Loading...
08-09-11KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 9, 2011 CALL TO ORDER AND The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and ROLL CALL Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Board members present were: John Hinchey, Chad Graham, Bryan Schutt, Rory Young, Phillip Guiffrida and Blake Sherman. Richard Griffin was absent. Tom Jentz, Sean Conrad and P.J. Sorensen represented the Kalispell Planning Department. There were 2 members of the public in attendance. WELCOME THE NEW Hinchey stated Blake Sherman is the board's newest member and PLANNING BOARD he welcomed Blake to the board. MEMBER APPROVAL OF MINUTES Schutt moved and Graham seconded a motion to approve the minutes of June 14, 2011 as submitted. VOTE BY ACCLAMATION The motion passed unanimously on a vote by acclamation. PUBLIC COMMENT None. ELECTION OF PRESIDENT Election of the President and Vice President of the City of & VICE PRESIDENT Kalispell Planning Board & Zoning Commission. MOTION - PRESIDENT Schutt moved to re-elect John Hinchey as President of the Kalispell Planning Board. Guiffrida moved to elect Chad Graham as President of the Kalispell Planning Board. Chad Graham provided a brief presentation on his interest in serving as President. John Hinchey provided a brief presentation on his interest in continuing to serve as President. VOTE BY SHOW OF HANDS Hinchey called for a show of hands for those in favor of Chad Graham being elected President of the board and Guiffrida, Sherman and Graham voted in favor. Blake Sherman then asked to abstain from voting since he is new on the board. Hinchey again called for a show of hands for those in favor of Chad Graham being elected as President of the board and Graham and Guiffrida voted in favor; Hinchey called for a show of hands Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2011 Page 1 of 13 for those in favor of John Hinchey being elected as President of the board and Schutt, Young and Hinchey voted in favor. Blake Sherman abstained. John Hinchey was re-elected President of the Kalispell Planning Board on a vote of 3 to 2. MOTION — VICE PRESIDENT Guiffrida moved to re-elect Chad Graham as Vice President of the Kalispell Planning Board. Hinchey moved to elect Bryan Schutt as Vice President of the Kalispell Planning Board. VOTE BY SHOW OF HANDS Hinchey called for a show of hands for those in favor of Chad Graham being elected as Vice President of the board and Guiffrida, Graham and Young voted in favor; Hinchey called for a show of hands for those in favor of Bryan Schutt being elected as Vice President and Hinchey and Schutt voted in favor. Blake Sherman abstained. Chad Graham was re-elected Vice President of the Kalispell Planning Board on a vote of 3 to 2. KALISPELL SUBDIVISION A request by the Kalispell Planning Department to update the REGULATIONS UPDATE Kalispell Subdivision Regulations. STAFF REPORTS KSTA-11-01 Sean Conrad representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed staff report KSTA-11-01. Conrad provided the board with a background of the subdivision regulations update. The purpose of the update to the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations was the regulations have not been thoroughly updated, with the exception of minor amendments to keep the regulations current with state law, since 1996. Notices were sent to 81 architects, land surveyors, land use planners, developers and builders outlining when the planning board work sessions, the open house and public hearing would take place and indicating that the draft regulations would be available on the city's website for review. The notices also contained contact information if they had any questions for staff or the board. The goals of the update were to amend the regulations to be current with state law; incorporate design standards that better reflect the urban environment of the city; and to address development standards placed on other subdivisions that have been reviewed in the last several years. Conrad reviewed the major changes that included: Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2011 Page 2 of 13 Amendments to make the subdivision regulations current with state law. Chapter 1: No major changes. Chapter 2: Consolidated the pre -application conference and worksheet; time review lines changing the 60 working day review period for subdivisions with 50 or more lots to 80 working days; and established an engineering review and approval process. Chapter 3: • Create a standard minimum setback to wetlands, streams and rivers; • Address the transfer of water rights to the city; • Establish acceptable forms of highway sound mitigation for residential development; • Require a geotechnical review with the preliminary plat application unless waived; • Update the streets section including requiring connectivity, street calming measures and new street design; standards which will accommodate in -fill development, and • Redefine land deemed acceptable for parkland. Chapter 4: No major changes. Chapter 5: Recommending deletion of this chapter on condominiums. Chapter 6: No major changes proposed. Chapter 7: Recommended change is if there are any violations of the Subdivision Regulations they be prosecuted under Chapter 1, Article 2 of the Kalispell City Code. Chapter 8: Require that 2/3rds of the improvements be installed prior to requesting a Subdivision Improvement Agreement for the remainder of the improvements; and removing property as an acceptable form of escrow improvement. Chapter 9: Remove definition of condominiums, modular homes and defensible space. Add definitions of vegetative buffers, ponds and schools. Chapter 10: No major changes. Conrad reviewed the additions and deletions to the appendices that will be included in the regulations. