Loading...
06. Ordinance 1255 - Text Amendment - Change in Non-Conforming UseAgenda -December 9, 1996 AGENDA ITEM 6 - TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A CHANGE IN NON -CONFORMING USE -ORDINANCE 1255-1st Reading BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATION: I have enclosed FRDO's report dated December 2, 1996 as it relates to a proposed text amendment to allow a change in non -conforming uses. RECOMMENDATION: I have reviewed and concur with the findings of the Planning staff. I also concur with the recommendation that the change in text be denied. As pointed out within the report, this change would completely undermine the basic intent of the zoning ordinance and the Master Plan to discourage the continuance of non- conforming usages within any particular zone and to actually encourage the demise of the non -conforming usages. Since the approval of this would be contrary to good zoning practices and the intent of zoning regulations, I concur with the Planning Board decision and strongly recommend denial of the request for the text amendment. ACTION REQUIRED: To DENY the request or recommend a negative vote for Ordinance 1255 is needed. ORDINANCE NO. _____1255___ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 27.25; NON -CONFORMING LOTS, USES AND STRUCTURES; OF THE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE, (ORDINANCE NO. 1175), BY ADDING A NEW SECTION, -CHANGES PERMITTED TO NON- CONFORMING USE,- AND TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Gardner Auction Service has submitted a written request to amend Chapter 17.25; Non -Conforming Lots, Uses and Structures; of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance by adding a new section. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS: SEC-T-T-ON-1: The City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 1175, is hereby amended as follows: Chapter 27.25; Non -Conforming Lots, Uses and Structures; of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by adding a new Section, "Changes Permitted to Non -Conforming Uses", reading: "If no significant exterior structural alterations are made to the building used for a non -conforming use of the same or more restrictive use, provided that the new non- conforming use is no more deleterious to the neighborhood, considering all factors, than was the previous non -conforming use." PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL THIS DAY OF 1 1996. ATTEST: Debbie Giffford, CMC Clerk of Council 1 Douglas D. Rauthe, Mayor Flathead RegionalDevelopment December 2, 1996 Clarence Krepps, City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Drawer 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Proposed Text Amendment to Allow a Change in Nan -Conforming Uses Dear Clarence: Phone: (406) 758-5980 Fax: (406) 758-5781 The Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission met in regular session on Thursday, November 14, 1996, and held a public hearing on a request by Gardner Auction Service to amend the text of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance as follows: To amend Chapter 27.25; Non -Conforming Lots, Uses and Structures; of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance by adding a new Section, "Changes Permitted to Non -Conforming Uses." This section would state "If no significant exterior structural alterations are made to the building used for a non- conforming use, the use may, upon written approval by the zoning administrator, be changed to another non -conforming use of the same or more restrictive use, provided that the new non- conforming use is no more deleterious to the neighborhood, considering all factors, than was the previous non -conforming use." Narda Wilson with the Flathead Regional Development Office presented a staff report and discussed the background of the request by the Gardner Auction Service. Gardner Auction Service operates as a nonconforming use in the RA-1 zoning district They are moving their business to another location and would like to lease or sell the existing land and building which presents problems under the current regulations which does not allow a change in non-confomling uses. Narda reviewed the statutory evaluation criteria for a zoning text amendment, and based on that evaluation, recommended that the request be denied. The recommendation for denial was based upon the findings that this would not only effect the Gardners, but all other zoning districts in the city. Additionally, it is the intent of the zoning ordinance to phase out nonconforming uses, not to prolong their existence. Todd and Devar Gardner both spoke in favor of the proposal stating that they had made a large investment in their property and they believed it was unfair to expect them to abandon the use of the building. Brian Wood also spoke in favor of the amendment stating that it was a reasonable way to address the issue of nonconforming uses. No one spoke in opposition. The board discussed the Gardner's situation and generally concurred that a zone change would be more appropriate to address their situation. They also agreed with the findings of the staff that allowing a change in non -conforming uses would be contrary to the intent of the zoning ordinance. Providing Community Planning Assistance To: • Flathead County - City of Columbia Falls - City of Kalispell - City of Whitefish • Clarence Krepps, City Manager Re: Teat Amendment to Allow Change in Non -Conforming Uses December 2, 1996 Page 2 The motion was made and passed on a vote of 8-1 to recommend that City Council adopt the findings of fact in