Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes
August 18, 2016 Regular Meeting
Attending:
Public:
16-177 - Sunset Assisted Living - Cecil Wedel, Mike Woodward;
16-122 – Wedel – Ivan Wedel;
16-125 – Unruh - ; Roger Unruh, Gerald Unruh, Joe Farrell
16-126 – MME – Jeannie Robinson, Dante Rumore, Tim Jantz, Mac Miltz, Toby McLaughlin, Ben Spinney;
16-127 – Rogers – Robert Rogers
Planning & Zoning:
Caleb Davis, Scott Fuller, Wade Purdom, Matt Cossalman, Marciavee Cossette, John Cranor, Kim Peterson;
Counselor Tevis Hull
Staff: John Moss.
Absent: Tim Heenan, Ron Self
At 5:30 pm Chairman Kim Peterson opened the regular meeting and asked for an approval of the minutes from the June 16 meeting. Cossalman noted that the motion he made to submit application to amend the ordinance as agreed upon to this point. was incorrectly worded. Cossalman provided the actual verbiage and the minutes were corrected There being no further corrections noted, Davis moved to accept as corrected; Fuller seconded, and the minutes as corrected were approved by all except Cranor and Peterson who were absent on June 16.
[ Planning & Zoning minutes are transcribed from the conversation that takes place during the meeting. Topics are condensed, eliminating verbatim comment in order to condense the material. Key points are included in this extraction and all votes taken are recorded.]
The agenda was then reviewed and Chairman Peterson asked everyone to consider a workshop date to review the ordinance changes status. Co-chair Davis asked for clarification that the purpose for having a workshop was to review new material, not rehash previously agreed upon changes. Chairman Peterson affirmed this purpose, explaining the amount of material to be covered tonight, in this meeting, meant the review of the scheduled ordinance changes could not take place this evening. The Chair then asked if there was a conflict concerning a date of September 8 at 5:30PM – one week ahead of the regularly scheduled September 15 date. All present affirmed their availability and the Chairman asked staff to notify the absent Commission members of this new workshop event on September 8.
The Chairman then suggested having the meeting restructured to accommodate the applications having the most speakers, as evidenced by the sign-in sheets for each application. This revision sequenced the MME application first, followed by Unruh, Sunset Assisted Living, Wedel then Rogers.
Chairman Peterson then read the script for conduct of Public Hearings, reviewing the procedure to be followed for all official proceedings per Section 19 of the Boundary County Zoning and Land Use Ordinance 2015-2.
The first item on the revised agenda, application 16-126 submitted by Mountain Mafia Entertainment LLC (MME), was for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a venue for providing outdoor entertainment. Chairman Peterson read the script for a quasi-judicial hearing specific to the terms of application 16-126, including the specific criteria to be considered by the P&Z Commission:
7.7.1. Whether the application, site plan and additional documentation provided by the applicant sufficiently demonstrate the full scope of the use proposed.
7.7.2. Whether the proposed use conforms to all applicable standards established by this ordinance.
7.7.3. Whether there is sufficient land area to accommodate the use proposed, and whether development is so timed and arranged so as to minimize adverse effects on surrounding properties and uses.
7.7.4. How the impacts of the use proposed compare with the impacts of existing uses within the zone.
7.7.5. Whether concerns raised by other departments, agencies or by the providers of public services, including but not limited to road and bridge, water, electricity, fire protection, sewer or septic, can be adequately addressed.
7.7.6. The potential benefit to the community offered by the use proposed.
7.7.7. Whether specific concerns aired through the public hearing process have validity and whether those concerns can be adequately addressed.
7.7.8. Whether the use proposed would constitute a public nuisance, impose undue adverse impact to established surrounding land uses or infringe on the property rights of surrounding property owners, and whether terms or conditions could be imposed adequate to mitigate those effects.
7.7.9. Whether the use proposed would unfairly burden Boundary County taxpayers with costs not offset by the potential benefits of the proposed use.
After determining there was no ex-parte contact or conflict of interest on the part of any P&Z Commission member, Chairman Peterson established the procedure for providing testimony.
Counselor Hull clarified that there are several applicants present and that in the interests of time and clarity it would be appropriate for one spokesman for the application be selected to represent MME. Mr. Mac Miltz stated that he is the designated spokesman for this application.
Chairman Peterson noted that there were 4 applicants signed in and asked if each were wishing to speak. Mr. Miltz stated that he was to give the opening statement, but that others wished to speak also.
Chairman Peterson set a 5 minute time limit for each speaker, and asked Mr. Miltz to provide an opening statement.
