Loading...
City-County Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes 08/21/01• :• - MINUTES • AUGUST 21, rt CALL TO ORDER AND Greg Stevens called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 ROLL CALL p.m. Members present were: Brian Sipe, Ron Van Natta Greg Stevens, Don Mann, Bill Rice, Don Hines, Dale Pierce, and Rob Heinecke. Donald Garberg had an excused absence. Forrest Sanderson represented the Flathead County Planning & Zoning Office. There were approximately 25 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. WOLFORD ZONE This proposal is for an amendment to the Evergreen and CHANGE/EVERGREEN & Vicinity Zoning District map from the existing SAG-10, R-1 and VICINITY ZONING I-1H to B-2. The purpose of the requested change is to DISTRICT facilitate the construction of a 683,000 to 750,000 square foot regional shopping center on the subject property. STAFF REPORT Forrest Sanderson, of the Flathead County Planning & Zoning Office expressed his concern that the quick review of the zone change didn't offer an opportunity for the applicant and public to review the amendments to the report that needed to be made following the Master Plan public hearing. Sanderson reviewed the amended Staff Report FZC-01-101. Sanderson noted that the original report indicated that the site is not subject to flooding of a 100-year frequency, which was in error. Sanderson stated that a portion of the property is a portion of the 100-year floodplain, and reviewed these changes to the report for the Board. Staff recommends that the FZC-01-101 as Findings of Fact and recommend to the County Board of Commissioners that the zone change with a PUD overlay be approved. Van Natta questioned the lateness of the revisions and whether or not this would prevent the Board from acting on the zone change. After some discussion it was determined that the public was given due notice of the meeting and all the requirements have been legally met. Rice suggested that the Board hear the public testimony and if needed discuss the issue again. Sipe asked if the applicant had requested the PUD overlay and Sanderson said that he had added the PUD overlay after the Master Plan hearing and the applicant was not aware that this change was going to be made. Kalispell City -County Planning Board August 21, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 7 APPLICANWAGENCY Jean Johnson, Stokes & Associates noted that they do not intend to review all of the issues that were brought up in the previous Planning Board hearing regarding this project. Johnson reviewed the purpose of the meeting, the amended staff report, PUD, access to the development, and traffic studies. Johnson stated that they are requesting the zone change to B-2 to accommodate the construction of a mall. They are desirous of creating an annexation district with the City of Kalispell, which they feel is a win -win situation. James (Bucky) Wolford, President of Wolford Development, Inc., reviewed his meeting with Helena Flats School and their commitment to construct a bike path into their project. Wolford stated that they were more than willing to provide a buffer zone along the property line of the Granite View Subdivision. Wolford said that the 2 major department stores still intend to locate in this development and they are still hoping to start construction next year and opening in 2004. Wolford reviewed the traffic counts that he has received from MDOT for the Board and they discussed Highway 2 access for the project and that MDOT may require signals at one or both of the mall entrances. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak in favor of the proposal. PROPONENTS John Hammett, 1215 Sunset Drive, Kalispell stated that he is requesting the support of the Board for approval of the zone change proposed by Wolford Development. Dan Skiles 161 East Reserve stated that he is not for or against the proposal but would like an opportunity to do further research and be given another chance to express his concerns. Stevens indicated that there would be another hearing before the County Commissioners and Rice encourage Skiles to contact Forrest Sanderson at the Planning & Zoning Office and the Tri-City Planning Office for more information. Andrew Farris indicated that he is in favor of the shopping center and noted that it is a long drive to Missoula to shop and the Board should approve the zone change. Hearing no other comments in favor, Stevens opened the public hearing to those wishing to speak in opposition. OPPONENTS Diane Conrati, Citizens for a Better Flathead addressed the public process issue and the availability of the staff report. Conrati cited the Montana State Constitution, Montana Code Annotated Open Meetings Law, and the Kalispell City -County Planning 8s Zoning Commission's Bylaws as it relates to the issues noted above. Conrati noted that the staff report does Kalispell City -County Planning Board August 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 7 constitute evidence upon which the Board will make their decision and historically it has been the basis for the Findings of Fact and the public has not had an adequate opportunity to review or rebut the information in the staff report. Conrad requested that the Board schedule another hearing and suggested that the Board did not have enough information to recommend granting the zone change in this case. Conrad identified the areas that, in her opinion, the staff report lacks which included traffic and transportation, effects on the local economy, other retail developments in the County, and water and sewer capacity. Conrad said that this meeting on the zone change is premature. The proposed B-2 zoning isn't consistent with the current Master Plan designation. Conrati cited Little v. Flathead County where the Montana Supreme Court said that zoning has to be consistent