09-13-88 Planning BoardKALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF MEETING
SEPTEMBER 13, 1988
CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Charles Manning, President, at
AND ROLL CALL 6:05 p.m. Those present were Manning, Robbins, Hall, Frazer, Furlong,
and Stephens. Absent were Sloan, Hash, and Reynolds. David Greer,
Senior Planner, represented the Flathead Regional Development Office.
APPROVAL OF MIN- Hall moved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on August 15,
UTES AUGUST 15, 1988. Seconded by Stephens and passed unanimously.
1988
ANNEXATION & ZON- Manning introduced a petition by Robert C. Lincoln, Robert E.
ING OF LOTS 14, Lincoln, and William T. Lincoln for annexation and zoning of Lots 14,
15, & 16, BK 3, 15, and 16, Block 3, of the Phillips Addition. A zoning
PHILLIPS ADDITION classification of Neighborhood Business B-1 is being requested.
Greer gave the staff report saying that the title report shows that
the interest in this property is shared amongst a number of different
individuals.. The property is located on the east side of Woodland
Park Drive and south of Lenwood Lane. The character of the area is a
park to the west and residential area to the east. This Board is
required to make a recommendation on the appropriate zoning
classification subject to a public hearing tonight and another public
U hearing at the City Council level. The reason for the request for
annexation is that the Scoreboard Bar needed some sewer service since
their septic tank was failing and they were required to connect to
city sewer services. The Scoreboard Bar is contiguous to the city
limits by adjoining Woodland Park Drive. The property is currently
zoned Neighborhood Business B-1 under the Flathead County
Comprehensive Zoning Regulations. The proposed zoning would be
Neighborhood Business under the Kalispell Zoning Regulations. The
three lots under consideration are. occupied by the Scoreboard Bar and
the remainder of the area is primarily vacant. Water supply is from
the Phillips Addition. However, the City of Kalispell is requesting
that a fire hydrant be installed that is connected to the Kalispell
water system. This will require a water main extension to the area of
Conrad Drive and Woodland Park Drive. The City extended the sewer
main across Woodland Park Drive to the Scoreboard Bar and from there
the petitioners extended•&'the main northerly on Woodland Park Drive.
Greer covered the statutory criteria for evaluating zoning requests.
The proposed zone is, compatible with the Map and the Text of the
Kalispell City -County Master Plan. There should be no increase in
traffic potential. The zone should promote orderly growth consistent
with the surrounding character of the area. The B-1 zoning
classification'would be an effective transition zone between the park
and the residential area. Services can be adequately provided to the
types of business that might locate in a B-1 zone. The zoning
classification should promote adequate light and air by not
encouraging high density commercial activity. The concentration of
j people is less likely with this zoning classification than with any
othor businass zoning classification. It is the contention of the
staff that the property is best suited for light commercial and
professional office uses. The existing tavern on the property would
be grandfathered in as a legal non -conforming use. If the property
were zoned for more intensive use, it could cause serious impacts for
adjoining residential property. The zone could affect the tavern
building value negatively since they may have trouble expanding or
rebuilding in the event of a fire as a non -conforming use.
Alternatively, the tavern could be viewed as a special privilege as
the tavern will not have any other competition in that area due to
the zoning preventing any other businesses of this type in the area.
This may or may not affect the value of the building currently used
as a tavern. The staff recommends the approval of the annexation and
the B-1 zoning with the following conditions:
1. That the city water main be extended as necessary to install a
fire hydrant at the northwest intersection of Woodland Park
Drive and Conrad Drive. This requirement can be accomplished on
a cost -sharing basis with the parties seeking annexation of Lot
13, Block 3, Phillips Addition.
2. That the water main extension and fire hydrant be installed in
accordance to all applicable city construction codes with the
cost of said improvements to be borne by the petitioner.
3. That all delinquent taxes be paid prior to annexation.
4. That a majority of the parties having legal interest in the
subject properties consent to the annexation.
S. That the parking lot of the Scoreboard Bar be paved and comply
with city standards for storm drainage.
6. That the properties not be annexed pending completion of the
required improvements.
Manning asked Greer to explain condition #6. Greer stated that the
water main will need to be extended, fire hydrant installed, and
parking lot paved before the property can be officially annexed into
the city of Kalispell.
Public Hearing Manning opened the public hearing calling for comments from
proponents of the proposal.
Rich DeJana, representing the petitioners, stated that the only
concern that they have with the conditions is conditions #4 and #6.
Condition #4 says a "majority of the parties" and he wanted to
suggest that, because parts of this property are in litigation, if
the city attorney is satisfied that this statutory requirement is met
then the city council will be satisfied. The title is clouded and it
is hard to determine who all do have legal interest in the property.
