Loading...
08-09-05'D- KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 9, 2005 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and CALL Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were: George Taylor, Timothy Norton, John Hinchey, Bob Albert, Rick Hull, and Kari Gabriel. Bryan Schutt was absent. Tom Jentz represented the Kalispell Planning Department. There were approximately 16 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Norton moved and Gabriel seconded to approve the minutes of the July 12, 2005 regular planning board meeting. The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. HEAR THE PUBLIC No one wished to speak. HERITAGE INVESTORS A request by Heritage Investors for a conditional use permit CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT to allow the expansion of Heritage Place at 171 Heritage Way Kalispell by adding an additional 28 beds. The property is zoned H-1, Health Care, which lists nursing homes as a conditionally permitted use. STAFF REPORT KCU-05-8 Tom Jentz, of the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed the staff report for the board. Staff is recommending that the planning board adopt Staff Report KCU-05-8 as findings of fact and recommend to the City Council that the expansion of Heritage Place be approved, subject to the listed 8 conditions. QUESTIONS BY THE Hinchey questioned why they would only need 4 additional BOARD parking spaces when they are adding 28 beds. Hull added that there would be additional employees also and asked where they would park. Jentz responded that most of the residents of this type of facility are no longer able, or wish to drive and the parking requirements are standard for this type of facility and the number of residents & employees. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the issue. APPLICANT/AGENCIES Ron Yersack, representing Heritage Place said that they are really excited about the expansion and as the valley grows the facility will be in demand. PUBLIC COMMENT No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Hinchey moved and Gabriel seconded to adopt Staff Report Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2005 Page 1 of 16 KCU-05-8 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit for the expansion of Heritage Place be approved subject to the stated 8 conditions. BOARD DISCUSSION Norton noted that he felt that the zoning regulations are too restrictive at times and said that this type of use in a health zone should be allowed as a permitted use and not a conditional use. Norton added that this is proof that the zoning ordinance needs to be reviewed and amended. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. PRELIMINARY PLAT - A request by School District No. 5 for preliminary plat GLACIER HIGH SCHOOL approval of Glacier High School, a one lot subdivision containing approximately 60 acres at the southeast corner of West Reserve Drive and Stillwater Road. STAFF REPORT KPP-05-13 Tom Jentz, with the Kalispell Planning Department, gave a presentation of Staff Report KPP-05-13. Jentz reviewed Condition #4 which deals with the city street proposed along the southern boundary of the property and who is responsible for the construction costs of the street. In the condition the city is asking the high school to pay for the entire road. The school is looking at opening in 2007 and as of today it would be a road going to nowhere until the bypass is constructed beginning in 2008 or 2009. Jentz suggested the following amendment to Condition 4: "The future City Street indicated on the accompanying site plan along the southern boundary of the property be fully developed as follows: a. The School District shall acquire a 60 foot wide R/W for the entire length of the proposed southerly street extending from Stillwater Road on the west to the Section 36 Connector on the east. This R/W shall be dedicated to the City of Kalispell. b. The School District shall develop the westerly 300 feet of this R/W extending from Stillwater Road easterly. The Road shall be built to city standards with the design and construction approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department. c. The DNRC will be responsible to ensure that the remainder of the R/W is developed as a city street over time as development occurs along the R/W. Jentz noted that the amendment has not yet been fully Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2005 Page 2 of 16 embraced by the school district and added it is not intended to cause undue hardship on the school district but the road needs to be built. Staff is recommending that the planning board adopt Staff Report KPP-05-13 as findings of fact and recommend to the City Council that the preliminary plat of Glacier High School be approved, subject to the listed conditions, as amended above. QUESTIONS BY THE Taylor asked for clarification on who would be responsible for BOARD development of this street to the south. Jentz said that DNRC is actively developing all of Section 36. Within the next year the entire southwest quarter will be coming in for residential development. Future users of this property, as it develops, will be responsible for extending the street as they provide additional traffic on the site. Taylor asked if Jentz felt secure that this would not fall back on the high school. Jentz said yes. The school district will purchase the R/W but it will be granted to the City and the school district will be clear. Taylor asked if 4.c. was too open-ended as far as a final result. Jentz said that any development will have to go through subdivision review and will be back before this board. Gabriel asked if the future development was is in the middle of that street, who would be responsible for constructing the street to access this development. Jentz said that it will be a negotiating factor between the State and whoever leases the property for egress and ingress. Hinchey thought that Condition #9 should specifically state that the project should comply with the newly adopted lighting and signage ordinances. Jentz noted that we are still in the review and approval process for those standards, but the wording could be added. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the issue. APPLICANTS/AGENCIES Corey Johnson, CTA Architects Engineers representing School District #5 thanked the board, the Kalispell Planning Department and DNRC for their participation in making this the best community project and new high school facility that we can have in Kalispell. Johnson said that they understood from the beginning that they needed to meet the zoning and Spring Prairie PUD requirements. CTA has been designing to these standards and working with the City as they move forward with design and construction. There are 2 requested amendments to the PUD and they are going under a separate site review for that process. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2005 Page 3 of 16 O They believe that they can comply with all of the staff recommendations with exception of #4. They have been in discussions regarding a possible amendment to Condition #4 and they cannot make any decisions until they have the approval of the school board. Johnson continued it has been their understanding as they define the future southern street that it was not going to be a criteria for the school district to purchase and install this road. They have not had enough time to work out the negotiations with the planning department and DNRC to adequately assess it. This has been an exciting project and a very challenging site and they are looking at future developments and the future bypass, future funding implementations and trying to design the school to current streets and intersections has been challenging. They currently have Stelling Engineering doing a traffic study and report, and they look to Stelling as to how to make the streets and intersections as safe for the community as possible. Don Murray, Chairman of the School District #5 Board, introduced Chuck Cassidy, the Director of Facilities and Transportation for the school district and noted that they are pleased with CTA Architects Engineers, and specifically Corey Johnson. Murray said that the board's role is to make a recommendation to the city concerning the staff's input on how to deal with the site and in particular this street. The street and expense associated with it is daunting for the school board. They are trying to squeeze every cent that they have out of the funds that they have to build the new high school so any additional expense like this is a serious concern and setback. The school board has not had a chance to talk about the recommendations regarding the street so they are not able to take a position yet. He added that they don't necessarily disagree with the recommendations but they will be conferring and will try to respond as quickly as they can. Murray continued that when the board makes its recommendation to the city he would ask that the board considers how they assign the responsibility for the street. He does not feel that the school district is the developer, the developer is the DNRC. Murray assured the board that the school district and DNRC will have discussions as to who is responsible for what aspect of the street. Murray asked that in the board's recommendation to the City they refrain from specifying who they think should do what, and leave that to the school district and DNRC. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2005 Page 4 of 16 Murray thanked the board for their time and guidance to the City on behalf of School District #5. Steve Lorch, DNRC reviewed the role of DNRC as trust land managers and noted that they do not have capital development funds and do not consider themselves as the developer in cases like this. They have the land and if an easement is required they will work with the school. district to determine the cost. The development of the property to the south and the continuation of the street will probably be complete within 7 years, based on the estimation of what might happen with the bypass connection which will undoubtedly make the property more attractive to developers. Taylor asked if the constraints internal to DNRC would prohibit the organization from acquiring the R/W. Lorch noted that DNRC is the landowner and they would be acquiring the R/W from themselves. Taylor said that if a street was constructed on that R/W who pays for it, the developers to the south of the street? Lorch said in this case because of the order that things are occurring, it is really not practical to ask the school district to buy 30 feet of R/W and build the north half of the street, because it will not function. But as development to the south occurs DNRC will bear the responsibility of working with developers to construct all of the street, as needed, which will be a wash in terms of the cost of getting the infrastructure built, and will allow it to happen in an order that fits