. Greer stated that an artificial hazard may be created because the subdivider is creating "flag lots". A flag lot is created when a narrow road from the county road provides access to an interior lot. This subdivision would provide access to a second interior lot and no other access is provided to the property. Greer noted that Fire Departments and Police Departments hate flag lots because, if they get called to a Willow Glen address, it is difficult to find houses that are stacked behind each other. There might be high ground water in the area. There would be minimal impacts to schools, police and fire protection, and roads. A 60 foot right-of-way easement is required. The subdivider is proposing a 30 foot road and utility right-of-way easement. There is no room for a cul-de-sac. The road is also being proposed to be graveled and other roads in Greenacres are predominately paved. There was one letter from Harold and Mary Oesch, adjoining land owners, expressing opposition to the subdivision. The City Council of Kalispell, also adjoining landowners, discussed this subdivision and recommended that the subdivision not be approved because it is a poor design. There does not appear to be a public demand for lots of this type and there are other lots of this size in that area that have not been sold and occupied. There are also other similar lots that have not been improved yet. The subdivision regulations require that there be 60 foot rights -of -way, prohibit dead-end streets, prohibit half streets, and require roads to be built to county standards. This subdivision does not satisfy these requirements. The subdivider has 1.1 _) applied for a variance from the minimum right-of-way requirements. The variance request was reviewed in light of Section 8.1. Generally, the Staff felt that the variance would have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the subdivision regulations by approving the waiver of the road design standards. Therefore, the staff recommended denial of the variance. This will basically create a substandard subdivision. None of the other long lots of this type have been subdivided in this same manner. With that in mind we are recommending that the subdivision be denied. Public Hearing Manning opened the public hearing and asked for proponents who wished to speak. Grant Head, subdivider, stated that, when he bought the property three years ago, he had been told by the realtor that he could subdivide the property. A couple of years ago, Mr. Head stated that he approached the County Commissioners, there seemed to be no opposition as long as sanitation permits could be obtained and all the specifications could be met. He stated that since he worked for the County Road Department he was familiar with what was required for county road standards and other landscape necessities. The previous owners only allowed the 30 foot right-of-way. For a single family unit there is no need for 22 feet or 24 feet or 30 feet of roadway. He stated that he has already done the road improvements with the idea in mind of dividing the lot. He added that there is turn around r space already in pit run. The house on the front lot was placed so that an attached garage could be placed on the south end of the house and still allow for a turn around area. Mr. Head stated that there is also the same turn around space on the second lot. The lot is fairly flat. When Mr. Head landscaped, he landscaped all around the existing house so that there would be adequate drainage in the event of excessive spring run off. On the northside and southside of the property boundaries there is a natural drainfield that would allow water drainage away from the lot. There have been many test holes drilled and there has been no problem with pollution to the surface water. Mr. Head produced a letter from the South Kalispell Volunteer Fire Department stating if there is only one split allowing only one more single family occupancy, the existing road is widened to 22 feet of roadway full length and maintained year round by the occupants, and if a garage is added to the existing house it be attached to the house, then the fire department sees no problem with firefighting in this area. Mr. Head stated that these stipulations will be met and are already being met. Mr. Head felt that the subdivision complied with all the subdivision requirements except the road right-of-way width. Mr. Head stated that he counted the private driveways on Willow Glen Drive and there were over 70 private driveways that were graveled. He also stated that immediately to the north is Young's Lane which is a graveled 30 foot right-of-way all the way back, three lots have been created and a future intent of a home at the end. It doesn't appear to be any different than my lot. Mr. Head stated that % most of the lots in the vicinity where his subdivision is proposed do not have good growing soil as his does. He felt that his lot offerers something unique to those looking to find a lot in that vicinity to 7 raise a family on. He stated that he has a financial need to be able to sell the existing house due to a costly divorce. There being no one else wishing to speak in favor or against the preliminary plat, Manning closed the