report #KZTA-964, and recommend that the request be denied. They were however, concerned about the RA-1 zoning on the Gardner property and believed that it would be appropriate to support a zone change to I-1. There was some discussion regarding the need for a master plan amendment The board felt that it would be unfair to require the Gardners to pay for the master plan amendment and zone change after having paid for the text amendment which was denied. The board questioned the appropriateness of that area being designated as high density residential on the Master Plan Map and the corresponding RA-1 zoning. They agreed that they would like to have the City initiate the necessary master plan and zone change to remedy the situation. The Planning Board directed the staff to prepare a letter as a separate transmittal to the City Manager and City Council with their recommendation to initiate the necessary master plan amendment and zone change to light industrial for the Gardner property. This recommendation for the text amendment is forwarded to the City Council for the December 9, 1996 work session and subsequent December 16, 1996 regular City Council meeting for consideration of the request. Please contact the planning board or Narda Wilson with the Flathead Regional Development Office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Respectfully Submitted, V Therese Fox Hash President TFH/NW/eo Attachments: FRDO Report #KZTA-96-4 Minutes November 14, 1996 Planning Board meeting c: Diana Harrison, Kalispell Zoning Administrator Todd Gardner ...TRANSMIT\ 1996\KZTA96-4.MEM GARDNER AUCTION - SERVICE TEXT AMENDMENT TO TBE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE FRDO STAFF REPORT #KZTA-96-4 A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding a request to amend the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. A public hearing has been scheduled before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board on November 14, 1996, beginning at 7:00 p.m. A recommendation from the planning board will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. A. Petitioner: Gardner Auction Service P.O. Box 943 Kalispell, MT 59901 (406)752-7682 The applicants have proposed an amendment to Section Chapter 27.25, Nonconforming Lots, Uses and Structures, of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance which would add a section to allow a change from one nonconforming use to another provided the new nonconforming use would generate an equal or lesser impact on the area. The specific language which is proposed states, "If no significant exterior structural alterations are made to a nonconforming building, the use may, upon written approval by the zoning administrator, be changed to another nonconforming use of the same or more restrictive use (classification), provided that said new use is no more deleterious to the neighborhood, considering all factors, than was the previous nonconforming use. " B. Affected Zoning Districts: As proposed, all of the zoning districts in Kalispell could potentially be affected by this change. Nonconforming uses in all residential, commercial and industrial zoning districts may be impacted by virtue of the fact that they may contain nonconforming uses. C. Staff Discussion: The applicants have submitted a petition for the proposed zoning text amendment based upon the fact that they own an auction building located in an RA-1 zoning district and wish to relocate their facility in a light industrial district south of Kalispell. In an effort to reuse the existing building, they have found that they are limited by the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to another auction facility. If it is not possible to use the building as an auction facility, the new use would be required to conform with one of the permitted uses or conditionally permitted uses in the district. Other jurisdictions in the Valley allow for a change in nonconforming uses. Flathead County Zoning Regulations allow a change is nonconforming use with the issuance of an administrative conditional use permit. Basically, notice is given to surrounding property owners and a 10-day comment period is provided. If concerns surface as a result of the notification process, a public hearing will be held. Although the City of Kalispell has a provision in the zoning ordinance for the issuance of an administrative conditional use permit, no procedure for processing has been established and the provision has not been used. The City of Columbia Falls and the City of Whitefish allow for a change in nonconforming use to another nonconforming use with similar or less impacts subject to a conditional use permit. This, of course, requires consideration of the proposal, notification of surrounding property owners and a public hearing before the planning board who forward a recommendation to the city council. The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-205, M.C.A. Findings of fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the itemized criteria described by 76-2-203, M.C.A. and Section 27.30.020 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. 1. ,Does the requested zone comply with the Master Plan? The master plan map designates certain areas for specific land uses and the subsequent zoning of those areas are generally consistent with the master plan. Allowing a use to continue which is not permitted under the zoning does not further the goals of the master plan. However, the Kalispell City -County Master Plan does not specifically discuss the reuse of buildings or nonconforming uses, nor do plan objectives address adaptive reuse of existing buildings. 