Mr. Miltz began by saying he lives in Sandpoint and along with two partners, Ben Spinney and Grey Whittier, represents MME LLC. He wished to thank Boundary County Commissioners, Counselor Tevis Hull, P&Z Administrator John Moss, the Boundary County community and neighbors for working together to successfully provide this motor-sport venue.
The content of the MME opening statement can be seen at 20160818-mme-openingstatement.pdf.
Chairman Peterson asked if there was anyone on the Commission who wished to ask Mr. Miltz a question concerning his opening statement.
Cossalman asked how many vehicles attended one of their events. Mr. Miltz replied that the vehicles are not counted. Some may be cars, others campers, trucks, even buses, but no actual count was ever taken.
Fuller expressed concern that some attendees were extremely rude after leaving the premises, and wondered if alcohol was served at the events. Mr. Ben Spinney of MME replied that there was a beer garden on the premises, but that no complaints had ever reached his ears. Mr. Spinney said that behavior was monitored to the extent that if someone showed disruptive behavior they were escorted off the premises. Fuller said that he commutes past the site as part of his normal travels and that he was upset that visitors exiting the MME site exhibiting rude behavior was not a single or even uncommon occurrence.
The Chairman asked for a Staff Report
Staff read from the Staff Report that the parcels in question were two, one that is 44.85 acres and an adjoining parcel of 40 acres. He also stated that fire protection is afforded by Hall Mountain Fire Association. Staff also reported that the property enjoys the right to Recreational Commercial activity, as per the ordinance for this zone given Moderate Use, based on the definition for Moderate Use (less than 100 traffic trips). In citing precedents that might be applicable to the specifics of the proposal, Staff mentioned Romero's venue near Naples and Behrman's venue near Moyie Springs.
Chairman Peterson suggested there were five applications to be heard and due to the length of the hearings it was determined that two of the applications would not be heard that evening. A motion was made and seconded to continue those hearings until September 8, 2016 at 5:30 PM. The applicants were asked to come back at that time. Chairman Peterson asked the audience if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of the application.
Ms. Jeannie Robinson stated that she was impressed with how consistently MME canvassed the neighbors, asking if there were any issues and wanting to provide a safe and friendly family atmosphere. She said their attitude coupled with the activity that took place on their site was acceptable and she supported their application.
Mr. Dante Rumore expressed appreciation for MME inviting Veterans to take advantage of their facility. He said that when not being used for a formal event the Veterans are invited to camp and take advantage of everything the site offers. As a coordinator for disabled Veterans activities, he is proud to support MME in their effort to reach out to this special group of Americans.
Chairman Peterson asked the audience if there was anyone who wished to speak opposed to the application.
Mr. Tim Jantz said he was in his elk stand, hunting, and heard “WELCOME TO BOUNDARY COUNTY” coming clear as a bell across the countryside. In fact, he said, he could hear every syllable of every word spoken over the loudspeakers coming from MME Mr. Jantz went on to say that in addition to the sound level and the disruption to his hunting, he was concerned about the fire hazard he said results from the motor-sport activity; including roll-overs, camping with open camp sites, and smoking in a heavily forested area.
Chairman Peterson asked the applicant if he wished to make a closing statement and respond to any issues raised. Mr. Miltz thanked those who supported MME. He again suggested the gate hours of the events are 7AM to 11PM and said in reply to noise concerns that using the lawnmower noise level as a guide the MME activity was relatively quiet. Concerning fire and fire safety, Mr. Miltz said that Hall Mountain Fire was always on site during events, and that in addition each MME vehicle was equipped with fire suppressant extinguishers and that apparatus was standing by in the event it was needed. He reiterated that family safe and family friendly were standards in place, not goals to be reached for in the future.
With public comment closed Chairman Peterson asked the P&Z Commission to discuss the application.
There was some doubt expressed by the P&Z Commission that this was in fact a Moderate Use application, based on the absence of any clear count of traffic and the proposal that future (possible) event types may include concerts or other activity conducive to large crowds of people. Discussion began to focus on ways to regulate activity, including:
limiting quiet time from 9pm to 7am
prohibiting alcohol being served on the premises
requiring fire protection through building firewalls
requiring a special event permit for any use over moderate use
all of which might be considered for High-Occupancy but not Moderate Uses.
Prior to any motion being made by the commission, the Applicant moved to withdraw its application for a Conditional Use permit.