public hearing. Board Discussion Manning first read the letter from the South Kalispell Volunteer Fire Department. Sloan asked who was the original subdivider in 1982? The original subdivider was not Mr. Head and the previous owner was Darrell Pelfer(?). Hall asked how many long lots there were like this one? Greer stated that the original subdivision was like that. This is the only one that is split in this fashion. Manning asked if there was anything in long range planning addressing these long narrow lots?. Greer stated that there is nothing in the Master Plans addressing this. Fraser asked about the drainfield easement on the lot being created? Greer stated that is where the drainfield is for the present house and the new lot would have to find another drainfield spot. Burton, the surveyor, stated that there is plenty of property there for another drainfield and in the event that either of these septic tanks failed. Motion Sloan stated that she sympathizes with Mr. Head's reasons for dividing this lot but also felt that a realtor's opinion could not serve as basis for approval. She further felt that allowing a second split would set a precedent for other lots in the vicinity that are also long and narrow. Sloan moved to recommend to the County Commissioners approval of the staff recommendation of denial for Willow Park Subdivision and accept the findings of fact of the Flathead Regional Development Office Staff Report. Fraser seconded the motion and it passed with a majority of the Board favoring. Those opposing the motion were Reynolds and Hall. ASHLEY VISTA Manning introduced the next agenda item requesting preliminary plat PRELIMINARY PLAT approval of Ashley Vista, a 37-lot subdivision situated on the southerly side of U.S. Highway 2, approximately 0.32 miles westerly of the Kalispell city limits. Manning called on Greer to give the Flathead Regional Development Office staff report. Greer stated that Ashley Vista is located on U.S. Highway 2 west of the Kalispell city limits approximately one-half mile. The proposal is for 37 single family residential lots. The developers do own other land in the area and future development proposals may come. This 37 lot development is being proposed in four phases. The average lot size is from 20,000 to 29,000 square feet. The property is in the West Side Zoning District and it is zoned R-1. The developers would need a zone change for approval of this subdivision. It is consistent with the master plan. The developers are proposing a water supply system with two wells, a water storage tank, and it will be operated by a private utility company. Greer highlighted the eight public interest criteria found in Section 2.8A of the Flathead County Subdivision Regulations. The property is in the Smith Valley Rural Fire District. The fire department indicated that they would need N3 some on -site water, preferably through hydrants. There is no evidence to suggest that there would be landslides or soil slumping even though the area is hilly. The soil in the area poses moderate to severe limitations for residential building sites. The main concern regarding artificial hazards is the access to the highway from the subdivision. Site distances are not the best. The subdivision does have approved approaches. There is a 45 mile per hour speed zone there but traffic does not normally go that slow. Phase III of this subdivision would have a secondary access out of the subdivision. There is habitat for upland game birds which will probably disappear with development of the subdivision. The area is hilly and rocky and construction of roads and houses will be complicated by those rocks. There is a concern to revegetate the area as soon as possible once it is disturbed so that there can be some control on the loss of topsoil through erosion. The developers are not proposing an on -site park facility but are proposing to pay a fee -in -lieu which might amount to $6,709. The Smith Valley Fire Department has asked that there be two fire hydrants at each end of the subdivision where turnaround capabilities are available. The developers are proposing a private internal road system which will be paved and constructed according to county road standards. They will ditch the sides of the roads throughout and culverts will be necessary at all road intersection and driveway intersections. Greer stated that the staff feels that because the highway is a two-lane road and very busy the subdivision will create enough impact on the traffic in the area that highway improvements will be necessary at some future date. Therefore, the staff is asking that additional right-of-way be dedicated to the State Highway Department. The private utility company will own and operate the water system and will be a separate entity from the homeowners' association. The Health Department indicates that the soil is stoney and that percolation rates are variable throughout the area therefore there will have to be close attention paid to what is being proposed for sewers. The soil in the area is classified as prime agricultural soil. The subdivision will. preclude any future agricultural activity. Currently the property is used for grazing cattle. There is no demonstrated need for the