2. Is the recue�ted zone designed to lessen congestion in the streets? Allowing a change from one nonconforming use to another with the same or less impact could potentially lessen congestion in the streets or congestion would be comparable. However, if the use were to change to a permitted use or a "conforming use" as the regulations currently require, it can be generally concluded that the current regulations are designed to lessen congestion in the streets. 2 3. Does the requested zone give reasonable consideration to the character of the district? Each of the zoning districts have a defined purpose which is implemented by the uses which are either permitted outright or conditionally permitted in the district. By defining those uses, the "character" of a district is established. Nonconforming uses by their very nature are philosophically considered to be inconsistent with the character of a district. Allowing a change in nonconforming uses would not give reasonable consideration to the character of the district. However, with more close review such as requiring a conditional use permit, reasonable consideration of the impacts to the character of a district could be evaluated. Additionally, the extended vacancy of a building which could result in lack of maintenance and result in deterioration of buildings. This in itself could add to the degradation of a neighborhood. 4. Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers? Allowing a change in nonconforming uses may provide the opportunity to require the upgrading of buildings to a current safety code and to require adequate fire access which may be limited in an older building. On the other had any adaptive reuse of the building, demolition if the building and reconstruction would also be required to meet the applicable building and safety codes. 5. Will the requested change promote public health and general welfare? The zoning ordinances basic purpose is to promote the general welfare of the community by separating incompatible uses and discouraging their continuation. The current regulations which do not allow a change in nonconforming uses further the goals of promoting the general health and welfare of the public. 6. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air? Development standards provided assure that adequate light and air are provided building setbacks and limits on density, height, and lot coverage. This amendment would not significantly affect light and air requirements. 7. Will the requested zoning prevent the overcrowding of land? An existing nonconforming use may, in some instances, result in the overcrowding of land because, generally, the most obtrusive nonconforming uses are businesses in a residential zone. Businesses usually generate more traffic, require more parking and generate more activity than would residential uses. However, allowing a change in use which would result in equal or lesser impacts would not result in the further overcrowding of land. 3 g. Will the requested zone avoid undue concentration of people. As provided for under the current zoning regulations, requiring a change from a nonconforming business use to a conforming residential use would generally result in a reduced concentration of people. However, the proposed change would not result in a higher concentration of people. 9. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate row vision of trans2grtation. water. sewerage. schools, parks,. and other public requirements? As proposed, the text amendment would not necessarily insure that adequate public facilities and other infrastructure would be available. However, if a change in nonconforming uses was required to obtain a conditional use permit, specific standards could be required which would assure that public services and facilities were adequate to accommodate the new use. 10. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular suitability of the property for particular uses? A zoning which is placed on a specific property is generally done to reflect the uses anticipated under the master plan. With a conditional use permit, site suitability could be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. Conforming uses by their very nature are not generally considered to be suitable uses for the zoning district. 11. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings? The proposed amendment may work to conserve the value of buildings by insuring that the building is occupied and maintained. However, prolonging the life of an incompatible structure may tend to conserve the value of buildings beyond the time which is warranted. 12. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout the ,'ul dkktion? The master plan dictates the most appropriate use throughout the planning jurisdiction. Zoning is the primary tool which is utilized to implement the land use goals of the master plan. Nonconforming uses are contrary to the zoning for the area and hence are contrary to the promotion of specific land uses in the jurisdiction. The proposed change would not encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the planning jurisdiction. 110MOMPAVILIi Staff recommends adoption of the staff report KZTA-96-4 as findings of fact and denial of the proposed amendment for the following reasons: 0 1. The proposed amendment is not consistent with the statement of intent for nonconforming uses found in the zoning regulations, Section 27.25.010. This section states, in part, "It is the intent of this chapter to permit nonconformities which were lawful before the adoption of this code to continue until they are removed."