with what is actually happening on the ground. Lorch said that DNRC is in support of the new Condition #4. Norton suggested that perhaps a timeline should be added to the condition so that DNRC would construct the street and as development occurs they would be entitled to the latecomer's fees. Lorch said that he doesn't know if DNRC would be able to come up with the capital required to complete the street but knowing the value of the land, especially due to the close proximity of the high school, they will be focusing on the development of property to the south which will be in demand. Norton said that when development occurs it would be in the best interest of DNRC to have that developer improve the street all the way through and then have that developer receive the latecomer's fees. Lorch said that isn't unreasonable but not as a condition with the high school subdivision. Lorch would rather see that happen if and when another developer comes in. The demand and need for the road is not currently there. Taylor suggested that another approach would be to consider adding to Condition #4.c. an end date that would state "but Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2005 Page 5 of 16 l \i no later than the construction of the feeder route of West Reserve into the Highway 93 interchange." Jentz interjected that we could see construction of the bypass starting as early as 2008 and possibly driving on it in 2009. Norton asked if the 60 foot R/W is part of the lease with the school district. Lorch said yes, and noted that it is a function of the order of the process and in the future DNRC will be requiring subdivision review prior to executing these types of things as the order is awkward and puts DNRC into a position where someone might be surprised by something. PUBLIC COMMENT No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Norton moved and Albert seconded to adopt Staff Report KPP-05-13 as findings of fact and recommend to the City Council that the preliminary plat of Glacier High School be approved, subject to the listed conditions, including the revised Condition #4. BOARD DISCUSSION Hull said that in looking at this he sees a traffic disaster waiting to happen until the bypass is built. Essentially you are not going to be able to get to the school from the east at all because it is right turn only off Reserve. It is a two-way stop which is one of the most controversial intersections in Flathead County and will be required to make a left turn directly in front of rush hour traffic and at the bare minimum there should at least be a temporary traffic light at Stillwater Road and West Reserve Drive: There might even have to be a traffic light at Stillwater Road and Three Mile Drive. Jentz said that the traffic impact analysis that will be undertaken will look at the level of infrastructure that will need to be installed at these intersections. As the school opens you will be looking at a freshman/sophomore class — half occupancy, but there will still be traffic impacts. Murray stated that they will be looking at a 3 year class and Jentz revised his statement to include a junior class. Jentz said that they will rely on the traffic impact analysis to determine what needs to be done. It is not critical for the high school to use the street, it would be a convenience. When the bypass is built there will be a significant .connection that will funnel traffic to a controlled access at Costco. It is staffs position not to assign responsibility but to bring players to the table to see that it ultimately gets done. Hull said that he feels the board has to declare that there will be a serious traffic problem until the bypass is built. He added that the school district has to take it very seriously. Jentz said that the school district is not shirking that but the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2005 Page 6 of 16 reality is that we are not traffic engineers and they have to rely on Stelling Engineers and MDT to approve what level of improvements will be required. Taylor suggested that in relation to Condition #3 would it be preferable to speak in terms of more than one traffic analysis, a continuing series of traffic analyses as time goes on. Jentz said that the analysis will look at the full build out for the high school site, in light of what is going on around them. Gabriel asked about the signage and what the school district is limited to when Pepsi and Coke come to them offering free signage for reader boards, or on the scoreboard. Jentz said that school signs are limited in size to 24 square feet in area per sign face with a height restriction not to exceed 6 feet. Hull reiterated his concern about the additional traffic and safety issues. Taylor said that he understands the concerns but isn't sure what the board can do. Norton, asked about signage and lighting in relation to stadium lights. Jentz said stadium lights will be used but they are only used for a period of time then they are turned off due to the cost of running them. Stadium lights would be exempt from shielding, etc. Jentz continued in relation to signs, if it is within the stadium and is not seen from the public road, the City doesn't get involved because they only restrict signs that are located within view of a public R/ W. Taylor asked if would be better to have Condition #9 reference the recently approved lighting standards as Mr. Hinchey suggested, and revise those standards to address the stadium lights, before the stadium