Loading...
01-11-00KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MEETING JANUARY 11, 2000 CALL TO ORDER AND Jean Johnson called the meeting to order at approximately 7:07 ROLL CALL p.m. Members present were: Jean Johnson, Rob Heinecke, Greg Stevens, Brian Sipe, Don Garberg, Don Mann, Don Hines, Randy Ek and Bill Rice. Narda Wilson represented the Flathead Regional Development Office. There were approximately 9 people in the audience. SEATING OF NEW Randy Ek was welcomed to the board. MEMBER ELECTION OF Garberg nominated Jean Johnson for President. On a vote by OFFICERS acclamation Johnson was elected President. Sipe nominated Stevens for Vice President. On a vote by acclamation Stevens was elected Vice President. ELECTION OF MEMBER Garberg nominated Bill Rice for Member -at -Large and Heinecke AT LARGE nominated Dewey Swank. On a roll call vote six members voted for Rice and one voted for Swank. Bill Rice was elected. Garberg moved and Hines seconded to forward the member -at- O large selection to the City Council and the County Commissioners for confirmation, and to recommend that the member -at -large seat be changed to a two-year term. On a vote by acclamation the motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by Mann and seconded by Heinecke the minutes of the meeting of December 14, 1999 were approved unanimously, as corrected, amend Page 16 to include names of voting members. HI -NOON PETROLEUM A conditional use permit request by Hi -Noon Petroleum to allow CONDITIONAL USE a bar and casino in an existing building at the northeast corner PERMIT of Highway 93 South and First Avenue East on property zoned B-2. STAFF REPORT Wilson gave a presentation on staff report KCU-99-11 in which staff recommends that the conditional use permit be approved subject to conditions. Wilson stated that the subject property is within a commercially zoned area. She explained that the application does not meet the parking requirements for a retail convenience store, which is the same as for a bar/casino. Therefore the parking will have to be brought into substantial conformance with the zoning. Wilson explained that there could C� be conflicts with the three accesses onto the property. There is no place for landscaping on this site. The size of the building and the hours of operation will not change, and the impacts to the neighborhood would generally be limited. The staff is recommending that the application be recommended for approval subject to the conditions to come into compliance with the regulations prior to the issuance of the building permit for remodeling. Staff also recommends that the board formally encourage the City Council to continue to try and resolve the issue of casino regulations so there is consistent treatment of these types of uses. Heinecke asked about the setback and it was explained that the shed falls substantially within the setback, and that the project does have considerable problems with setbacks. This lot is limited by its size and configuration and so there is limited development potential. Johnson stated that this is a non -conforming structure. Wilson stated that the building is not being expanded, and a casino is a conditionally permitted use. The zoning doesn't prohibit a change in the use of a non -conforming building. They could make changes to the structure as long as there is no change to the footprint of the building. They can change the use of the building as long as it complies with zoning. Staff is recommending that the application be approved if they comply with the zoning regulations. 0 PUBLIC HEARING. The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the application. PROPONENTS Chris Goodman, with Hi -Noon Petroleum, spoke in favor of the application stating that the lot is extremely difficult and they are unable to expand the building in any way. The company is negotiating with the State to allow for more parking through some means. The company wants to close off one of the accesses and will be working with the State right-of-way agent on that provision. He is asking that the board recommend approval to allow the company to continue in the process. They are in agreement with the conditions as presented by staff. He stated that the company believes that this is a commercial area and is very appropriate for this type of use. OPPONENTS Doug Scarff spoke against the application stating that the neighborhood has had 98 calls for service in that 1/2 block area, the amount of foot traffic is phenomenal and he does not think that a bar/ casino is the best use of this property. Dennis O'Boyle spoke against the application stating that he has resided in the neighborhood a long time and he thinks this use is a turn to the negative side. He stated that Independence House is within the area and this has increased the traffic considerably. He stated that there are enough of these types of Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 11, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 9 establishments in this neighborhood. There are a lot of negatives with the Highway 93 access problems, parking problems, and the non -conforming structure. He does not want n to see this application approved. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. BOARD DISCUSSION Heinecke asked what was going to happen with the shed and Goodman explained that the shed would probably be removed so that they could meet the parking requirements. Mann asked and Goodman answered that the gas pumps would be left at this time and if the casino works out then they may be removed. Goodman explained that the convenience store and gas business is becoming difficult and the company has to look at other uses in order to stay alive. Johnson asked and Goodman answered that the company is negotiating with the State to give them the corner of the property in exchange for parking. He explained that parking would be dependent on those negotiations. He explained that the company wished to work with the board and the public in mitigating their concerns. The company did not want to expend the money for an engineered plan until they knew if a bar/casino would be allowed. The applicants are requesting that the board recommend approval based on meeting the conditions as listed in the report. Wilson explained that the applicant would have to demonstrate compliance with the regulations and the conditions before the permit would be issued. The board discussed the neighbors' issues about the number of casinos in the area. Wilson explained that it is in the scope of the local government to set performance standards that would limit where casinos are within the community. But that there is nothing in place at this time in Kalispell. Stevens stated that this proposal does fit within the zoning, and it may be better to corral these businesses together in