subdivision. There have been some calls.to the office concerning the subdivision regarding access to the highway and water quality impacts to Ashley Creek that may be caused by development. There are some negative impacts associated with this subdivision but it is felt that the 31 conditions of approval help to mitigate many of these concerns. Therefore, the Flathead Regional Development Office is recommending conditional approval of the subdivision. Greer highlighted each of the 31 conditions. Public Hearing Manning opened the public hearing calling for comments from proponents of the subdivision. Dean Marquardt, one of the owners of the property, commented on the Flathead Regional Development Office Staff Report and the conditions of approval. Marquardt stated, regarding the need for the subdivision, the state law does not say a need but that the basis of need shall be addressed. The basis of need is what should be taken into consideration. If the need is essential for people to live here 9 and that generally speaking there is a demand for single family residences. Marquardt stated that every spring he gets calls asking if there are any lots available on Hartt Hill. If these had been available, Marquardt was sure that he could have sold them. He felt that there is a need and a demand. He asked the Board to consider it on the basis of a law rather than what someone perceives to be an actual need. Marquardt addressed the area that is indicated on the Plat for the widening of U.S. Highway 2. At one time this property granted 30 feet to U.S. Highway 2 and by the same token there was 30 feet dedicated on the other side of the Highway so that a 60 foot right-of-way easement free of charge to the people of the State of Montana and to Flathead County for right-of-way purposes. A 60 foot right-of-way is certainly very adequate to take care of the 37 lots being proposed plus the other five dwelling units which have been created by the Sowerwines and Petersons as well as the lots on the other side of the highway. To require the developers of Ashley Vista to give to the State of Montana another 30 foot strip of land would be taking our property without due process of law. It is not reasonable that a 120 foot right-of-way easement be granted for this small residential development. The developers asked that condition #2 be deleted and that they not be required to give the property to the State of Montana. The usual procedure when the state needs additional right-of-way for traffic purposes is that they condemn the property and give the owner just compensation. The developers visualizing this set aside the strip of property along the highway so that it will be available for the state to acquire when it becomes necessary. Addressing condition #5, Marquardt requested that the roads be built to the standards of Flathead County rather than the City of Kalispell. In addressing condition #12, Marquardt directed the Board's attention to the fact that the State of Montana has a fence law which states that if one party wants to build a fence then it is his expense and if they both want to build a fence then the expense is shared. The developers do not want a fence and do not see where it accomplishes anything. If the neighbors want a fence, then let them build the fence. This area under the master plan is designated for urban residential which is more than two lots per acre. The developers are requesting two lots per acre and the zoning says only one lot per acre is allowed. Manning indicated that when the Board gets into the Board discussion period they may ask further questions. Jay Billmayer, engineer for the project, stated that some of the specific concerns relate to the details regarding the utility systems. The developers have no problem with the setback requirements of the water storage facility in condition #14 but condition #15 is a problem. He stated that the water reservoir has been placed at the highest point in the project capitalizing on the gravity energy that is available to pressurize the water system. The access to the facility shows an easement on Lot 8 along the highway. With access to the back part of the lot there would be a minimum disturbance to purchaser of Lot 8. Having the easement to the utility through another lot rather than the highway poses some problems for the purchaser of that lot as well as those maintaining the water supply. 10 The access to the backside of the water storage rather than through Lot 8 would be much like a farm access with a culvert to perpetuate drainage and would not cause disturbance to any one individual lot owner. Regarding the fire departments concern for hydrants, Billmayer stated that the developers have no problem with fire hydrants. He stated that the problem comes with the state's requirements for hydrants. The State Health Department feels that, if there is a hydrant, there should be 100% direct supply capability plus redundancy. There will have to be auxiliary power and flow requirements to be met. When a rural fire department states that they wish to have a hydrant, they are simply saying that they want a source of water to replenish their tanker trucks. He requested that the Board modify the wording of condition #28 