BLUAC denies height variance for Bay Villas

The Bigfork Land Use Advisory Committee voted 4-1 to recommend the denial of a request for a variance to exceed the height restrictions on a proposed four-plex in downtown Bigfork at its meeting Thursday, Oct. 28.

The proposed Bay Villas four-plex would be located on Electric Avenue behind Eva Gates along the Bigfork Bay. The property is owned by Wink, Clausen and Anderson Trust, who seek a zoning variance to allow the building’s height to exceed the maximum 35 feet allowable by up to 8.5 feet.

Bay Landing, also a four-plex under the same ownership, sits to the north of the property. The new four-plex is proposed to be similar or complimentary in style and appearance, said Mike Fraser, who is providing technical assistance on the project and spoke on behalf of the applicant.

In his presentation, Flathead County planner Andrew Hagemeier said a lot of discussion and deliberation went in to the staff report on this proposal, but in the end the planning staff is recommending approval of the variance.

“We actually struggled with this quite a bit,” Hagemeier said. “What really hung us up was what was reasonable use of the property... We understood the direction we took was setting a precedence. We didn’t come up with this staff report lightly.”

Within the commercial village resort zoning district, commercial as well as residential units are allowed, including multi-family dwellings. Due to the location of the property, commercial use is not viable, Hagemeier said.

Hagemeier said he sought outside advice from a group of lawyers and planners in Helena and spoke to Flathead County’s own attorney. The advice was that other four-plexs existed in the area, so the applicant should be allowed one too, though, he noted, there are some different circumstances.

“If it’s a permitted use, the idea is that any property in the commercial village zoning district could have it,” Hagemeier said.

Next he looked at whether there was a hardship that made the owners unable to have the use of the property without a variance.

The key issues were the slope of the property, its size and the fact that a sewer line runs through it.

“Building is pretty limited,” he said. “Having a limited building pad is a hardship.”

The Bay Landing property does not exceed the height requirement, but Fraser said the make up of the property is different. At street level, the proposed Bay Villas will be less than the 35 feet maximum.

“The difficulty with the site is one issue and that’s slope,” Fraser said. “The height is actually lower than the lot to the north but because of topography we don’t comply.”

Fraser said the floor plans for this four-plex are smaller and more compressed than Bay Landing.

“The choice of a four-plex is because it’s a permitted use. That’s reasonable. Other four-plexs in the area enjoy the same permitted use,” he said. “It’s the minimum possible if we’re allowed to do what other people in the zoning district have done.”

The encroachment above 35 feet is as much as 8.5 feet and tapers off, over a 20 to 25 feet portion of the building, he said.

“In terms of visibility, it’s not going to create a cathedral viewscape,” he said.

One of the other issues with the property is the location of the sewer line.

The proposal actually called for a 7.5-foot setback from the sewer line. Sewer manager Julie Spencer said the sewer district will not allow less than 10 feet. Spencer said she was concerned about access, which is already limited in that area, to the sewer line as well as a manhole. Board members echoed that concern. Bay Landing received permission for a 7.5-foot setback, which they did from the foundation, but other items overhang into it, she said.

“We don’t want to go there again,” she said. “There has to be access there.”

Spencer said the district’s lawyer is drafting up a letter regarding the easement to submit.

“What we’re proposing is do not put any part of the building within 10 feet of the main,” Spencer said.

During committee discussion, several members said they weren’t pleased with the staff report’s recommendation.

“When I read the staff report and go through the summary of findings, I’m a little disappointed to say the least,” member John Bourquin said. “Almost whatever the applicant put down on the application is regurgitated on the staff report.”

Bourquin also argued that the alleged hardships were in plain sight when the owner purchased the property and suggested that the reason for a four-plex rather than a two- or a three-unit dwelling had financial reasons.

One of the criteria for considering a variance is that the hardship is not economic when a reasonable or viable alternative exists.

“I say it is very definitely economic. It’s too big a building for the pad,” he said. “A multi-family dwelling is a permitted use. I don’t care if it’s a 10-plex if it fits on the lot.”

Bourquin referenced the Bigfork Neighborhood Plan and the importance of the character of the downtown area.

“I don’t want to open the door even an inch to exceed the height limit, especially in the Village,” he said. “If we grant this thing... when somebody else comes in down the road we can’t say ‘no’ to them.”

Committee chair Paul Guerrant agreed, saying he had a hard time identifying the hardship.

“No one is being denied use. They’re being denied quantity and that ends up being financial,” Guerrant said.

Member Peter Strelinger said he appreciated that the design would not have a negative impact on the view from Bigfork Bay.

“To me, it’s not about the number of units, but about the bulk and mass of the building and visibility from the Bay. I do think the design is compatible to the building to the north,” he said. “If they can alleviate sewer issues, I don’t really have a big objection to the variance.”

When it came time for the vote, Strelinger was the only committee member to vote against recommending denial of the variance.

The application goes next to the Flathead County Board of Adjustment, which will review it at a Nov. 9 meeting. The meeting starts at 6 p.m. and will be held in the second floor conference room of the Earl Bennett Building in Kalispell.