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2011 Page 3 of 13 Staff recommends that the Kalispell Planning Board adopt the findings in staff report KSTA-11-01 and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed subdivision regulations be adopted. BOARD QUESTIONS Sherman asked if the setbacks for the rivers and streams would make those areas public or is it recommended for environmental reasons and Conrad said it would address the environmental impacts. Those areas could either be public parks or homeowners parks. Hinchey said the setback areas would remain in private hands wouldn't they and Conrad said yes and managed by the homeowner's association unless the Parks & Recreation Department recommends the area should be designated as a public park. Sherman asked if the other forms of sound mitigation have been found to be successful and Conrad said highway sound mitigation is fairly new for this community but the berming, if done right, has been well received along with commercial properties serving as a buffer between the highway and residential areas. Jentz said when we talk about sound mitigation along the Highway 93 Alternate Route the ultimate regulations have come down from Montana Department of Transportation. As a community we have seen what we don't like, sound walls, but in areas that already have developed subdivision there are no other options. As we look at new development there are other options. Graham had questions regarding designation of streets as collectors v. local or arterial and how the designation affects the width of the street and design of a house within a subdivision. Conrad noted the Transportation Plan has outlined where collector streets will be located and based on that information staff works with the developer on the design of the subdivision. Graham had questions regarding alleys and snow removal. Young asked if the transfer of water rights is state law and Conrad said yes it is part of the Subdivision and Platting Act. Jentz said the act indicates that water rights need to be addressed and then it gives the city options. Jentz noted they received a comment from Owl Corporation regarding the transfer of water rights (copy is attached to the minutes) and staff met with the city's Public Works Director today and came up with some alternate language for that section. Jentz noted the way this section was drafted the city stated they would take the water rights at the first phase. In one sense it works if you have a 10 acre subdivision and you come in with one phase but the city also deals with 640 acre subdivisions and phase 1 is only Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2011 Page 4 of 13 100 lots and the other 620 acres may be a viable farm with irrigation. Jentz said staff is now proposing different language: "For any subdivision that exceeds 5 acres in gross area the transfer of water rights shall be addressed at the time of preliminary plat as provided for in M.C.A. Section 76-5-504(1)(j) A. The following options will be considered: 1. Where a homeowners association or other private or commercial entity is proposed as part of the subdivision that will be charged with maintaining open space or parklands, a golf course, agricultural pursuits or similar uses that will require non -potable water for irrigation, or the use of water for a closed loop thermal heat pump existing water rights may be transferred from the developer as directed by the city council to the entity commensurate with the proposed need. Jentz noted the original developer should not be allowed to keep the water rights because the rights would be severed from the land and there could be legal issues regarding who has access to the water. The rights need to stay with the land. 2. The city council may require that water rights be transferred to the city based on the city's need to provide municipal service to the area. Jentz noted this was done with Westview Estates, north of Glacier High School and with DNRC lands. Jentz added staff will discuss these changes with DNRC to see if these options are reasonable. 