to show a water supply point or a tanker recharge point. Billmayer addressed the soils in the area stating that the rock is definitely present. He felt that the rocks can be dealt with as need be during development. He also felt that the rocks could be overcome in developing the sewer systems. There being no other comments from proponents of the subdivision, Manning called on opponents for their comments. Alice Sowerwine, adjacent landowner, stated that she has had experience before with people who wanted to subdivide that area. She felt that the conditions now are not different from 10 years ago when a subdivision proposal was presented then. She further felt that the water situation on Hartt Hill was poor and added that she presented a letter outlining her objections to the subdivision. Ted Day stated that one thing of grave concern is traffic access to the subdivision particularly in the winter when the hill is slick. Uphill traffic wanting to turn left will undoubtedly cause a serious traffic situation. Bill Hedstrom also cited traffic problems that will be created with the approach to the subdivision. Mort Daniel stated that he does not have any objection to the subdivision but he wondered how extensive the subdivision will be if there are to be other phases beyond the 37 lots. He further asked if the reservoir water tank would be above ground or below ground? Billmayer stated that has not been decided yet. Lex Blood, friend of Alice Sowerwine, commended the staff for enumerating 31 specific requirements but felt that the correct questions have not been asked until just now. He felt that what was being asked of the Board was clearly a precedent setting decision for that area. The land use in the area aside from the agricultural is not of the type of residential use that is being proposed by this subdivision. Once the access has been established and the infrastructure developed the Board should look for the development of a minimum of 65 acres with approximately 100 units. Mrs. Sowerwine is clear in understanding that development will take place in that area but the concern is will it be compatible with the quality of that 11 1 1 land. This area has maintained its rural residential character and he felt that Mrs. Sowerwine would like the development be in keeping with that character. Ashley Creek is the most major impacted drainage in the County. The affluent from this subdivision, which is being proposed on an 8% slope, will drain into Ashley Creek. In terms of need, he felt that need was not clearly established as people can find more than one parcel of any type required available in the County. The precedent that could be set by the Board if approval is given will spread farther than just the 65 acres owned by the developers. He felt that the developers should redesign their proposal so that it is more in keeping with the established land use and the dwellings in that area. Robert Lehman stated that he and his wife had moved back to Montana because the area where they had been living had a stream much like Ashley Creek that had become much like and open cesspool. It cost over a million dollars to correct. The soil is not good and the affluent will not soak into the ground easily and a more extensive drainfield is required in that area. With a subdivision of this density, there will definitely be some run-off into Ashley Creek. Al Rierson stated that he was not speaking pro or con against the subdivision but he wanted to know how deep the wells would be and how large they will be. Greer stated that he did not know the answer except that there will probably need to be 20,000 gallons per day to supply the subdivision with water. Marquardt stated that an exhaustive analysis has been done in the area and the tests show that there is adequate aquifer. There being no more comments from opponents of the subdivision, Manning closed the public hearing. Board Discussion Manning opened the meeting to Board discussion. He read into the record the letter from Mrs. Sowerwine concerning her opposition to the proposed subdivision. Her main concerns were that the soil is mostly clay and large boulders and the low water pressure. The soil is very unsuitable for building on. Another main concern is the traffic access to the proposed subdivision and the traffic hazards that would be caused. She also cited the loss of agricultural land, loss of wildlife habitat, and serious degradation of Ashley Creek with the density that is being proposed. Manning asked if the Board had any questions for the developers. Manning asked what the size of the water lines would be? Jay Billmayer stated that a dead line would be 8 inches and a looped line could be 6 inches. It has been discussed to be 6 inch looped line. Al Rierson asked again what the size of the wells would be and how deep? Jay Billmayer stated that the reason for putting the wells on the lower end of the property is to capitalize on the alluvians that are recharged by Ashley Creek. There is irregular aquifer pattern on Hartt Hill. The wells will probably be 8 inches. He further stated that there is an aquifer in the valley that runs anywhere from 250 12 i feet on down and in some cases shallower. Once that acquifer is tapped then