one area. He thinks that there is an advantage to having these businesses in one area. Garberg stated that the problem with so many in one area is that there isn't enough parking. Stevens stated that what the board would be approving is limited to the applicant meeting the parking requirements. Johnson stated that the applicant has a responsibility to demonstrate that they can meet the parking before they Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 11, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 9 recommend approval. He cannot see that they will be able to meet that parking. He stated that he doesn't want to have the board approve something that cannot happen, and he cannot see where this could happen. The applicant stated that the hardest part of the casino issue is the casino not the parking. They are seeking the use with the condition that they provide parking that meets the requirements. The company can put the money out to meet those requirements if the board is in agreement with the use, and it would not be feasible if the board does not want the use. Hines stated that allowing parking at Rosauers would cause foot traffic and should not be considered. Garberg stated that it is hard for him to support something that he cannot see as going forward. Heinecke stated that the regulations for a conditional use permit require that the applicant demonstrate that the parking can be met. He also has a problem with allowing expansion of the uses of a non -conforming structure. Goodman stated that the company would be willing to have the board table or continue this until the next meeting to allow them time to show that they can meet the requirements. C) Garberg stated that even if they could find 24 parking spaces it is still changing the use and it will aggravate an already difficult situation. Wilson explained that if the application were tabled any new information would be forwarded to the board. The formal public hearing has been closed but the board could allow public comment for their consideration at the next meeting. MOTION Stevens moved and Ek seconded to table this application to the next meeting. On a roll call vote the motion tied on a vote of four in favor and four opposed. Stevens asked how extensive the findings would have to be amended in order to deny the application and Wilson explained that they could use the findings within the report. Garberg moved and Mann seconded to recommend denial of the application noting items one and two of the staff findings as their reasons for denial. On a roll call vote: Heinecke, Stevens, Garberg, Mann, Sipe, and Johnson voted Aye. Ek voted No. The motion to deny the conditional use permit passed on a vote of seven in favor and one opposed. Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 11, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 9 n O CONNORS, DAY RINKE A zone change request by Connors, Day Rinke and Miscampbell AND MISCAMPBELL from R-1 to R-2 on approximately two acres in the Evergreen ZONE CHANGE and Vicinity Zoning District. STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson gave a presentation on staff report FZC-99-19 in which staff recommends that the zone change from R-1 to R-2 be approved. Wilson stated that there is six dwellings located on this these properties currently. This zone change would not affect the density of the area. There would be no change in use or density by the zone change. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the application. PROPONENTS Donald Connors spoke in favor of the application and stated that he is available for questions. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. BOARD DISCUSSION Heinecke asked about the hardship and Wilson explained that the hardship precipitated the zone change. Stevens asked what the applicant has spent and it was explained that he had spent $1,650.00 so far on this project. MOTION Stevens moved and Hines seconded to adopt staff report FZC- 99-19 as findings of fact and based on these findings recommend approval of the zone change from R-1 to R-2. On a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: Preliminary plat for Kelsey Subdivision tabled at the December KELSEY SUBDIVISION 18, 1999 meeting. This is a request by Andrew Farris for PRELIMINARY PLAT preliminary plat approval of Kelsey Subdivision, a 33-lot residential cluster subdivision on approximately 18 acres in the Evergreen and Vicinity Zoning District. Johnson removed himself from the board for this application due to a conflict. STAFF REPORT Wilson presented the board with the applicants' suggested findings and conditions. She stated that the City Council held a workshop to consider the extension of city services to non- contiguous properties. The Council is considering changing their policy to allow services. At the end of that meeting the Council specifically considered the Farris project and indicated they would be willing to allow sewer services to this project. The applicant has a couple of options, one to continue with the project as it is or the other is to withdraw the application and redesign the subdivision to include city water/ sewer. BOARD DISCUSSION Mann asked that Parsons explain where the application is in Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 11, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 9 respect to the council. Parsons explained the process that the applicant has gone (� through to this point. He stated that there would be no changes to the application design. He explained his interpretation of the subdivision and floodplain regulations. Parsons stated that the applicant couldn't develop in the floodplain, as it is not allowed. He added that the applicant would have to get a floodplain permit to allow fill of two feet or more to meet the requirements of developing within the floodplain. Rice stated that the board, if they approve this subdivision, would be approving development in the floodplain. He stated that the developers could then sell the lots leaving the property owners to get the required permits, which wouldn't be denied because that would disallow the use of their property. He added that the developer should be required to bring the property into compliance with the floodplain regulations prior to the sale of any lots or at the least it should be required that any purchaser know in advance of the purchase about any floodplain regulations that they would have to meet, and the costs associated with that, in order to develop the lot. Parson stated that the floodplain is substantially smaller than what is showing on the federal maps. He added that the lots would have a setback, which would include the floodplain area, r� and therefore nothing would be built within the floodplain. On I'__ those lots that do fall within the floodplain they would have to be brought