is even built. Jentz said that he would be comfortable with referencing the lighting standards because when they come into effect, it will be an ordinance that everyone has to comply with. Norton said that he feels that the amendment to Condition #4 is very acceptable because there is responsibility in relationships. By having the school acquire the 60 foot R/W is not as much of a detriment to them as it would be to actually construct the road. Norton said that he would favor putting a deadline on the 4.c. portion of the amendment to be 2010 just to ensure that it is done. Perhaps by then DNRC could allocate the funds needed to complete the street. He agrees that with the location of the high school the property will be prime and there will be developers "chomping at the bit" to develop residential property there. MOTION TO AMEND Norton moved and Hull seconded to amend Condition 4.c. to CONDITION #4 add, "and in any event not later than 12 / 31 / 09. As the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2005 Page 7 of 16 southern sector is developed, the first lessee will be required to extend the street all the way to the eastern terminus of the bypass connector and be entitled to the latecomers fees." BOARD DISCUSSION Jentz said that the dilemma is that we would be starting to micromanage DNRC's business, and the first lessee could be a small developer who would then be responsible for construction of a one-half mile road. Jentz said that it could be modified to state that no later than 2 years after completion of the Section 36 bypass connector, but if nothing happens out there the need isn't there to put the road in. AMENDMENT TO THE Norton moved and Hull seconded to amend Condition 4.c. to AMENDMENT OF add, "no later than 2 years after the completion of the CONDITION #4 Section 36 bypass connector." ROLL CALL ON The motion passed on a vote of 5 - 1 with Hinchey in AMENDMENT TO opposition. CONDITION #4 BOARD DISCUSSION Additional discussion was held. ROLL CALL - ORIGINAL The original motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. MOTION SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST A request by the Seventh Day Adventist Church for a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT conditional use permit to allow the expansion of a non- conforming use, a Community Service Center, located at 494 Ninth Ave EN. STAFF REPORT KCU-05-7 Tom Jentz, with the Kalispell Planning Department, gave a presentation of Staff Report KCU-05-7. Jentz reviewed the letters that were received from Joseph 8s Sharon Copeland, William & Barbara Arthur, and Katrina Kiger, nearby property owners who are in opposition of the conditional use permit. Staff is recommending that the planning board adopt Staff Report KCU-05-7 as findings of fact and recommend to the City Council that the conditional use permit for the expansion of the Seventh Day Adventist Church Community Service Center be approved, subject to the 5 listed conditions. QUESTIONS BY THE Jentz reviewed the site map to address questions from the BOARD board. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the issue. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2005 Page 8 of 16 APPLICANT/AGENCIES Michael Blend, who is assisting the applicants, said that the Shining Mountain Church is located just on the other side of the alley. This storage is badly needed by the Community Service Center because the existing building is fairly small. People do drop off items and when the items are large there is no place to store them and the expansion will provide that space, and therefore clean up the immediate area. Blend said that their goal is to blend in the roof lines and attempt to make it look like part of the building and not an addition. The church has been there for 40 years and is a tremendous service for the community. Taylor asked if the condition to pave the parking lot was an undue burden on the church. Blend said that they have attempted to do some fundraising to help cover the costs, it is a lot of paving but he sees the need to be done to keep the dust down. Taylor asked if the proposed addition will be sufficient to get rid of the items that are left outside which then becomes an eyesore to the neighborhood. Chare' Largent, Chairman of the Board for the Center stated that one of their big problems is because they do collect things from the community, things get dropped off, and a lot of times they get used as a garbage dump. They have put signs up to try and limit the amount and times of dropping off items, and have closed the drop off shed. Largent noted. that the items they have are mostly from the other community second hand stores/ consignment shops - items that they cannot get rid of or do not want anymore, which the center goes and collects. At this point in time there is rarely anything left outside longer than a week, and if they don't want it it's hauled away. Largent said that the building, along with the addition should be enough to take care of what they have and receive. Norton asked about the type of building that is proposed. Blend said that the building will mostly be used as storage and a processing center to distribute clothing worldwide through the Adventist Development Relief Agency. PUBLIC COMMENT Katrina Kiger, 496 - 9th Avenue, EN asked if some of the dilapidated building was going to be removed because she said that it is sitting right on the property line. Kiger said that she has had vagrants sleeping under the tree