Therefore, I would like this condition worded in such a way that
places the burden of deciding when this condition is met upon the
city attorney. As far as condition #6, he indicated that he was not
sure that all improvements can be completed prior to annexation. His
clients don't have enough money at this time to be able to do all
improvements. He suggested that some sort of an agreement be made for
guaranteeing the completion of the improvements at a later time. He
proposed that might be a year from now. He also suggested
conditioning approval of the annexation upon the satisfactory
drafting of an agreement between the city and the petitioners. The
city several months ago approved the sewer and the Bar is already
hooked to the sewer. Until the annexation is finalized the taxes for
the gaming establishment will be paid to the county. He felt that it
would be better to be giving the gaming revenues to the city. The
longer the annexation is prolonged the less gaming revenues realized
by the city. The reason for the petitioners proceeding with the
annexation at this time is they waited as long as they felt feasible
to get the title report cleared and that has not happened. The
petition was submitted in good faith to the agreement for receiving
the sewer hook-up.
Frazer asked if the petitioners could have requested the annexation
by resolution rather than by petition. DeJana stated that they could
have but it was felt that a petition was needed in order to fulfill
the good faith with the city. It may boil down to that if it is not
possible to work it out with the petition process.
There being no other proponents after the third call, Manning called
for opponents to the proposal to speak. There being no comments after
three calls, Manning closed the public hearing.
Board Discussion Frazer asked how the agreement would assure installation of the water
main and the fire hydrant? DeJana stated that there have been bonds
discussed, pledges against the property, etc. An agreement has not
been reached yet but he felt that one would be reasonably soon.
Manning asked how close the existing fire hydrant is there now? Greer
said that it was over 300 feet.
Furlong said he is concerned with whether the agreement would be an
iron -clad guarantee that the developers will ultimately be
responsible for the installation of the improvements.
DeJana said that performance bonds have been considered as well as
leans on the property.
Robbins stated his concerns with conditions 4 and 6. He felt that the
requests by DeJana were clouded and not really to the point. He also
commented that the conditions as stated in the recommendation were
clear and concise. Unless there has to be some overriding immediacy,
then there is no reason to change these conditions to allow for
immediate annexation. There is no reason to rush matters and then
create a bigger expense for the City later on.
DeJana pointed out that it might take a year for the title to be
cleared and condition #4 adhered to. He did not feel that the city
Motion
objects to the annexation if there is a suitable agreement for
performance of completing the improvements.
Frazer pointed out that the City Attorney in the staff letter is of
the opinion that all parties having interest in the property should
sign the Consent to Annex forms. He asked DeJana if he had any
problem with the City Attorney's terminology in the letter. DeJana
indicated that he didn't.
In further discussion Frazer felt that the terminology of "all
parties having legal interest should sign Consents to Annex" should
be incorporated into the conditions. He added that, since the city is
annexing and they have to live with whatever problems result, it is
only reasonable to make the recommendation as the City Attorney feels
it should be.
Greer stated that the statute that this is being annexed under is
annexation by petition. This implies that the majority of the
freeholders have petitioned for annexation. It may probably take
legal opinion as to what that means, because it's worded as "the
majority of the resident freeholder electors." If you were to take
that literally there are no resident electors but there might be
freeholders. This property might have been annexed under a more
appropriate statute but this was chosen to expedite it but I think in
the end it will be a determination by lawyers as to what a majority
of resident freeholder electors constitutes.
Greer further commented saying that, if this Board is inclined to
guarantee completion as opposed to having all improvements prior to
annexation, he suggested keeping condition #6 as it is worded and add
"or posting of a utility extension agreement, guaranteeing completion
of the water main extension, installation of the fire hydrant." This
is routinely done with subdivisions but it is not commonly done with
annexations, etc. I think that the city is a little uncomfortable
with such agreements. There isn't any precedent of using utility
extension agreements for annexations. He added that a public hearing
has been set for October 3. If things are not ready for that public
hearing date, the hearing could be held and withhold action until a
more appropriate time.
Furlong felt that setting the public hearing so quickly was like
getting the cart before the horse since the committee has not
reviewed this application yet.
Frazer moved the adopt the FRDO Staff Report #KA-88-2 as the findings
of fact for the zoning designation of this proposed annexation.
Furlong seconded and the motion passed unanimously in roll call vote.
Manning asked if the Board wanted to change condition #4k for the
motion. Stephens suggested leaving it the same. After no further
discussion, Manning asked if there were to be any changes to
condition #6. Greer read his suggested alteration to condition #6 and
the board felt that would reflect their wishes.
Motion Stephens moved to recommend approval of the annexation request with
the following conditions:
1. That the city water main be extended as necessary to install a
fire hydrant at the northwest intersection of Woodland Park
Drive and Conrad Drive. This requirement can be accomplished on
a cost -sharing basis with the parties seeking annexation of Lot
13, Block 3, Phillips Addition.