... " Nonconforming uses are declared by this chapter to be incompatible with permitted uses in the district involved." 2. Neighborhoods which have nonconforming uses anticipate that at some point nonconforing uses will be terminated and come into compliance with the zoning. Allowing the continution of nonconforming uses tends to undermine the purpose of zoning and the expectations of the community that zoning will provide them with a certain quality of life. 3. Allowing a change in nonconforming uses prolongs the life of that use which is contrary to the zoning and therefore the goals of the master plan. HA ... \K.ZTA\96\K7-TA96-4.RPT Z KA.LISPELL CITY -COUNTY PL kNL NING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 1996 CALL. TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City -County Planning AND ROLL CALL Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by President Therese Hash. Board members present were Fred Hodgeboom, Pam Kennedy, Jean Johnson, Bob Sanders, Joe Brenneman, Walter Bahr, Mike Conner, Milt Carlson and Therese Hash. The Flathead Regional evelopment Office was represented by Narda Wilson, Planner II, and el Steve Kountz, Senior Planner. The City of Kalispell was represented by Diana Harrison, Zoning Administrator. There were approximately 15 people in the audience. APPROVAL, OF The minutes of the meeting of October 8, 1996, were approved as written MLN7UTES on a motion by Bahr, second by Johnson. All members present voted aye. SAALARIT.. N President Hash announced that a letter was received from Sister June HOUSE / Kenny on behalf of the Samaritan House, requesting a continuance on the CONDITIONAL request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a USE PERMIT / homeless shelter. The public hearing will be rescheduled to the December Request for meeting. Continuance SOMERS LAND The first public hearing was introduced on a request by Dennis Carver on COMPAN-YTY ZONE behalf of Somers Land Company for annexation into the City of Kalispell CHANGE / FROM and initial zoning from County R-4, Two -Family Residential, to City R-4, COUNTY R-4 TO Residential. The property proposed for annexation is west of Airport CITY R-4 Road in the southwest area of Kalispell and will be known as Ashley Park, Phase II. The subdivision which is proposed for annexation contains approximately 8.24 acres. The property can be described as a portion of Assessor's Tract 4+ located in the north half of the southeast quarter of Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County. Staff Report Wilson presented an overview of report #KA-96-5. The applicant's request for an initial zone of R-4 upon annexation into the City of Kalispell is a condition of preliminary plat approval. The request meets all the necessary criteria, and staff recommended that a favorable recommendation be sent to City Council granting the rezone from County R-4 to City R-4 upon annexation. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the requested zone change. No one spoke either in favor or in opposition to the requested zone change upon annexation into the City of Kalispell. except that it be changed from a permitted to a q onditional use in #1 and #2. Brenneman seconded. :-mended Motion Carlson moved to amend the motion to limit the text amendment to R-4 only. Bahr seconded the amendment to the motion. On a roll call vote for the amendment to the motion, Bahr, Johnson, Conner, Sanders, Kennedy, Carlson, and Brenneman voted in favor of limiting it to R-4. Hodgeboom and Hash voted nay. The motion carried 7-2. Roll Call Vote on A roll call vote was taken on Hodgeboom's motion which includes all the Motion as Amended proposals in the staff report, with the amendment to apply the text amendment to the R-4 zone only, and that it be a conditional use rather than permitted. Carlson, Hodgeboom, Brenneman, Sanders, Bahr, Conner, and Johnson voted aye. Kennedy and Hash voted nay. The motion carried 7-2. GARDNER The next public hearing was introduced on a request by Gardner Auction AUCTION SERVICE Service for an amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. This / TEXT proposal would amend Chapter 27.25; Non -Conforming Lots, Uses and AMENDMENT Structures; of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance by adding a new Section, "Changes Permitted to Non -Conforming uses" which would allow a change to a different non -conforming use which would have an equal or less impact. Staff Report Wilson gave a detailed presentation of report #KZTA-96-4. The text amendment proposal was reviewed in accordance with the necessary statutory criteria, and based on the findings, staff recommended the text amendment as proposed be denied. !Questions Johnson noted that the building became non -conforming when zoning was imposed, and thus created a financial burden. In my opinion, this should be a two-step process inasmuch as the City has imposed this zoning and created a financial burden on individuals. There should be some mitigation available. If the building were torn down and the property sold, obviously there will be a differential. If the City were not willing to do that, then the property owner should be able to apply for another conditional use. The Board discussed the options for the specific non -conforming use under discussion, as an example. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the proposed text amendment. In Favor Todd Gardner, Gardner Auction Service, 1896 Airport Road, stated that they purchased their property in 1978, and at that time, it was unzoned. In 1994 we purchased property on Highway 93 South. When we Iooked 7 into leasing our building to sell it, we discovered that we had been zoned R4-1, and that our uses, continued uses, or different uses of the building were limited. The City approached us and were interested in buying it. After the better part of a year, it didn't work out. \','e approached the FRDO for a zone change to I-1, Light Industrial, which fit everything that we have there. At that time, they were rezoning the Airport across the street, and we were told that we could be included in the zoning of the Airport Plan. We waited for that, and it didn't happen. I have a letter from the City responding to a letter from Brian Wood, which he handed out to Board members, stating that the City felt that they had enough land zoned light industrial since they rezoned their own property. In the letter, they state that they feel they could support a text amendment. The text amendment is what is before you. We aren't asking for any special favors. Im It is a way to protect property value. This amendment would not be a free rein. It states an "equal or lesser impact" at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator. This language is verbatim of what is in the zoning ordinances for Flathead County, Columbia Falls and Whitefish. The Kalispell City -County Master Plan does not objectively address adaptive reuse of existing buildings. As far as lessening congestion, and other impacts. The auction is quite an impact to a neighborhood — especially on Monday nights. On a scale of 1-10, the auction impact is probably about 9 to 10. If we move another business into this building, it will be equal or lesser impact. For instance, we had a signed offer on our building of $400,000 subject to the zone change. The existing zoning scared them off, and they are now looking in Evergreen. This business was manufacturing food substances — very low impact to the neighborhood. One of the criteria which is reviewed asks Will lh& proposed zone conserve the value _Qf uilb . dingy?. We are trying to preserve the value of our buildings. We would appreciate your consideration of this request. Devar Gardner, testified that we need to do something with this property. We have a lot of money invested in it. Rather than this text amendment, we would have liked to have seen the zone change. That would have been ideal. The community around us is not residential. There is a Christmas tree operation next to us, the veterinary clinic is down the road, and residential just doesn't fit where we are. I don't know how it got zoned RA-1. We are having a public hearing just to do something with a piece of property. I bought it as a working business, and now I'm between a rock and a hard spot. How can they come in and do that to me without me even realizing it? I was busy trying to make payments. We had a lease for $4000 per month on the building, with a $400,000 purchase price in five years, with only $1000 a month of the lease going towards the purchase price. The tenant was going to spend $100,000 remodeling it and bringing it up to his standards with offices, etc., with a H. use that probably no one would even know was there. It was all signed, but we could not guarantee that we could get the zone changed. We lost it, and that hurts. I could have done a lot with that. It would have really eased my mind as to what I am going to do for the rest of my life. Brian Wood, testified that the language proposed works in the County and Columbia Falls jurisdictions. I think it would be a good idea for Kalispell, as well. There were no other proponents of the text amendment. The public hearing was opened to those opposed. No one spoke in opposition to the proposed text amendment. The public hearing was closed and opened to Board discussion. Board Discussion Kennedy asked why a zone change on this specific piece of property, to I-1, which is the type of zoning that is directly across the street, necessitate a master plan amendment as referred to in the letter from Craig Kerzman to Brian Wood? Wilson replied that it was a collective decision by the committee, and pointed out on the map that this particular piece of property is master planned as residential apartment. Kennedy felt that a zone change would be more appropriate and the g ' direction that the Gardners wish to go. I wish that somebody other than Site Review Committee had been informed with regards to this. I have serious misgivings about allowing non -conforming uses to prolong for an indefinite period of time, and would favor seeing a change in non- conforming uses be subject to a conditional use permit. Hash agreed that she also had a problem with a text amendment that affects the entire planning jurisdiction with regards to a non -conforming use, which one is trying to phase out. Hodgeboom questioned how a spot of RA-1 zone got there in the first place. It is right across the street from the airport, the sewer treatment plant, a ball field, and it is zoned RA-1. It appears that it was singled out for a more restrictive zone that doesn't fit with any of the uses in the area. It looks like a spot zone. Bahr agreed that it appears to be a spot zone. Adjacent property zones better fit the uses of the land. That area will probably develop more towards business along Airport Road, rather than residential apartments. The Board generally supported a zone change to I-1 in the area, and further discussed why the City would not support a zone change or a master plan amendment, as indicated in the letter from Craig Kerzman. OJ The letter indicates the City would support a text amendment and now it is being denied. Motion Bahr moved to adopt staff report #K7-T?