in her yard, and she wants that to stop. Taylor asked if things have changed since the drop off shed was closed and Kiger said yes that since Jerry 8. Trixie Neugebauer have taken over things have greatly improved. Kiger said that she was also concerned about the amount of traffic and the additional traffic that the addition might generate. Kiger said that this Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2005 Page 9 of 16 is a very narrow street and a quiet neighborhood and the traffic creates big problems. Jerry Neugebauer stated that his wife Trixie is the director of the Community Service Center. Neugebauer said that in reference to Ms. Kiger's concerns about traffic, he agrees. It is a narrow street. He spoke to the neighbors directly across from the center and they were disgusted with the amount of traffic on 9th Avenue, especially on Tuesday nights. Neugebauer said that you can hardly get up and down the street. There are new neighbors who have some kind of religious meeting on Tuesday night every week and Neugebauer has offered to let their group park in the center's parking lot to clear the street, but they have yet to park there. Neugebauer said that they have tried to alleviate some of the congestion. He added the 2 sheds, which are built close to the property line, should definitely be removed. Taylor asked if Neugebauer would be in the position to assist with the removal and he said that he would. Hinchey said that if those sheds are on the property line it appears that the new addition would also be on the property line, and asked if they would be making the same mistake. Blend said that the addition will be within the setbacks, 5 feet 6 inches from the property line and the setback is 5 feet. Blend said that the Shining Mountain Church has expressed an interest in sharing parking which could be pursued to alleviate some of the traffic problems. MOTION Gabriel moved and Hull seconded to adopt Staff Report KCU- 05-7 as findings. of fact and recommend to the City Council that the conditional use permit for the expansion of the Seventh Day Adventist Church Community Service Center be approved, subject to the 5 listed conditions. BOARD DISCUSSION Gabriel said that the folks here have made an effort to address the neighbors concerns with the blight, and she commended them for working with their neighbors. Gabriel said although she questions the expansion of a non- conforming use she sees no harm in the addition and she thinks it will improve the existing building. She fully supports this project. Hull asked if they should make tearing down the sheds a condition. Largent said that the sheds are going to be removed as soon as possible. Hinchey said that he has some reservations about this project. He understands that the applicants have every right to pursue this endeavor at the current location because it is andfathered, however, it is non -conforming and in an R-3 Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2005 Page 10 of 16 zone and in his opinion sets a dangerous precedent. P.J. Sorensen noted that they are limited to no more than a 50% expansion at this site, period. Any new property that was purchased would have to conform to the current R-3 zoning. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS: TEXT AMENDMENT - Tabled at the July 12, 2005 regular meeting - A request for DOCUMENT STORAGE IN B- an amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to allow 4 DISTRICTS - ROGER rental storage units in basements of existing buildings in the SIBLERUD B-4 zoning district. STAFF REPORT Jentz distributed letters received after the public hearing was held for the board to review. There was concern expressed that the neighbors were not notified and Jentz noted that a text amendment that has broad application does not have a requirement for notification. He added that a conditional use permit would require notification, but a permitted use would not. The neighbors were concerned that the text amendment was not a good precedent being established in the downtown commercial core area. They felt that downtown needs to be maintained as a vibrant commercial area and do not look at storage, even in basements, as a positive trend. Jentz noted that there was discussion at the hearing last month on whether a series of conditions should be provided that everyone would have to adhere to, or making it a conditional use permit where each application would be looked at on a case -by -case basis. QUESTIONS BY THE Taylor asked if these neighbors were able to review the BOARD standards that were developed. Jentz said that these letters just came in and as far as he knows they did riot have a chance to review the standards. Jentz said there is 4 ways to approach these requests, make them a permitted .use with no performance standards, a permitted use with performance standards, a conditional use permit with performance standards and each application would be reviewed by the planning board and city council, or to deny the request. Taylor asked if there was any input from other businesses in terms of the performance standards. Jentz said none; these letters came to our office unsolicited by staff. Hull said that the reason that . they did not go with a conditional use permit was time, they wanted to get this done as quickly as possible for the applicant's benefit. Hull said but now 3 neighbors immediately adjacent to this Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2005 Page 11 of 16 property in