the water level in the well rises. There is no indication at this time that the acquifer does not have adequate water. The wells for the city of Kalispell are in that acquifer. Al Rierson stated that he would like a statement that would assure those downstream from the wells for this subdivision will not affect them. He also felt that an assurance of that nature should be in the report from the Water Quality Bureau. Jay Billmayer stated that it would be impossible to give that assurance at this time. Jay Billmayer stated that all of these concerns will be addressed by the Water Quality bureau when the permit is applied for. Manning asked for clarification on the exact needs of the fire department? Jay Billmayer stated that this will have to be worked out with the fire department as they have not been clear on their wishes. The developers will install whatever is required by the fire department. Sloan asked Marquardt how many acres he owned there? Marquardt stated that he owned approximately 75 acres. Sloan then asked how many acres are covered by this subdivision proposal? Greer stated 24 acres. She stated that in being consistent with her past stands on this Board she expressed concern about the water quality impacts with this high of density in that type of soil area. For this reason, she stated that she would vote against the project. Fraser asked Jay Billmayer why the developers would prefer to build the streets to county standards rather than city standards? Billmayer stated that the primary reason would be the curb and gutter requirements. County streets are also somewhat narrower. He added that in order to build the streets according to city standards would require a lot of cut and fill in the hillside. The streets were designed to follow the contour of the hill and thereby provide for less disturbance to the soils with cutting and filling. Fraser expressed concern that a barrier not be created on the west side of Kalispell that would prevent future annexation. Anything that is done in the area surrounding Kalispell should be done in such a manner as to not preclude future annexation by the city regardless of what people think they want right now. Jay Billmayer stated that other subdivisions surrounding the city also do not meet city standards but rather have been required to meet county road standards. Marquardt stated that most city lots are 7,000 - 10,000 square feet which justifies having curb and gutter and parking on the street. When there is a subdivision of one-half acre lots that does not justify having curb and gutter or parking on the streets. Fraser stated that it was his understanding that within the city standards there are some provision for construction of streets with swales and at narrower widths while still meeting the city standards. These standards do not necessarily require curb and gutter. Jay Billmayer stated that this concept was used in developing South Meadows and the design of the streets in this proposed subdivision is close to that. Fraser stated that this is a residential type subdivision and should be addressed this way. 13 Manning asked if the two proposed accesses were all that are proposed when the subdivision is completely built out? He further asked if the developers would address the impact of only having two access? Marquardt stated that the Highway Department has indicated that they would prefer to have two accesses rather than more because they are much easier to control. Marquardt suggested that if there was a future need for additional access that might be accomplished using the current access that the Claypool farm has. Lex Blood stated that he realized that the Board was at the portion of the meeting where questions are asked for clarification but there seems to be an abundance of questions directed to the developers and as a matter of fairness that a few seconds should be allowed for the opponents. Manning stated that comments would be welcomed regarding the preliminary plat. Robert Lehman commended the Board for searching out all the facts but he cited the fact that in the hearing on the previous subdivision the vote for denial passed because of concern for what sort of precedent might be set by allowing the subdivision. He stated that he did not see this any different. Lex Blood stated that was exactly his point and that this is piecemeal development. He felt that past Boards had learned that this is not the way to develop for the future. He added that if this area is to be developed it should be developed on a Master Plan basis so that these questions can be adequately answered before approval is granted. Manning asked if there were any other comments by the opponents. There being none he directed the Board back to the discussion regarding a possible motion. Hall stated that there will be development there and it should be done in the right way. All 31 conditions have merit. If it is to be approved all 31 conditions should be included. Reynolds stated that the easement should have to be purchased by the state in condition #20. Sloan stated that in the case of Riverview Greens the developers had set aside the area for installation of West Evergreen Drive but they were required to grant the easement. She felt