with the Master Plan or else it is considered spot zoning. Conrad noted that Senate Bill 97 doesn't restrict amendments to zoning but does restrict adoption of zoning designations. Conrad suggested that if the Planning Board, City and County are concerned about litigation in rushing this project through before October lst, she encouraged them to take the time that they need to follow the law and the findings of fact required and make sure that this project benefits the people of Kalispell. There was some discussion regarding the Section 36 property. Bill Leininger 619 Granite View Drive stated he is not so much in opposition of the mall, but more so with the zoning change. Living in Granite View in the R-1 designation to the west, Leininger asked, what is going to happen to that piece of property and what is the B-2 zoning going to entail. Sharon Dimestra, 415 Chestnut Drive stated that she is a small business owner and asked what this development will do small businesses and downtown Kalispell. The community has experience 2 malls already - 3 if you want to count the one in Whitefish, that have not been able to carry their own weight. Being a small business owner she doesn't have a franchise behind her and they have to work very hard to make a dollar in this valley and she wants people to understand how the decisions they make will affect the economy and small businesses of this valley. Don Connors 126-A East Reserve Drive stated that he finds himself in a quandary when asked to testify either for or against the issue because in some ways he is for it and some ways he is against it. Connors said that he is concerned with such as traffic studies, and the possibility of widening East Reserve, which would directly affect his property. Connors asked how many parking spaces does he need, how many Kalispell City -County Planning Board August 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 7 people a day to make the business profitable - 16,000 people coming down East Reserve. Connors reviewed the problems with access to the development, Rose Crossing with the railroad tracks, and the possible affects on Trumble Creek. Dr. Tom Fullerton, 604 Granite View reviewed several concerns that he had regarding the size of the project, the affect on property values and the local economy, duplication of the businesses that are already present in Kalispell and that the core of the valley would get sucked dry. Fullerton continued that the citizens of Kalispell are paying tax increment money to support the Kalispell Center Mall and will continue to support it for the next 10-15 years. What will happen to the mall will it becomes another empty hole and they hope that another tech company comes in to fill it? Fullerton said that the sewer would have to be expanded and worried that a sewage treatment facility would then be constructed in his back yard. Fullerton also mentioned the affects on the tax base, traffic, storm water runoff and environmental concerns. Fullerton said that there is too many major things to think about that need complete analysis. If this development will tear down the core of the City he is against it. Mark Guest, 233 Lake Blaine Drive stated that he is a small business owner on Main Street and said that Dr. Fullerton put forth some very viable concerns. Guest said having seen the demise of Gateway West Mall and we will watch the demise of the Kalispell Center Mall and it will gut downtown. As a small business owner he doesn't feel he could ever afford to be in this new development with rents being probably $20 to $30 per square foot. The development will most likely bring in competition and he will probably then have to close his business and leave the area. Guest said that it is a threat to his business and with what it will do to downtown Kalispell the Board should consider that. Ken Cox 2612 Highway 2 East. and Chief of the Evergreen Fire Department said that there is good and bad in all of it His property is across from the development and it may increase his property value or decease it. Cox said that they will have to live with it and added that he doesn't think that anyone should be able to say that they can't build it. Hearing no other comments Stevens closed the public hearing. APPLICANT REBUTTAL Johnson stated that water is adjacent to the property - Evergreen Water and they have stated that they have ample water. The only services that they are requesting from the City is sewage and if they are successful in creating an annexation district then they will be part of the City and their concern should be downtown also. Johnson stated that as fax as runoff everything will be reviewed by DEQ and a drainage plan has to Kalispell City -County Planning Board August 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 7 be prepared and accepted. Johnson reviewed the development with respect to drainage and addressed the misconception that property taxes will go us as a result of this project. Johnson reminded everyone that properties are assessed by use of the property and not by zoning. Reserve Street has a 60 foot right- of-way - will there be a four lane highway on Reserve - probably not but will there be a turn lane - most likely with a bicycle path added as well. Johnson noted that traffic studies may or may not have to be done and access will be decided by MDOT. Wolford said that with project will draw from all over Northwest Montana and they feel it will strengthen the overall retail operations within the City and will bring shoppers into this area who are going to other sections - Missoula and Spokane - and they will also shop in the facilities downtown, including the restaurants and other businesses. BOARD DISCUSSION There was lengthy discussion and some disagreement on whether the Board should consider the original staff report or the amended report. MOTION Sipe moved and Pierce seconded that they should disregard the amended staff report and consider the original staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Further discussion was held and Sanderson reviewed the amendments to the staff report and noted that the changes were the additional information regarding the PUD Overlay added to the recommendation and the floodplain report. The Board agreed that the original report had already included the PUD discussion and the report could be amended to include the changes needed to address the floodplain. AMENDED MOTION Hines moved to amend the original motion that the Board would consider the original Staff Report and make amendments to it to include the PUD Overlay and floodplain report. Sipe seconded the motion. ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed 7-1. QUESTION After further discussion Question was called and on a roll call vote passed unanimously. MOTION Rice moved and Hines seconded the adoption of the original Staff Report FZC-01-101 as findings of fact and add phrase "with PUD overlay" in the Recommendation and the following paragraph under Evaluation Based on Statutory Criteria. "The site is basically flat, is not timbered and is currently used for agricultural production which is a non -conforming use of the property with respect to zoning. A portion of the property is a portion of the 100-year floodplain (Zone A) as designated on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 3000231810D. The Kalispell City -County Planning Board August 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 7 Zone A flood hazard does not have flood hazard factors or flood depths associated with the classification. As such, the developers will either need to file a letter of map amendment and remove the property from the floodplain or a floodplain development permit will need to be obtained for the project site. Said permit would have to be obtained prior to the start of any site modification or construction.", and forward a recommendation to the County Commissioners that the zone change be approved. BOARD DISCUSSION Stevens suggested the deletion of Section K under the Background Information, and an amendment to # 1. under Evaluation Based Statutory Criteria and explained his reasoning. No motions were made. Stevens suggested the following addition to the last paragraph of #2. under the Evaluation Based Statutory Criteria that reads, "The Master Plan recommends the continuance of Kalispell as a regional trade center. This location has access to the four existing major arterials as well as easy access to the two major arterials proposed for the future. There would be less congestion here than at most, if not all, alternative locations to further that goal." MOTION Heinecke moved Pierce seconded the motion to amend the staff report as noted above. ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed on a vote of 6 -2 . BOARD DISCUSSION Stevens suggested the following amendment to item #4 - paragraph 4 to read, "This zone change, with the stipulations discussed above, will not adversely affect the overall general health and welfare of the public. By allowing a regional development within close proximity to the population base and services this zone change will promote the general welfare by furthering the Master Plan goal of maintaining Kalispell as a regional trade center. Utilization of state and county health guidelines will promote health concerns." MOTION/QUESTION Pierce moved Sipe seconded the amendment to #4 as stated above. Question was called. ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed on a vote of 5 in favor and 3 in opposition. MOTION On a roll call vote the motion to adopt the Staff Report as amended passed on a vote of 7 in favor and 1 in opposition. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. Kalispell City -County Planning Board August 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 7 NEW BUSINESS There was no other new business. ADJOURNMENT At approximately 9:40 p.m. the meeting was adjourned. The next meeting will be Wednesday, September 12, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. Greg Stevens, President Approved as submitted/corrected: _/_/01 Michelle Anderson, Recording Secretary Kalispell City -County Planning Board August 14, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 7 Darlene Jump-Rauthe 687 Scenic Dr., Kalispell, Mt. 59901 August 21, 2001 To the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission I am Darlene Jump-Rauthe. I am part-owner of a portion of the land that the proposed mall would occupy. I do feel that the mall proposed by Wolford Development will. have a positive effect for Kalispell and the Flathead Valley. It will add a great deal to the tax base, keep more shoppers here and attract more from distant places, add jobs, and will blend in with the uniqueness of the Flathead Valley and surrounding mountains. We have had many chances to sell this land to other developers, some of which would have been better financially to us personally; however, I feel this is the one most beneficial to our area. Other offers were for questionable uses; one simply would not tell us the proposed use. Mr. Wolford has been very straightforward in his dealings with us; more important, Mr. Wolford has not asked for financial aid. I have listened to several people saying this is a rush project. I would disagree. This proposed mall has been either- mentioned or been the subject of an article in the Interlake on the following dates: Jan. 10, 2000 page A-6-- Jan. 12, 2000 page A-8-- Jan 23, 2000 page A-10--Aug. 12, 2001 page A-12-- in the Flathead Business Journal Feb. 25, 2000 and Dec. 22, 2000 and in The Citizens' News in the Mar. 2000 issue. These are the ones I am certain about. Please give your support for the zone change request. Very sincerely,