opposition is a significant. number. The board should look at a conditional use again. Butch Clark, a member of the audience asked if he was going to be able to speak to this issue. Taylor noted that this is not a public hearing. Clark said that this came out of the blue and none of the downtown business owners where aware of it. Taylor explained that is the reason he was asking if there had been any input from the business community. As Board Member Hull explained, Taylor continued, the board was attempting to reach a decision specific to the Kelly Main Street Building situation, but not make it one size fits all. Clark expressed his disappointment that they were not advised or asked about the proposal and added that he has $3.5 million dollars invested in property right down the street and no one said a word to him. Norton raised a point of order that this is not the time for banter but is under old business and public comment was already taken at the public hearing in July. Clark objected. Taylor called for order and suggested that the board needs a broader perspective in terms of what will work in the downtown business sector. Taylor said that this was not intended to be shoved under the door or an end run around anyone. It was intended to be a conditional use permit for the specific needs of Mr. Siblerud's business. Jentz noted that . the board is still discussing whether this text amendment would be appropriate or not and whether it should be treated as a conditional use permit, in which case the applicant would have come back through the process again, and the adjacent property owners would have to be notified. He continued that Mr. Clark is frustrated thinking that this is a done deal, which is not the case. Taylor asked to suspend the motion in order to allow a more free flow of discussion regarding the proposal. Albert said that he feels that there needs to be conditions imposed through a conditional use permit. He doesn't have a problem with the storage but there needs to be conditions placed on the type of storage, signs, and parking. The standards should be more specific as to the size of items to be stored. Gabriel said that she is feeling Mr. Clark's angst because he and the downtown community have put millions of dollars into the buildings and she hadn't looked at that perspective when this was discussed the last time. Through Council they are putting quite a bit of effort into a downtown plan and she thinks that the board should slow down and get the input Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2005 Page 12 of 16 from the business owners, and more public input. Hull said that they were trying to get this done in a hurry, they saw no opposition, and the text amendment was the method to do that. Hull said that it should be a conditional use and decided on a case -by -case basis and they could be opening the door for things other than documents and they cannot write standards that are specific enough to handle every situation. Since there is downtown opposition the board now knows that they need to take the time to do that. Hinchey said that he does believe that this should be a conditional use; he believes that the board should kill this proposal right here and now. This board's efforts have been to provide Architectural Standards, Lighting Standards, Signage and trying to beautify downtown and bring it up to its full potential. Storage doesn't do that and produces a big hazard downtown with a whole host of issues that would have to be monitored and the public service resources would be taxed. Hinchey said that the issue is that it is just not an appropriate use in the B-4 zone. Storage is an appropriate use in the industrial zones. He understands the applicant's concern about parking because as a member of the parking board he knows the issues, which are being addressed. Allowing someone to change the use of their building because of this perceived parking problem is not the right way to solve that problem either. Norton said that he is disappointed that the President allowed banter with a member of the public, and apologized that he interfered and should have allowed the President to handle it in due process. Norton continued the Board did provide public notice, it may not have reached everyone but the law was followed. After the meeting they came to the realization that they did not want this to be a blanket text amendment. Norton said that they are still at the point that they have not yet reached the downtown business owners and because they aren't aware of what is going on. Downtown is historically the central business district of our community and if we are going to ask something of them then they deserve the opportunity to speak and be notified of issues that are before the board. Staff, or a board member, needs to write a press release for the Daily Inter Lake, and to also contact the business owners. Norton added that in all fairness Mr. Siblerud has followed the process but the board needs to get more input. Taylor asked if the staff had the budget to publish something in the paper or to contact the business owners. Taylor said that they do want to get the appropriate business community involved. He feels that the board would then be able to come up with a solution that would be amenable to Mr. Siblerud's Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2005 Page 13 of 16 purposes as well as pass muster with the business owners. The board now does not wish to just push something