that they would also be required to grant the easement in this case. Reynolds stated that he agreed that the development should have to meet the street standards of Flathead County rather than the City of Kalispell. The other concern Reynolds had was the terminology for the fire plugs. Alice Sowerwine stated that she felt it was really strange that so many of the Board members are not familiar with the area and yet you are deciding the future of that neighborhood. She felt that the Board members should take a look at the area before making any decisions. Hall stated that he has walked over the area and is very familiar with the property. The property is not being used currently the same way that the Claypools did. He felt that the only way to make a living off that land now is to sell it or subdivide it. Mrs. 14 Sowerwine stated that she felt that some of the Board members were not familiar with the highway access situation. She added that she has had to ascend that hill when it was very slick and if you had to stop for someone that would be extremely hazardous. Reynolds suggested that condition #5 be Flathead County street standards; condition #15 be changed to allow an access from the highway to the water storage facility; condition #20 be changed to require the State Highway Department to buy the easement reservation; and change condition #26 to allow for a tanker recharge point rather than a fire hydrant. Reynolds pointed out that he felt that the individual septic tank approval before construction begins will eliminate some of the problems down the road. Sloan asked if the Health Department looks at the overall cumulative impact of this many septic tanks or are they required to consider them lot by lot on an individual basis? Marquardt stated that currently a soil sample would be sent to Helena and if they felt that the soil was not adequate to absorb the phosphorus in the entire subdivision for a period of 100 years then the subdivision would not be approved. Marquardt added that soil samples are also sent to the University of Idaho for testing of phosphorus uptake. This soil is a lot different from Evergreen soil. This soil has a relatively high clay content and has good phosphorus uptake and therefore you don't get the phosphorus going into the streams that you get from Evergreen where there is no clay in the soil at all. Manning asked if the traffic from the subdivision reached a certain point would it then be the responsibility of the Highway Department to widen the road and put in turning lanes? Marquardt felt it is hard to say. That would be decided in the future. Fraser stated that since the Soil Conservation Service was conducting a survey on Ashley Creek he would like to see a condition added that would require the SCS to review the drainage plans and make their recommendations. Greer stated that a referral was sent to SCS requesting a comment and they did not comment. They did just complete a study of the Ashley Creek Watershed through a consultant out of Missoula but the local Resource Conservation District does not really have any technical staff to be able to evaluate the drainage plans. Sloan stated that it has been a real problem over the last 15 years to coordinate water quality with land use planning because the two concerns are tied together. It is hard to get them integrated and for one to be considerate of the other. Sloan stated that it is a concern of hers and she cannot understand why there is this lack of cooperation between the two groups. Manning stated that he has three points of concern: the water shed; water supply; and traffic hazard on Highway 2. If there were just tanker recharge points from one or two locations, is that going to tap into the reserve in the water storage? Jay Billmayer stated that most of the rural fire departments do not have the equipment to accept the pressure of a regular fire hydrant. Usually what they want is a location to fill their tanker trucks. The fire departments 15 concern would be to set up a tanker relay and have a reliable source of water to refill the tankers. Hall stated that Smith Valley Fire Department hooks into the fire hydrants at Forest Products. Sloan stated that the problems associated with this subdivision make Mr. Head's proposal of Willow Park look minuscule and the Board turned him down. Motion Sloan moved to recommend denial of the subdivision. The motion died for lack of a second. Motion Reynolds moved that the Board recommend approval of Ashley Vista based on the findings of fact of the Flathead Regional Development Office and the 31 recommended conditions with changes to conditions #5, #15, #20, and #28 previously suggested. Manning interjected with what the changes were to those four conditions. Condition #5 would be Flathead County road standards, condition #15 would be to allow access to the water storage facilities from Highway 2, condition #20 would be to set aside 40 feet of land along Highway 2 for future highway acquisition, and condition #28 would provide for tanker recharge points subject to approval of the Smith Valley Fire Department. Manning asked if the issue of "not a part" in condition #2 needed to be addressed. Jay Billmayer stated that that was not a