The second item on the revised agenda, application 16-125 submitted by Roger Unruh, was for a Long Plat Urban Subdivision. Chairman Peterson read the script for a quasi-judicial hearing specific to the terms of application 16-125, including the specific criteria to be considered by the P&Z Commission, as well as related Terms and Conditions:
11.6.2.3.1.1. Whether the proposed plat is in accord with applicable provisions of this ordinance.
11.6.2.3.1.2. Whether adequate public services are or can be made available.
11.6.2.3.1.3. Whether the proposed subdivision is designed so as to reduce or eliminate adverse impact on adjacent properties or land uses.
11.6.2.3.1.4. Whether the proposed subdivision is situated so as to avoid potentially hazardous or sensitive areas or sites.
11.6.2.3.1.5. Whether access is sufficient to accommodate increases that might result from the subdivision proposed.
11.6.2.3.2. Terms and Conditions: In considering a recommendation of approval of a long plat subdivision, the planning and zoning commission may consider the imposition of terms and conditions as a means of addressing concerns, to mitigate potential adverse effects, to protect the public interest or to ensure that the burden of providing necessary infrastructure does not fall to the general public. Terms and conditions may include, but are not limited to:
11.6.2.3.2.1. Control the sequence and timing of development.
11.6.2.3.2.2. Establish provisions for perpetual maintenance of public areas, facilities or utilities, to include roads.
11.6.2.3.2.3. Require the installation of essential infrastructure, to include requiring a guarantee of installation and surety pursuant to Section 5.
11.6.2.3.2.4. Require landscaping, fencing or other such measures to reduce potential adverse impacts or to maintain aesthetics.
11.6.2.3.2.5. Require specific security measures, such as traffic signs, traffic and school bus turnouts, fencing, gating or lighting to protect the public safety.
11.6.2.3.2.6. Require specific endorsement on the face of the final plat sufficient to inform potential buyers of levels or lack of services to be provided, potential nuisances to expect or other information deemed appropriate to reasonably assure that buyers are aware of any limitations in what they are buying.
After determining there was no ex-parte contact or conflict of interest on the part of any P&Z Commission member, Chairman Peterson asked the applicant to make an opening statement.
Mr. Roger Unruh began by describing the location of the 58 parcel to be subdivided as being south of the City Limits of Moyie Springs between East Mountain View Rd and South Division Street. He described the plan to create 7 lots along East Mountain View Rd of about 2 acres each, for a total of 18 acres. The remaining 40 acres were to be divided into approximately 10 acres each, the plan being to allow future buyers of these lots to further subdivide as they desired.
Mr. Unruh described the plan to include existing CC&Rs to apply to the new lots, and if some 4H considerations are allowed then there may be some provision for animals but this still needs to be worked out. He also said that years ago his father added a 6 inch water main and that water and all utilities are available for all lots. This concluded his opening statement.
Chairman Peterson asked if there were any questions for Mr. Unruh from the P&Z Commission.
Mr. Fuller began by stating that R&B and the City of Moyie Springs had each expressed concern regarding access to properties using South Division Street. He said that both R&B and the City of Moyie Springs have provided options for alternate access to the four proposed 10 acre lots, using for \example an easement between newly proposed lots 6 and 7. Alternate options posed the same provision between other new lots – but no access from South Division; had this been considered?
Mr. Unruh said they had considered East Mountain View and it is something that can be worked with.
Mr. Fuller asked if South Division was an access that was preferred?
Mr. Unruh said the current road is being worked on, and that people are using it. People are using the city street through the intersection where East Mountain View exits South Division and they are continuing on South Division beyond that intersection now. He said they are going to pave (South Division) up to that intersection and they would pave around and pave up to East Mountain View but those people who are using South Division to go straight would continue to do so, and those current drivers are going down to a little cul-de-sac at the end of South Division to their properties now.
Mr. Purdom asked for clarification related to the future buyers being able to split their properties in the future. Mr. Unruh said yes, that is an option they wanted to provide the purchasers of the 4 lots. Mr. Puyrdom then asked how the newly split lots, behind the newly created 4 lots, would have access to their lots. It would seem that there would be a forced access to these westernmost lots by way of South Division Street? Mr. Unruh replied that if there were no access from East Mountain View then South Division would have to be considered. However, if granting access between lots on East Mountain View is considered then this same access route would be extended to the 4 10 acre lots
Mr. Davis asked for a clarification of the game plan: are you planning to construct on these lots and then sell, or just sell because you are creating a subdivision?