3. The water right may be severed from the land and extinguished. B. If water rights associated with the proposed subdivision are to be transferred from the developer they shall be transferred to the respective entities at the time of filing a final plat. For phased projects the water rights associated with each phase shall be transferred at the time of filing of the particular final plat. Young asked how does affect geothermal water right and Jentz said drawing water out of the aquifer, heating and injecting it back in if it is a closed loop he didn't know. Jentz agreed those situations are not addressed in the options. Young said geothermal water right is not excluded from the consumptive use and a clarification in the regulations should be included as to whether the use is consumptive or non -consumptive. Jentz said that clause can be added as option #4 and he will run it past DNRC. Graham said under the parkland section when a developer transfers parkland to the city does the city then own the parkland and Conrad Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2011 Page 5 of 13 said yes and it is so stated on the final plat. Conrad said staff did look into that and the wording used is taken from the wording of state law. PUBLIC HEARING Hinchey opened the public hearing and no one wishing to speak the hearing was closed. MOTION Schutt moved and Guffrida seconded a motion to adopt staff report KSTA-11-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed subdivision regulations be adopted as amended in the board discussions and staff recommendations. BOARD DISCUSSION Conrad noted he received comments from DNRC and their concerns were the setbacks from water courses and that future development may be hampered by the setbacks on Section 36. Conrad noted the depressions that were cited are on farmland where water typically collects and there is no defined channel. Conrad continued on page 40 under the section on 50 foot setbacks for intermittent or ephemeral streams it is suggested developers use the USGS 7 'h minute quadrangle map as a reference followed by an on -site inspection to assist in determining if setbacks are warranted. Conrad said he conveyed to DNRC if they were to come in with a subdivision when performing on -site inspections if it is a depression as described above the city would not require the 50 foot setbacks. DNRC had requested a,change in language but staff feels the wording is sufficient. Further discussion was held regarding setbacks from water courses. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously by a roll call vote. CITY OF KALISPELL A request by the City of Kalispell to update the Kalispell Zoning ZONING ORDINANCE Ordinance. As part of a continuing effort to snake the ordinance UPDATE user-friendly and current with changes in state law, staff, in conjunction with the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission, has compiled a short list of minor amendments for review. STAFF REPORT KZTA-11-01 P.J. Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed staff report KZTA-11-01. Sorensen reviewed the amendments as follows: 1. Update zoning map amendment criteria to reflect current state law; 2. Adjusting light intensity standards for electronic reader boards; This amendment was suggested by a representative of the sign Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2011 Page 6 of 13 industry that instead of the NITS standard which is very difficult to measure the city go to a standard that is 0.3 foot candles above ambient light which is fairly easy to set on the electronic reader boards. 3. Clarify maximum size of accessory structures; 4. Change the approval process for group homes (8 or fewer persons); Sorensen noted group homes were discussed at a work session and the original proposal dealt with snaking group homes with 8 or fewer persons a permitted use. He said the rationale for this change was state law requires the city approve group homes. However the board felt it was important to have some kind of a forum to discuss the proposed group home so staff is proposing changing group homes of 8 or fewer persons from a conditional use to a permitted use and requiring that they come in front of the planning board to provide a public forum for the community. Notices of the public meeting would be sent to neighbors and this would allow the planning board to share comments and exchange ideas. There would not be a recommendation or vote by the board and it would not go to city council for a vote. 5. Provide for temporary signs on the sidewalk on Main Street between Center Street and 5th Street. Sorensen noted people in the local business community felt the temporary signs would be beneficial and help boost Main Street and the downtown area. Main Street is MDT right-of-way but Sorensen noted MDT probably wouldn't veto allowing the temporary signs. The other issue is the liability that is associated with the placement of temporary signs on the sidewalks. Sorensen noted a provision was included that stated that insurance coverage would need to be provided in a manner to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and the city would be named as a beneficiary. Sorensen continued the details of this program have not been confirmed but getting the provision on the books is a start. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board adopt the findings in staff report KZTA-11-01 and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance be approved. BOARD DISCUSSION Guiffrida asked if MDT was contacted regarding the temporary signs and Jentz said MDT is not as concerned with the liability aspect but how it relates to the outdoor advertising regulations. Outdoor advertising in the public right-of-way is not allowed so where do you define that when you go into the communities. MDT Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2011 Page 7 of 13 has not currently taken a stance on these types of temporary signs. Young asked if it wouldn't be preferable to have the signs adjacent to the curbs instead of the buildings because there are already hydrants, benches, light poles along the curb and people don't walk in those areas. Sorensen said there is also parking on the street and if there are more temporary signs along the curb it will make it harder for people to get in and out of the vehicles. Also the curb side is out of the view shed area. Schutt agreed the curb side would be preferable and easier to maintain the five foot pathway. Hinchey said from a merchant's point of view a sign out close to the curb will be hidden behind the parked cars and because these signs would only be allowed at three feet tall those signs wouldn't be seen or be as effective. Schutt thought the point of the signs is to attract pedestrians not the traveling public. Sorensen said as a general rule with the sign program the city tries to encourage signs closer to the building because it reduces the clutter aspect. Jentz said when the merchant's put out the signs they usually put them out close to their door and they can be seen by both the traveling public and pedestrians. Sherman suggested not concentrating on how far the sign is from the business or the street, leaving that open, and if there any restrictions it would be to enforce the size of the sign so it doesn't block the walkway. Sherman said he lived in New York City and there were signs all over the place and people were not tripping on them and he thinks the bigger issue is to make sure the city is protected for liability. Guiffrida thought that putting the sign near the street could create a new liability issue with people standing in the street and perhaps damage to vehicles. Hinchey agreed with Guiffrida. Hinchey asked if the group homes would be considered a conditional use or permitted use and Sorensen said a permitted use but staff included a footnote that it would only be allowed if they go through the public meeting process. The idea was to get the public notice out so people are aware, get the applicant in front of the board and provide the public forum. Hinchey cited the 3`d group home in close proximity of the others and the applicant heard the concerns from the board and neighbors and moved the location. Hinchey is concerned that the same opportunity might be missed in the future with this wording. Jentz said in that case the applicant was sensitive to the community and he chose to move the group home but there was nothing stopping him from going all the way Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2011 Page 8 of 13 through the process and not moving the 3d group home. Jentz said staff is trying to replicate the community forum but it is also an opportunity for the applicant to hear the concerns. Graham said he agreed with Hinchey. Graham said his intent was to provide the residents an opportunity to be heard by the city council not the planning board. Jentz said that was not the direction he received but the board could make that recommendation. Graham thought even though the council could not deny the group home they could at least listen to their citizens. Sorensen said the reason they decided on this forum is to provide an opportunity for the community to talk to the board which could be good enough. However if they feel they want to talk to the city council they would always have that opportunity under the "hear the public" portion of the council's bi-monthly meetings. Hinchey noted page 6, line 2 isn't clear and Sorensen said what is intended is "temporary or portable signs are allowed". Hinchey asked if there should be any type of limitation on the number of neighborhood garage or yard sales there can be on a property. Jentz noted this would be a separate issue than the sign amendment proposed and added that type of amendment could be brought up at another meeting. Hinchey noted the criteria in item 2., page 2 of the staff report "Whether the new zoning will affect motorized and nonmotorized transportation systems." has not been addressed and Sorensen said that is because the criteria has not yet been adopted and would be addressed in the future if approved. Also those criteria would relate to zoning map amendments not zoning text amendments. PUBLIC HEARING Hinchey opened the public hearing and no one wishing to speak the public hearing was closed. MOTION Guiffrida moved and Schutt seconded a motion to adopt staff report KZTA-11-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance be approved. MOTION TO DELETE ITEM Guiffrida moved and Graham seconded a motion to strike Section 4 #4 — GROUP HOMES "Changing the process for group homes..." in its entirety. BOARD DISCUSSION Young said this section was written at the direction of the planning board and it is his understanding that staff was instructed by city council to wash their hands of that process. The board then took it upon themselves and asked that staff provide some method for the public to be heard. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2011 Page 9 of 13 Guiffrida said yes the board did discuss this at the work session and as a group stressed that they were not in favor of changes. With the deletion of this section everything will be par for the course where a conditional use permit would be required, public discussion as normal and the planning board will forward a recommendation to the city council for further discussion. Guiffrida said he feels the taxpayers should be heard and at that point in time it is over — there is no vote and the group home is approved. He feels the time for the neighborhoods to organize is already short and this will give them additional time to prepare their comments. Guiffrida said the newly published ARM rules state that community residential facilities will now be required to be licensed which is a condition that the city council can now place on the conditional use permit. Guiffrida added if the city council wants to amend the recommendation on group homes and send it back to the planning board then so be it. The council would then be telling the taxpayer that they don't want to waste their time with group homes since there is nothing they can do. Guffrida added if these become a permitted use in any city what will our cities look like. Guffrida wants to keep the current process in place. Schutt said he has been on the board for several years and yes the board is frustrated when these type of applications come up. He feels the more forums there are for the public to comment and the more opportunities for the developer/applicant to hear those comments and concerns eventually results in a better operation. Schutt said he doesn't mind putting this back on the city council's lap and if they refuse it that is their prerogative. More good will come of giving the public another opportunity to be heard. ROLL CALL — DELETE The motion to delete item #4 passed unanimously on a roll call ITEM #4 — GROUP HOMES vote. MOTION TO AMEND Sherman moved and Schutt seconded a motion to amend item (1)(g)3. to delete the phrase "and adjacent to the building." BOARD DISCUSSION Hinchey said the problem that he has with the amendment is he doesn't think MDT would approve temporary signs placed at the curb. Therefore he will be voting against the amendment. Guffrida said he thinks allowing temporary signage downtown is fantastic for Main Street & downtown but he agrees with Hinchey in that this would be a public safety issue and an underlying liability issue for the city. Jentz said the concept is Center Street to 5th Street on Main Street Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2011 Page 10 of 13 and this would not pertain to the side streets or 1" Avenues East and West. The planning department is responsible for enforcement of the sign ordinance and after time there may be a need to come back to the board to broaden the area. Schutt asked if now isn't the time to expand the boundary. Sherman suggested opening it up to the entire Business Improvement District. Jentz said the entire B.I.D. encompasses a lot of areas that are not the same character of downtown and what staff wanted to create was an incentive to be downtown. ROLL CALL The motion to delete the phrase "and adjacent to the building." From item (1)(g)3. failed on a roll call vote of 3 in favor and 3 in opposition. ROLL CALL — ORIGINAL The original motion, as amended, passed unanimously on a roll call MOTION vote. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: Administrative Conditional Use Permit — Shooting Range Guffrida asked staff to clarify what is happening with the indoor shooting range and asked that the board be included on the list for comments or open houses related to an administrative conditional use permit (ACUP). Jentz said there has been a search for some time for an indoor shooting range and a location was found at the site of the former First National Pawn on West Idaho. It is zoned B-2 and they are looking at putting together a retail sales outlet for firearms and accessories on the main floor of the building and an indoor shooting range on the second floor. The city's zoning allows for firearms sales as a permitted use. The shooting range was an administrative use conditional use permit which is a permit that is anticipated to occur in the zone but it may have special nuances that are minor in nature. Properties within 150 feet are sent notices of the ACUP they have 15 days to comment and in that time period if comments do come in and can be addressed it continues to move forward. If we get comments that we cannot address the ACUP then becomes a conditional use permit (CUP) and kicks up to the planning board for public hearing. Jentz continued the city received a letter that was forwarded to the applicant that cited concerns about noise and the applicant suggested having an open house to demonstrate to the concerned citizen the level of noise generated and answer any questions. Jentz noted the open house was called by the applicant not the city however the city decided the adjoining property owners within 150 feet should also be invited to the open house. Jentz said there were 15 members of the public and 10 agency & applicant representatives who attended the open house. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2011 Page 11 of 13 Jentz noted this was the first time an open house was held for an ACUP and it is hard to create a policy when it isn't the norm. Jentz noted the city applied for a $6 million grant to have their own shooting facility for training but only received $750,000 so instead of building their own training facility they will buy several simulators and put them inside the shooting facility. All local law enforcement agencies will have access to the facility but it will be privately owned and open to the public. After the open house there were no longer concerns about noise, air quality or safety. Jentz added a letter was received from a nearby tenant who Jentz responded to and he had a copy for the board to review. Schutt asked for further clarification of the ACUP process which Jentz provided. Possible Expansion of the Westside TIF Jentz reviewed the meeting to be held regarding expanding the Westside TIF that would necessitate updating a plan for the urban renewal area and deals a lot with downtown Kalispell issues. If that happens the planning board will be involved in hosting work sessions and/or public hearings on that plan. Joint Meeting with City Council to discuss annexation waivers and districts — September 12, 2011 Jentz reported a joint work session has been scheduled with the city council to discuss annexations — when should the city be annexing outlaying areas and how should they be annexed. Discussion will also focus on two proposed annexations - 40 acres of vacant land which is part of the Majestic Valley Arena north of Church Drive and Highway 93 North and Trumble Creek Crossing owned by Mike Anders located north of East Evergreen Drive. Notices will be sent out however it is not a formal public hearing but a work session. Further discussion was held. September 13, 2011 Planning Board Meeting Jentz said the board's regular meeting on September 13th will be cancelled due to a lack of agenda items. Meeting more frequently with the Flathead County Planning Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2011 Page 12 of 13 Sherman said he gets the general impression that the county and city planning boards don't always communicate and he asked if there is an interest in having more dialogue with the county in relation to planning and development in general. Jentz said the last joint meeting with the county planning board was regarding the entrance corridor development to the north and it would be good to meet with them more frequently. Sherman said meeting with the county board is the key when looking at the valley as a whole. Jentz stated he would contact the county and suggest they have a joint meeting this fall/winter. ADJOURNMENT I The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:25 p.m. NEXT MEETING The next work session of the Kalispell City Planning Board is scheduled as a joint meeting with city council on September 12, 2011 @7:00 p.m. in the council chambers. The September 13, 2011 regular meeting is cancelled due to a lack of agenda items. The next regular meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2011. VL IAL- dluv� Hinchey Michelle Anderson Sent Recording Secretary APPROVED as Corrected: 10/05/11 Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2011 Page 13 of 13 owz coRroxATIoN 500 Palmer Drive Kalispell, MT. 59901 Office (406) 752-5666 Fax (406) 752-5670 August 8, 2011 Mr. Ton Jentz, Director Kalispell Planning Department 201 First Avenue East Kalispell, MT. 59901 RE: Proposed Subdivision Regulations Dear Tom. The following are comments I Have regarding.the proposed subdivision regulation 3.08 Water Rights. 1. A water right is an asset to the landowners and has value. The City should provide compensation to the owner if it takes that water right. I believe that State law classifies water rights as real property. Therefore what the City is proposing is a taking of real property. This is not right without paying for them. 2. The water right is a specific benefit to that piece of property, and it should be specified in your regulations that it is to remain with that property 3. Homeowners Association may have need of the water rights The regulations should allow for Associations to have the first opportunity to be assigned those rights before the City seizes them. MCA 75-3-504 0) does not specify that the City is to be the controlling entity, so it could in fact be a Homeowners Association or other entity as allowed by law.' 4. As proposed, the regulations would be proliibitive for a developer needing water right for irrigation (like a golf course): If the City has control of those rights a developer would not risk an investment. 5. Thepoposedyegulation mandates that the water right be transferred upon.filing a final plat for the first phase: This is a terrible proposal. For example, take a large proposed development located on agricultural land, such as the Starling subdivision. A fttsfphase would mean that t-M *City would then control the watet rights, and the remaining land could not be farmed for lack of irrigation water. If . for some reason the remaining land is never developed as proposed, the land value would plummet because it no longer has a water right. The City is then in a position of holding a valuable asset, acid the landowner could be forced to buy the water right back If the City seizes water rights, it should only do so on a phase by phase basis. 6. The proposed regulations do not specify as to what parcel size it applies to. State law specifies lot sizes averaging less than 5 acres. I think you need to put considerably more thought into this regulation before it is adopted, or as it is written I can foresee nothing but problems. Please make sure the Mayor and Council receive a copy of my comments. Sincerely Lee Cniswold Development Consultant