problem. Hall seconded the motion. Greer stated that, concerning the tanker recharge, unless some specific guidelines as to how many gallons or who is to be responsible to maintain it or whether it should be hooked into the water system)it is left up in the air. Manning asked if the condition of the tanker recharge points being subject to the approval of the Smith Valley Fire Department would cover those points. Greer stated not usually. Greer felt that there needs to be some standards set concerning maintainence. Jay Billmayer stated that they are not objecting to connecting the tanker recharge points to the water storage facilities. After further discussion there was no change made to condition #28. Question Fraser called the question. Roll call vote ended in a tie with Reynolds, Hall and Stephens voting aye and Manning, Sloan and Fraser voting nay. Manning asked what the by-laws say about a tie vote. There is no mention of what to do in the case of a tie vote. Greer stated that the Board's role is to make a recommendation to the Commissioners. There were suggestions to send the tie vote on to the Commissioners. The question was asked as to whether a recommendation dies under a tie vote. Manning agreed and felt there needed to be a positive or negative recommendation. Sloan asked what Robert's Rules of Order say? No one knew or had a copy of the procedure book. Hall stated that what was rejected over ten years ago is a far cry from what is being proposed today. k• Marquardt stated that since this proposal meets the Master Plan designations and complies with the zoning if those that voted no have some specific concerns that the developers could address they would be happy to do so. If those that voted no do not have any concerns that could be addressed then Marquardt asked what this whole procedure was about? Sloan, speaking in her behalf, stated that as a Planning Board member could not recommend approval of the subdivision even if the Master Plan calls for urban residential because of the access, density, soil problems and potential water quality degradation. She did not feel that this was proper planning. Marquardt asked if she would like to see more accesses to the subdivision? Sloan replied that the residents who live there already have problems so if additional traffic which turns off the highway at that point is approved that would be improper planning. The Highway Department does not provide solutions until the problems exist. Marquardt asked Fraser what his concerns were? Fraser stated that he was concerned with the density citing a half acre lot as being too small for that area. He added that water quality was a problem stating that he did not see any mechanism for addressing water quality. Manning stated that the proposed access has to be addressed. If there was someway to get onto the property at some other more appropriate location would be better. He also felt that the lots were too small for the character of that area. Manning added that the key thing was that the access has too many problems. Marquardt stated that the access was designated by the Highway Department and that the Highway Department stated the proposed access is the only place the developers could access the highway. Marquardt further added the Highway Department felt that the access meets all of the safety standards they require. Marquardt asked where do we go from here? Hall asked what the developers could do to give more access? Al Rierson stated that he commends the developers for a well thought out subdivision proposal but the traffic situation is very serious and has to be addressed. Stephens stated that a tie vote should be sent to the County Commissioners. Marquardt stated that there is another access in a flatter approach and wondered if the Board would feel better if the west end of the property were developed first? Sloan stated that she felt the decision had been made. Hall raised the question of whether the chairman is allowed to vote except in a tie. It was established that the chairman is a voting member. Manning suggested that a tie vote be sent unless someone is willing to reconsider. Manning then announced that the tie vote and all the information will be forwarded to the County Commissioners for their consideration. Recess Reynolds asked to recess for a couple of minutes. The Board approved and recessed at 11:10 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 11:23 p.m. 17 Continued Board Manning called the meeting back to order. Discussion Reynolds asked to state a different motion on Ashley Vista with a couple of changes. Manning asked for an opinion on whether this could be done. Greer stated that he felt that someone who opposed the motion had to make a motion to reconsider. Motion Fraser moved to reconsider the previous motion on Ashley Vista. Hall seconded the motion. Sloan stated that she has a real problem with the Board making a decision, then being lobbied and then coming back and reconsidering. Manning stated that this all falls to a discussion held in the recess between Reynolds, Fraser and the developers. Fraser stated that one of his reasons for voting no is that he felt the subdivision should meet the City of Kalispell street standards and the