City of Bigfork

City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission Public Hearing April 18, 2005

City Council Members Present: Mayor Amy Tendrup, Bob Zimmer, Amy Pifher, Jean Lexvold and Richard Salmi Planning Commission Members Present: Gus David, Ann McGarry, Lonnie Kacon, Renee Willett and Amy Tendrup Also Present: Julie Kennedy, Andy Shaw, Tim & Anne Collins, Gene Collins, Al LaTrace, Frank Roth, Warren & Caroline Welch, Farrell & Judith Gunelius, Louis McGregor, Jef Fisher, Melvin & Kathlynn Root, Gene Rajala, Charmaine Leonhard, Coreen Buck, Gale & Joan Prato, Bonnie Lovdahl, Stan & Lynn Marthaler, Bob Savich, Gordy & Zona Kinn, Robin Custer, Robert Johnson, Diana Adams, Mike Pifher, Carol Pifher, Tarry Edington and Kathy Britian.

Mayor Tendrup called the public hearing to order at 7:01 p.m.

City Attorney Andy Shaw provided some background information. He stated that the City has undertaken the task of redoing all of its ordinances. The Planning Commission has been working for some time on this task and is currently in the process of drafting a new zoning ordinance for the City. During this process, there have been certain items that the members of the commission could not agree upon. Therefore, this public hearing was being held to ask for input from the citizens on what they would like to see.

Shaw moved on to the first item which had to do with accessory structures. Shaw explained that accessory structures are any structures on a lot other than your house. He asked those in attendance if they thought accessory structures should be limited in size, number, or location. As the proposed ordinance is written now, only two accessory structures would be allowed per lot. They would have to be 6 feet from other structures and less than 2500 square feet in area. They could be no closer to the front lot line than the principle dwelling structure, and could not be used for living quarters. One audience member felt that there should be restrictions of some kind. Most others felt that the property owner should be allowed to do whatever they want with their lot.

One audience member felt that the City Council should have the discretion to grant or deny land use permit applications as they are submitted. Shaw stated that there needs to be set regulations on which to base a grant or denial of the application so that it is a completely objective process.

An audience member questioned what happens if a lot or building does not conform to this new ordinance once it is passed. Shaw explained that any currently existing non-conforming uses are grandfathered in and allowed to continue. The audience member questioned why then the City is going to all the trouble of writing this ordinance if it will only apply to the few lots in town that are not already built on. Shaw explained that the non-conforming uses are only grandfather in until such time as a triggering event takes place, such as a fire that destroys most of the building. At that time, the lot would have to conform with the ordinance. In this way, all properties in the City are gradually brought into compliance.

Shaw moved on to the section of the proposed ordinance relating to mobile homes. Shaw explained that many cities elect to allow mobile homes only in mobile home parks in order to create a higher tax base in the City. He asked if those in attendance would be in favor of allowing mobile homes anywhere in the City, or restricting them to the mobile home park only. All in attendance were in favor of allowing mobile homes anywhere in the City. It was felt that a mobile home was all that some people could afford and we would rather have them as residents of the City than not. We want to attract more young people to our community and therefore we need to allow affordable housing options. One audience member asked about the lots for sale on Cedar Street. They wanted to know why it is required that a home be built on those properties by the purchaser, but a mobile home is not allowed. Shaw explained that the City Council had placed that requirement on the sale of the property and that is different than an ordinance. Many in attendance felt that the City should remove that restriction and allow a purchaser of the lot to do whatever they want with it.

The next item for discussion was outdoor storage. Shaw asked the audience if they felt there should be restrictions on the number of woodpiles, snowmobiles, four-wheelers, boats, RV’s, etc., allowed to be parked outside on a lot. Many felt that residents should be allowed to store whatever they want on their property. Others were concerned about having to look at their neighbors “junk”. One audience member felt that his “junk” just made his neighbors lot look that much nicer. Shaw clarified that this does not include actual garbage, scrap metal, tires, parts, etc. These items are covered under the nuisance ordinance as blight violations. It was the general consensus of the audience that the City should not limit the number of items a person can store outdoors on their property.

An audience member questioned if these issues were relevant to commercial property. Kennedy clarified that the discussion tonight had to do with residential properties. There will be a whole different set of regulations for commercial properties.

A few in attendance felt that there were already too many laws and restrictions and that the City had more important issues to worry about than zoning restrictions. One audience member expressed understanding that the City needs to have control over development in the City and felt that as long as the restrictions are reasonable and not overly restrictive, most people would be ok with them. They further stated that the people of this community have lived together so far without many problems and most people are good neighbors. Kennedy stated that having a lenient zoning ordinance is just fine and makes sense for this community. The ordinance will eliminate subjectivity on the part of the City Council in making zoning decisions. It is common ground for everyone in the City. Shaw added that a zoning ordinance is not solely intended to tell people what they can and cannot do on their property. It is to protect them from something that their neighbor might do that would be unacceptable to them. An audience member questioned why the City couldn’t just zone areas and deal with issues as they come up. Shaw stated that this is called “spot zoning” and is illegal. He reiterated that the City needs to have regulations already in place that apply to everyone in order to remain objective in their decisions. Kennedy added that having a zoning ordinance makes the City a better applicant for grants by showing that they are taking responsibility for the direction of development. Also, private developers are more likely to be able to obtain funding for projects if the City has zoning and subdivision ordinances. Finally, housing rehabilitation funding is easier to come by if it is proven that current housing is non-compliant with zoning regulations. Shaw stated that all of the City’s ordinances, not just the zoning ordinance, are “band-aid” ordinances. When a problem came up, an ordinance was passed to deal with it. The City is now trying to put comprehensive ordinances in place to eliminate these problems before they arise.

The last item that the Planning Commission was seeking input on was tree preservation. The question is whether or not the City should allow people to clear-cut trees on private property. Should the City require buffers of trees to be retained between properties? Those in attendance felt the property owner should be able to do as they please with the trees on their property. One audience member stated that if you want a buffer of trees between your lot and your neighbor’s lot, then you should be the one to maintain it and you should not expect your neighbor to do it for you.

Mayor Tendrup adjourned the public hearing at 8:03 p.m.

Angie Storlie City Clerk

These minutes are available on the City website at www.cityofbigfork.com. To sign up to receive the minutes by email, send your email address to ctyclerk@bigfork.net.