Mr. Unruh explained that the desire to create a subdivision is the result of the passing of the owners of the parcel to be subdivided and that the eight heirs sought to receive their portion of the estate. He said the land was divided in such a manner as to provide the heirs as equitable a portion of their estate as possible while providing the community with land reasonably arranged for housing and ingress/egress considerations. He said the parcels aligned along East Mountain View Rd were taking advantage of the county road access, while the four 10 acre parcels to be created from the west portion of the subject source parcel all had access from Division Street, which originates in Moyie Springs.
Mr. Davis said the concern was the wear and tear on the roads based on the addition of new homes in the subdivision. He also asked about the water availability, referencing the 6 inch water line previously installed.
Mr. Unruh said that utilities are already available on the East side of East Mountain View Rd and in response to a query about septic availability he said there has never been a problem with septic systems in the area.
Mr. Fuller stated the City of Moyie Springs requires an upgrade of road easements, and that the power station up the road on South Division runs power lines south along South Division in a right of way granted years ago. The question of easement and right of way width leaves the City of Moyie Springs and Road & Bridge questioning how easement can be provided that will satisfy all parties.
Mr. Unruh said he was not aware of the City or Road & Bridge concerns.
Chairman Peterson referred to the question of ditching and stormwater retention. Mr. Unruh said the sandy soil and immediate saturation of water made this a non-issue in the area.
Staff read in the Staff Report and Analysis It was noted that road ingress/egress is private regarding west side parcel access.
Chairman Peterson asked for those who wished to speak in favor of the application.
Gerald Unruh said the information given is correct and that the family wished to do the best thing possible. They realize that west side access may be a problem but they wanted to do whatever is right and reasonable to resolve any issues or concerns.
Joe Farrell said he is both a realtor and a neighbor, and that he has worked with the Unruhs in the past. He said that he knew the utilities were in and available, and that working with the surveyor and planning & zoning administrator to the best of his knowledge the subdivision met county standards. As a realtor Mr. Farrell suggested that one thing that does not exist in the area is the availability of small parcels that one can afford to build on; this subdivision is being mapped to provide just that service to the community.
After inviting questions after Mr. Farrell spoke, it became clear that the current access to the area which would contain the 4 ten-acre parcel was via South Division Street.
Charman Peterson asked the applicant o give a closing statement.
Mr. Unruh concluded by saying that there was a 60 foot easement question relating to the area south of the City of Moyie Springs, beyond the city limits.
Chairman Peterson closed the hearing to public comment and asked the P&Z Commission to discuss the application. Mr. Davis said that the Commission was considering a subdivision but the terms and conditions to be imposed as a result of this hearing effect not the Unruhs but the subsequent property owners. There is a lot to be clarified and there is a need for specifics.
Mr. Fuller stated that the City of Moyie Springs and Road & Bridge need to give access approval.
Mr. Cossalman said that is too broad a statement.
Counselor Hull suggested that access goes with the legal description. He clarified that if an express easement accesses only one corner of a property, this would require access to all parcels. He went on to say there are two issues involved: access and road standards.
The P&Z Commission came to the conclusion that they were being given the task of resolving issues for the applicant that should be worked out between the applicant and the City of Moyie Springs and Road & Bridge.
Counselor Hull suggested that an update be made to the Staff Report/Analysis to suggest that R&B and the City of Moyie Springs meet prior to the next meeting. He said that the property in question must show it has actual easement to access the 4 ten-acre parcels, specifically, an expressed easement recorded with the parcel.
The applicant was asked to meet with both agencies, and Chairman Peterson called for a vote to Table the Hearing until September 15th, next regularly scheduled meeting of the P&Z Commission. Scott Fuller moved to Table the Hearing until September 15th. Wade Purdom seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously.
Counselor Hull recommended that another motion be made to clarify what it is the applicant should do in order to resolve being compliant with County Road & Bridge and City of Moyie Springs requirements. Matt Cossalman moved that Mr. Unruh provide an amended plat that involves the City of Moyie Springs and Road & Bridge. Wade Purdom seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously.
The third item on the agenda, application 16-117, was for a Conditional Use Permit requested by Sunset Assisted Living concerning placement of multiple residential structures on a parcel in a rural community / commercial zone. Chairman Peterson read the script for a quasi-judicial hearing specific to the terms of application 16-117, including the specific criteria to be considered by the P&Z Commission:
7.7.1. Whether the application, site plan and additional documentation provided by the applicant sufficiently demonstrate the full scope of the use proposed.
7.7.2. Whether the proposed use conforms to all applicable standards established by this ordinance.
7.7.3. Whether there is sufficient land area to accommodate the use proposed, and whether development is so timed and arranged so as to minimize adverse effects on surrounding properties and uses.