through and they had not thought about that when the board was addressing the sole problem of Mr. Siblerud. Jentz suggested a Public Service Announcement that would outline the approaches under consideration to hopefully get the word out to their members. MOTION Taylor made a motion seconded by Gabriel that the recommendation that the application be tabled for 60 days until staff can notify the residents/owners of the B-4 Business District, which will enable the board to get ample public input, before a decision is made. ROLL CALL The motion failed on a vote of 3 in favor and 3 in opposition, with Hull, Taylor 8v Norton in favor and Albert, Hinchey 8s Gabriel in opposition. BOARD DISCUSSION Hinchey said that he is concerned because this came up before the board a month ago and it was tabled. It has now been brought up again under Old Business; it . has been through the process. We have heard from property owners, business people in the area. It seems to him that we are spinning our wheels. Hinchey asked why they are directing staff to go off and do more research. MOTION TO DENY Hinchey made a motion seconded by Albert to deny the request for a text amendment to allow record storage in B-4 zones. BOARD DISCUSSION Taylor said that with that motion, nothing gets done. The board will deny Mr. Siblerud the benefit of any action at all, and then it is a dead issue as far as the business community is concerned. The board will never get public input from the businesses downtown. All they have is 3 or 4 letters and Taylor feels uncomfortable with this type of action. Hull said the board originally proposed this as a favor to downtown, an additional business that could be offered downtown. Hull said that this is already happening because Bite Savvy offers off -site storage of computer tapes. It is not something that should be outlawed. Hinchey said that it seems to him that if they are storing tapes it is a completely different issue to having a storage locker type of operation. Hinchey said that he doesn't agree that the board is killing this issue in perpetuity. They are saying that right now it is not appropriate. If someone wants to bring something like this up in the future, he doesn't feel that the board is precluding that at all. Further, he doesn't think that we need to hear from 250 downtown business Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2005 Page 14 of 16 C-) owners if they have already heard from people in the immediate neighborhood, which is all they normally hear from anyway. Taylor disagreed. The board heard from a narrow scope and he didn't have any idea that any other businesses would react this way. If the board doesn't provide for input now then they could just sit on it and wait until the next thing happens, which isn't Taylor's way of doing business. Norton said that he agrees with Taylor, if they do not hear this through it will kill it until 20 years down the road. We can place restrictions where this would be viable and not detrimental to the downtown businesses. Norton said we owe it to the downtown businesses to hear both pro and con. We want to encourage as much business as we can for the downtown B-4 zoning and if we limit it to a rental space of 2 square feet it is still an option. Gabriel said the main reason that she voted no to the motion to table this item for 60 .days was. that 60 days is too long. Gabriel said that she thinks the majority of the feedback will be against this proposal. Gabriel suggested that .Hinchey withdraw his motion and shorten the timeframe and attempt to get input from the downtown business owners to see what they want. Gabriel suggested that 30 days would be a more manageable timeframe for both Mr. Siblerud and to notify the public. Jentz noted that whatever decision the board makes will be forwarded to the City Council as a recommendation, whether to approve or deny. Jentz said that the proposal doesn'.t die here because the . City. Council is the ultimate decision making body. Jentz added that the board cannot indefinitely table the application either. Hinchey requested a vote on his motion to deny the text amendment. ROLL CALL - MOTION TO The motion to deny failed on a vote of 2 to 4 with Norton, DENY Taylor, Albert and Gabriel voting in opposition. MOTION Taylor made a motion seconded by Gabriel that the recommendation that was set before us tonight be tabled for 30 days until staff can notify the residents/owners of the B-4 Business District so that this board can get ample public input before it makes a decision. ROLL CALL The motion to table passed 5 -1 a roll call vote, with Hinchey voting in opposition. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2005 Page 15 of 16 r\ BOARD DISCUSSION Jentz clarified that staff will solicit input and hold another public hearing within 30 days. The Board agreed that another public hearing should be held. NEW BUSINESS I None. ADJOURNMENT I The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:45 p.m. There will be a Planning Board Work Session held on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 to discuss the Growth Policy Update, beginning at 6:30 p.m. for Jentz, Gabriel, 8s Albert, and at 7:00 p.m. for the remainder of the board. The next regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission will be held on Tuesday, September 13, 2005. Michelle Anderson Recording Secretary n APPROVED as submitted/corrected: q/ /.3 /05 �J O Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2005 Page 16 of 16