original motion asked that the subdivision meet the road standards of the County. The developers agree that they can meet the street standards of the City of Kalispell. Also Fraser stated that he felt that the access to the water storage facility should be internal whereas the motion called for the access to be off of Highway 2. The developers have also agreed to reconsider that. Fraser said he could then reconsider his decision on the original motion. On this basis he asked if the Board could reconsider the previous action. Manning stated that as long as this is all spelled out in the minutes and the reason for the reconsideration he felt it could be fine. Hall stated that he hates to send a tie vote for a recommendation. Sloan reminded Hall that the Board is only a recommending body and not the final authority. Hall stated that with a tie vote the Board is not recommending anything. Discussion continued to center around whether it was proper procedure to reconsider. Lex Blood asked if the discussion has been opened up comment from the floor? Manning stated that this was amongst the Board. Mr. Blood stated that he would appreciate it if that would remain the case because there are many people who would like to make comment but they have refrained. Stephens stated that he sees that the Board voted a tie and that that is the way it should go the County Commissioners. Fraser asked to withdraw the motion. Manning stated that the second would have to withdrawn first in order to withdraw the motion. Hall stated that he would not withdraw the second. Hall stated that during the recess Mr. Marquardt asked them what the developers could do to get this moving. Sloan stated that that was inappropriate because the decision had been made. Greer stated that he felt that the vote failed on a particular motion and normally when the vote fails you can probably propose new motions unless the vote remains tied. At that time you make a decision that is the Board is locked and cannot reach a decision and send that to the Commissioners. Greer felt that the Board may not have reached a locked position yet. In light of this, the Board probably does have room to consider other motions. Hall stated that he did not know what was discussed but he felt that the landowners in the area should know what the discussion was and most of them have left. Hall being unwilling to withdraw his second to the motion, Manning declared that the motion stood. He asked that the motion be restated. Question Manning called for the question. Hall stated that he would like to call for further discussion on what was discussed in the recess. Manning felt that could be done under reconsideration. If the Board affirms to reconsider then the discussion could be reconvened. All members present except Sloan voted favorably to reconsider the motion. K Fraser moved to recommend to the County Commissioners approval of the Ashley Vista based on the findings of fact of the Flathead Regional Development Office Staff Report and the 31 conditions recommended with exception to condition #28 that the tanker recharge point be required instead of fire hydrant; condition #5 that the streets meet the street standards of the City of Kalispell; and condition #20 that there be a 40 foot reservation for future widening of the highway rather than an easement. Reynolds seconded the motion. Reynolds asked if the requirement to meet the city standards for streets would include curb and gutter? Fraser stated that this would be without curbs and gutters. Alice Sowerwine stated that the opponents thought this was over and here we are with another motion. Discussion ensued on the properness of procedures. Motion Sloan moved to table any further action on this proposal pending information on the correct procedures. Fraser seconded the motion and it passed unanimously in a roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS Greer passed out copies of the original sign regulations as requested last meeting by the Board. Greer passed out copies of what was done with Meridian Addition a few years ago by the Board. 19 0 NEW BUSINESS Greer stated that as a result of a meeting of the city staff and RA-3 ZONING CLASS -annexation committee there has been a request that there be a text IFICATION TEXT amendment concerning the RA-3 zoning classification. Recent proposals AMENDMENT in the area of the hospital have identified particular shortfalls in the zoning ordinance as it applies to medical facilities. The Flathead Regional Development Office suggests an interim amendment to the RA-3 zoning classification pending a more detailed evaluation. The Board discussed the three recommended changes to the zoning text presented in a staff report by the Flathead Regional Development Office. Motion Finding no objection to the proposal, Reynolds moved to recommend to the City Council the zoning text amendments as proposed by the Flathead Regional Development Office. Hall seconded the motion and it passed unanimously in a roll call vote with one abstention by Manning due to a conflict of interest. ADJOURNMENT Charles Manning, Approved: Sloan moved to adjourn the meeting. Hall seconded and the meeting was aljourned at 11:55 p.m. nt Ava Walters, Recording Secretary 20