►-96-4 as findings of fact and send to City Council an unfavorable recommendation for the text change for the three (3) reasons set forth in the report. Kennedy seconded. Discussion on Motion Discussion ensued as to what this action would entail for the Gardners. Since a text amendment, affecting the entire planning jurisdiction, and a zone change for a particular piece of property are two different processes, the Gardners would have to submit another application with a fee for a zone change. Conner expressed his frustration with what has happened, that the 1, t Gardners have been led down the wrong direction. From a moral standpoint, I am having a real hard time dealing with this. Especially, spending more money on this, when they have been led in different directions thinking that something is going to happen, and it hasn't happened, and not understanding why they got RA-1 in the first place. Wilson said that staffs position would be to not support a zone change to I-1, Light Industrial, from the standpoint that staff — both city staff and FRDO — having looked at this situation. Kennedy suggested that if this Board were to make a recommendation to the City Council, that (1) we are denying the text amendment and (2) we would like the City of Kalispell to look at a zone change in that area, then the City of Kalispell would become the petitioner. Therefore, that would alleviate the fee to the Gardners, would send a message to City staff that this Board feels a zone change would be appropriate. City Council can address an area that was perhaps inappropriately zoned, at a work session. Hash noted that if the City does not want to be a petitioner and we vote on this report, the Gardners application would be denied. I would suggest that we table this particular issue as a stop gap. I am amazed that staff would recommend a blanket test amendment on non conforming uses, instead of dealing with a zone change for a particular area. I am hearing that the Board would support the continuance of a non -conforming use as a conditional use. Johnson asked how the Site Review Committee got into making recommendations on zoning issues. It is a closed Board and there is no discussion. This letter came from the Site Review Committee where the determination was made to go this route. I am suggesting that we, in a public forum, and FRDO in their expertise, are better qualified to make that determination than the Site Review Committee. 10 Brenneman also sympathized with the Gardners, but the issue is whether or not we should make this text amendment change. I believe the Gardners have played the game, but the bases have been changed on them. I agree, that morally, we should be helping them out of their dilemma. Personally, I would be extremely frustrated, as well. The issue with this motion, however, is to change the zoning text. Apparently, this works well in other jurisdictions. Roll Call Vote A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt the findings of fact in report #KZTA-96-=1 and recommend the tent amendment be denied. Carlson, Brenneman, Kennedy, Bahr, Sanders, Johnson, Conner, and Hodgeboom vote aye. Hash voted nay. The motion carried 8-1. Discussion followed on the Board action taken to deny the zoning text amendment. Motion Kennedy made the motion that the Planning Board forward a recommendation to City Council to review the zoning on Airport Road at the site of the Gardner Auction, at 1896 Airport Road, currently zoned RA-l. That City Council petition for a zone change to I-1, Light Industrial, as it is in the immediate vicinity, directly across the street, and we feel it is appropriate to do a Master Plan amendment and zone change request with the City being the petitioners. Conner seconded. On a roll 4 ' call vote Hodgeboom, Carlson, Johnson, Bahr, Conner, Brenneman, Sanders, Kennedy and Hash voted aye. The motion carried unanimously in favor. OLD BUSINESS Kountz gave an update on the information gathering for the Kalispell Master Plan update. NEW BUSINESS Board terms expire on December 31, 1996 for five of the Board members. Letters of interest need to be sent, so the appointments can be made in December. Johnson brought up under new business that the Commissioners will not approve a final plat unless utilities are extended to each lot under 5 acres. Flathead Electric Co-op has put out a directive that they will not extend utilities to each lot until lots are sold and people request the utility. At this time, we cannot get final plat approval. Johnson wanted to know why Site Review Committee has expanded into making suggestions of procedures. I, personally, have a problem with what happened with the Gardners. They got a letter that should not have happened. They should have gotten a recommendation from FRDO and gone through the process. Within the Committee, absences are normal, and they tend to make decisions on matters they aren't really familiar with. 11 Wilson felt that was part of their role, as it affects everyone on staff, how they do their job, different elements that go into land use and land development in the City. ADJOt,R-N.MENT There being no further business matters to discuss, the meeting was djourned at 9:50 p.m. Therese Fo h, President Elizabeth Ontko, Recording Secret After the meeting was adjourned, David Greer, Montana Planning Consultants, gave an update on the progress in developing the West Valley Neighborhood Plan, which will come to the Planning Board for public hearing mi December. Part of the area is in the Kalispell planning jurisdiction. 12