7.7.4. How the impacts of the use proposed compare with the impacts of existing uses within the zone.
7.7.5. Whether concerns raised by other departments, agencies or by the providers of public services, including but not limited to road and bridge, water, electricity, fire protection, sewer or septic, can be adequately addressed.
7.7.6. The potential benefit to the community offered by the use proposed.
7.7.7. Whether specific concerns aired through the public hearing process have validity and whether those concerns can be adequately addressed.
7.7.8. Whether the use proposed would constitute a public nuisance, impose undue adverse impact to established surrounding land uses or infringe on the property rights of surrounding property owners, and whether terms or conditions could be imposed adequate to mitigate those effects.
7.7.9. Whether the use proposed would unfairly burden Boundary County taxpayers with costs not offset by the potential benefits of the proposed use.
After determining there was no ex-parte contact or conflict of interest on the part of any P&Z Commission member, Chairman Peterson established the procedure for providing testimony.
Mr. Cecil Wedel began by saying the Sunset Assisted Living Facility exists to provide space for seniors to get needed support in their later years. The purpose of this application is to provide a place for those who can walk the few feet to the larger facility for meals and social activity. These dwellings are intended to bridge the gap between total independence and assisted living. This summarizes the essence of our proposal.
Our plan is to submit requests for residential placement as needs dictate. Each request will be made utilizing the Residential Placement Permit application and each request will detail square footage and setbacks per ordinance requirements.
Chairman Peterson asked if there were any questions for the applicant.
Matt Cossalman asked if the original proposal for Sunset Assisted Living included these facilities.
Mr. Wedel said that this is not known, there may have been a plan to include this aspect of living in the original concept but the current Facility evolved as a practical answer to the needs of the community. It now seems these additional cottages provide the answer to the need.
Mr. Cossalman asked how many of these cottages are needed, exactly.
Mr. Wedel responded by saying this is not known – exactly – but current plans deal with the need for 2 or 3 within the next year, maybe 4 or 5r in the next 3 or 4 years.
Mr. Cossalman – how many will fit on the property?
Mr. Wedel said that topography comes into play, that there are limitations but at no time would a residence placement go against space available as dictated by setback requirements.
There being no more questions of the applicant, Chairman Peterson asked for a Staff Report.
Staff said that the Conditional Use Permit is intended to permit additional residential Placement permits without having to go through the Conditional Use process each time a residential Placement request is made.
Mr. Cossalman asked Staff if it was his impression that a Conditional Use ghoes with the land permanently.
Staff responded that according to the definition in 7.3., a Conditional Use permit runs with the land to which it attaches, and continues in effect for the life of the use established.
Mr. Cossalman – Pretty creative!
Staff – the idea is to monitor placement per each Residential Placement Permit, once an understanding of the need and permission for additional residences has been granted.
Chairman Peterson asked if there were any who wished to speak in support of the proposal.
Mike Woodward said this was not intended to be an open-ended application that would allow stuffing buildings on a property. As Cecil said, 4 ½ acres is a fair amount of space for the few additional structures needed in the future.
There being nobody to speak unopposed or in opposition to the application, the applicant was asked to give a closing statement.
Mr. Wedel thanked the P&Z Commission, and Mr. Cossalman said he had a few questions. Are the cottages under private ownership?
Mr. Wedel said they are put out by Sunset Assisted Living then sold back.
Mr. Cossalman asked about surrounding land, and Mr. Wedel said that no, the land remains with Sunset Assisted Living.
Chairman Peterson then closed the meeting to public comment and asked the P&Z Commission to discuss the application.
Mat Cossalman said there was a need to limit the number of structures in the event some future proposal looks back at this precedent; he suggested 5 as being a reasonable limit.
Counselor Hull suggested that the phrasing be 'up to bu not exceeding five', and after it was agreed upon that the motion would read 'to approve the application for a Conditional Use Permit for up to and not to exceed five (5) simple or duplex structures', Counselor Hull suggested adding 'subject to the current ordinance requirements for Residential Placement Permits'.
Matt Cossalman moved to approve the application for a Conditional Use Permit for up to and not to exceed five (5) simple or duplex structures, subject to the current ordinance requirements for Residential Placement Permits. Purdom seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
There being nothing further to discuss, Wade Purdom moved to adjourn, Scott Fuller seconded, approved unanimously at 900PM.
John B. Moss
Recorder
____________________________________ _________________
Kim Peterson Chairman Date