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