2. That the water main extension and fire hydrant be installed in
accordance to all applicable city construction codes with the
cost of said improvements to be borne by the petitioner.
3. That all delinquent taxes be paid prior to annexation.
4. That a majority of the parties having legal interest in the
subject properties consent to the annexation.
S. That the parking lot of the Scoreboard Bar be paved and comply
with city standards for storm drainage.
6. That the properties not be annexed pending completion of the
required improvements or posting of utilities extension
agreement to guarantee completion of the water main extension
and fire hydrant within six months following the effective date
of annexation.
Motion Frazer moved to recommend the zoning of Neighborhood Business B-1 for
the subject property. Stephens seconded the motion. Passed
unanimously by roll call vote.
TEXT AMENDMENT Manning introduced the request by Wayne Wolvert to amend Section
SECTION 3.04K 3.04K of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance by including "Paint and Body
TO ALLOW "PAINT Shops" as a permitted or conditional use in the "List of Permitted
AND BODY SHOPS" and Conditional Uses" of the Community Business B-3 zoning
classification.
Greer gave the staff report saying that the request is to add to the
table of uses for the B-3 zoning classification to allow "paint and
body shops." In evaluating the request, we looked at it relative to
compatibility with the zoning classification. If you change the list
of permitted and conditional uses, it affects everywhere in the
Kalispell area that is currently zoned Community Business B-3 and
wherever it, is zoned B-3 in the future. The applicant has a specific
place in mind but we try to ignore that and look strictly at the
zoning classification as a whole. Some of the associated impacts
would be paint smell, noise and outside storage. As far as the
relationship of this use to other zoning classifications, paint and
body shops are allowed in the industrial/commercial B-5 zoning
classification and the light industrial I-1 zoning classification.
Greer pointed that the definition for a B-2 zoning classification
might also be appropriate for the desired use. In looking at the
definition of the B-3 zoning classification, the concept promoted
there does not include the natures of a paint and body shop. The
predominate land use character of a B-3 zone is retail business,
professional offices, food stores and medical clinics. Other similar
uses included in the B-3 zone are auto sales and repair, truck
rental, and service stations. The staff recommends denial of this
text amendment since it could further dilute the purpose of the B-3
zoning classification.
Frazer felt that there is a pretty small distinction between a B-2
and a B-3 zoning classification as far as the list of permitted uses
but there is a difference in definition. Greer said that this is what
we mean by dilution.
Manning said that his concern is that this one individual might come
in with the dollars to make the body shop a real nice place but when
you look at the fact that all the areas zoned B-3 can have a body
shop someone else could locate in another area zoned B-3.
Furlong asked if the use were made conditional would it still open
the zoning classification up for further dilution? Greer stated that
the Board of Adjustment could set standards on the development of the
property as a body shop but since memberships on the Board of
Adjustment changes from time to time there is no way making sure that
the standards continue to another conditional use permit for a
similar proposal.
Manning pointed out that even when the Board of Adjustment sets
conditions for approval those conditions are not always completed. It
seems like once these requests are completed on paper and they get
filed, they are forgotten. No one has the time to police them either.
Robbins stated that this will set a precedent and he felt that there
is no need for this precedent to be set. Stephens concurred.
Motion Stephens moved to accept the findings of fact found in the FRDO
report #KZTA-88-3. Frazer seconded and the motion passed unanimously
in roll call vote.
Further discussion took place regarding ways to possibly mitigate the
concerns expressed.
Motion Stephens moved to recommend approval of the FRDO staff recommendation
of denial for the requested text amendment. Robbins seconded and it
passed unanimously in roll call vote.
OLD BUSINESS Greer stated that the process of zoning the Evergreen area is
underway. He stated that there was one meeting held on August 30 in
which approximately 30 people attended. He stated that the meeting
went fairly well. There will be two more informational meetings
scheduled for September 20 and September 29.
Greer encouraged the members of the planning board to attend Montana
Association of Planners meeting on Thursday and Friday, September 15
and 16. He stated that the FRDO will give scholarships if you want to
l ) attend. He suggested that Friday morning and afternoon might be of
particular interest concerning the topics of land use trends in
Flathead County and the Variance Workshop in the afternoon. He
(� requested that those wishing to take part should call the FRDO in
the morning to reserve the session that they wish to attend.
NEW BUSINESS Greer requested holding the next meeting of the Board on October 13,
1988 as he will be gone on October 11, 1988. The general concensus
was that there would not be any problem with the change. Greer also
stated that there will probably be a public hearing on the Evergreen
Zoning for that night.
Furlong asked about a time frame for pursuing the annexation of
wholly surrounded properties. Greer stated that probably the Board
will start seeing something about that in November.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Manning declared the meeting
journed at 7:20 p.m.
r--el'�aj qj
Charles Manning, reside t Ava Walters, Recording Secretary
Approved:
0