into compliance with a floodplain permit prior to final plat. Heinecke asked about lot five and Wilson explained that the regulations state that land located within the floodplain cannot be subdivided for a residential or building use. Staffs' interpretation of that regulation is that land within the floodplain should not be subdivided for residential or building use. She added that there does seem to be latitude for design changes on this application that would mitigate the use of the floodplain area for lots. Rice wondered if it were true that there would have to be a floodplain permit to allow for any development within the subdivision that falls within the floodplain. Ek asked if lot 5 would have a culvert under it, which would redirect the water, and was answered yes. Parsons stated that any development within a floodplain would redirect water. Mann stated that he agreed with staff, that the best use would be to use the land outside the floodplain Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 11, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 9 Garberg stated that he strongly heard the council state that the policy will be changed and city sewer services will be allowed to this subdivision. Parsons stated that if it were a sure thing that there would be sewer then they would still want the cluster development but there might be some changes in the individual lot lines. They would still place fill in the area of lot five. Realistically there would be trade offs and they could go to the commissioners with a different design. The applicant does not want to delay this application another 30 days but they would be willing to come up with a design to include the sewer if it becomes available. Stevens stated that the actual cluster design of this subdivision and the open space between this and the Granite View subdivision is an advantage. He stated that leaving the floodplain out of it the board should consider the cluster design. He stated that he is confused with the difference between Parsons' interpretation and staffs' interpretation of the floodplain and the regulations. Wilson explained that if recommended for approval this would go before the commissioners and the floodplain administrator. This is a non -delineated area and so there would have to be some work before the actual boundaries of the floodplain would be determined. She stated that in order to do that a surveyor would have to go out and actually shoot the elevations. Jean Johnson, speaking for the developer, stated that they had gathered information and entered it into AutoCad, a software program, and compiled that along with information that an engineer had gathered by running a topographic of the area and they had delineated the floodplain area. He stated that this would not be enough for FEMA, but they would have to . then prove their delineation to them. Rice asked and was answered that staff used the current FEMA map and without a formal review to change the floodplain delineation staff has to use the current map as per the regulations. Stevens stated that there can be some changes from the preliminary plat to the final plat Wilson explained that FEMA would have to accept or deny the change in the delineation of the floodplain and from there changes could be made to shift the lot lines in accordance with the final determination. Mann stated that he does not think they are experts in the C \� floodplain and he feels the staff conditions are good. Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 11, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 9 MOTION Mann moved and Heinecke seconded to adopt staff report FPP- 99-9 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions as listed by staff. Heinecke stated that he would like a modification to condition 11 - that parkland dedication may be met with the dedicated open space area. Heinecke stated that the roads should line up as per the road departments recommendation. Stevens stated that the board should go through the conditions individually. The board discussed the conditions and changed the conditions as follows: Condition #3 - retain this condition as per staffs recommendation. Condition #4 - change the condition as per the developer's suggestion. Condition #6 retain this condition as per staffs recommendation Condition # 11 - change the condition as per the developer's suggestion. Condition # 12 - change the condition as per the developer's suggestion. Condition # 16 - retain this condition as per staffs recommendation adding `unless application for city services are denied by the city'. Condition # 17 - retain this condition as per staffs recommendation. Condition # 18 - retain this condition as per staffs recommendation. Condition # 19 - That the developer be required to obtain the floodplain permit and bring it up to a buildable lot prior to final plat approval. Sipe moved and Garberg seconded to amend the motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat by the above amendments to the conditions. On a vote by acclamation the motion passed unanimously. On the amended motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to the amended conditions all members voted Aye. The motion to recommend approval with amended conditions passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS The board discussed having a combined orientation meeting for new board members and a parliamentary procedures workshop. It was the consensus of the board that they would like to have a ( workshop by a parliamentarian on parliamentary procedures. Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 11, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 9 The Commissioners and Council have rescheduled their Growth Policy work session to Monday, February 14, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. Heinecke stated that he has spoken with six of the council members and he believed that they are looking forward to getting together with the planning board to discuss the Growth Plan. Johnson stated that Brian Launius attends the DEQ meetings on regulation amendments and he is available to the board for comment and questions at any time. Johnson stated that he would like to thank Joe Brenneman for his service. He also thanked the board for their support in keeping him as president. . Garberg stated that he also appreciated Joe Brenneman. A letter of appreciation for Joe Brenneman will be brought to the board at the next regular meeting for all to sign. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting will be February 8, 2000 at 7 p.m. The meeting was adjourned by motion at approximately 10:00 p.m. C� ean A. Jo on, President T is La e, R ording Secretary Approved as submitted corrected: /�� U Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 11, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 9