Full Text
Missoula Consolidated Planning Board Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 1 of 19 MISSOULA CONSOLIDATED PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 18, 2010 – 7:00 p.m. Missoula City Council Chambers, 140 West Pine MEMBERS PRESENT Jennifer Clary, Chair Heidi Kendall, Vice Chair John DiBari Jonathan Haber Don MacArthur Jerry O’Connell Jerry Petasek ALTERNATES PRESENT Carol Evans Tim Skufca (7:04 pm) MEMBERS ABSENT Kelley Durbin Tim Ibey STAFF PRESENT Tim Worley Sharon E. Reed OTHERS PRESENT Gene Matelich Tom Orr Please Note: Written comment and meeting handouts received at this meeting are available for review at the Office of Planning and Grants. Planning Board, City Council and County Commissioners have received copies of the comments for consideration. Photocopies may be obtained from OPG. An administrative fee is required for photocopies. I. CALL TO ORDER Jennifer Clary: I will call the May 18, 2010 Missoula Consolidated Planning Board meeting to order. [7:01 p.m.] II. ROLL CALL Jennifer Clary: May we have roll call, please. Roll call indicated that 7 members and 1 alternate were present. [Alternate, Tim Skufca arrived at 7:04 p.m.] Sharon Reed: You are missing two regular members, so can one of the alternates fill in for the missing regular member? Jennifer Clary: Yes. Sharon Reed: Thank you. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Jennifer Clary: We have the minutes from May 4, 2010. Any comments or anyone want to move to approve those? Jonathan Haber: Move to approve. Jennifer Clary: Okay. Heidi Kendall: I’ll second. Jennifer Clary: Seconded by Heidi. Any discussion? ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 2 of 19 All in favor say ‘aye’. [All Board members answered ‘aye’.] All opposed…or any opposed? [All Board members were silent.] Jennifer Clary: Seeing none, motion carries. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT Jennifer Clary: I’d say public comment at this point, but I don’t think there’s anyone in the audience that’s going to speak on any other matter other than the one that’s before us this evening. V. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS Jennifer Clary: So, we can move to staff announcements. Tim? Tim Worley: For the record, Tim Worley with OPG. You just have a couple items sitting in front of you and one of them is the updated UFDA Yearbook. And the other item is the Staff Report for the June 1st Planning Board related to Title 20, the City Zoning Ordinance Updates. So, apparently, that will not be mailed to you, so go ahead and make sure that you take that home tonight. And for those members who didn’t arrive tonight, their copies will be mailed out to them. Jennifer Clary: Okay. Thanks. Any questions? Okay, seeing none… VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Rezoning Request – 2012 North Avenue – A request from Eugene Matelich, represented by Tom Orr of P. Mars Scott and Associates to rezone property located 2012 North Avenue from RM2.7 (residential multi-dwelling) to C2-4 (Community Commercial – Intensity Designator = The property is legally described as Lots 25 and 26 Block 1 of Car Line Addition No. 2 and Lot 12 Block 12 of South Side Addition, located in Section 29 of Township 13 North, Range 29 West. Jennifer Clary: We’ll go to our public hearing this evening, which is a rezoning request at 2012 North Avenue. And what we’ll do is first get Tim’s report and then the developer’s discussion. Thanks, Tim. Tim Worley: Okay, 2012 North Avenue. This is a rezoning request. The 2012 North Avenue property is located west of the intersection of North Avenue and Johnson. The request is to be rezoned from RM2.7, which is residential multi-dwelling to C2-4, which is community commercial. There’s a couple reasons behind this request and the first is to address a zoning violation and also to allow for limited commercial auto repair and similar uses on this North Avenue property. This slide shows the 2012 North Avenue location. The top two photos show the view of this site from North Avenue itself, and the bottom two photos show the view of this North Avenue property from the alley. The lower left-hand photo shows a trailer that’s skirted, and I believe it’s being used for an office, and then the photo in the lower right-hand corner shows the alley itself that provides rear access and this photo is directed to the west. RM2.7 is equivalent to R-XII in Title 19. And if you look to the west of the location of the proposed rezoning, you’ll see a large contiguous area of this RM2.7 zoning. There are residential uses on three sides of this property, to the north, to the south, and to the west. These are some photos I took just today. The top two photos show residential uses to the north and to the south, and there is a residential use immediately to the west. The lower left-hand photo shows this single family dwelling as shot from the alley; and then, there’s another photo that I took from the east near Hellgate Tool, which is near the Johnson-North Avenue intersection. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 3 of 19 There are some commercial uses in this block. Further to the west there are some storage units; but immediately to the east of 2012 North Avenue, there’s Hellgate Tool, which is zoned C1-4. There are a couple of photos on the left. This is a view of Hellgate Tool near the intersection of Johnson and North; and there’s another view of Hellgate Tool on the right-hand side here, that’s shot from the 2012 North Avenue property looking due northeast. Okay, the request, again, is for C2-4 zoning, which is Community Commercial, and I’ll just go over a handful of potential uses within C2-4. It includes: construction sales and service; motor vehicle repair (general); and manufacturing, production, and industrial service. This property, I should mention, does have a significant commercial history. It started out as an unzoned parcel in the early 70s and cabinet-making occurred on the property from approximately 1973 through 1980. That was followed by the manufacture…manufacturing of furniture in 1982 and 83. There was a period when the parcel was vacant in the mid-80s. This went before the County Board of Adjustment in 1986 where a commercial warehouse use was approved by the County Board of Adjustment. I should note, though, that the approval did not allow for car repair or sales. This County BOA approval dating back to 1986 was subject to certain conditions, including landscaping and the installation of the street trees. Outdoor storage was prohibited, and auto repair was also prohibited. Some level of auto storage and repair has occurred on this property up until the present. A part of this request is to address some of the uses that are on the property now and to provide for a spectrum of potential uses on the property beyond what’s going on, on the property right now. Going back to Hellgate Tool, this was approved as a rezoning to C1 in Title 19; again, this is C1-4 under Title 20. This rezoning occurred in 1996. This original request on the street corner was for C2 just like this request is tonight—that is, for C2-4. City Council at the time, however, rezoned to C1, or what we would call C1-4; and they used the uses on the 2012 North Avenue property as a justification for the less-intense commercial rezoning on the corner. Now, the potential of C1-4 at this location was discussed with the applicant. The applicant expressed interest in uses allowed under the more intensive commercial district of C2-4. I should mention that this rezoning request was noticed for C2-4, and any rezoning to C1-4 should occur through a separate request. So my recommendation for this board and also for City Council is if you choose to rezone, the C1-4 option probably isn’t appropriate since this request was noticed as a C2-4 rezoning request. The Comprehensive Plan recommends residential uses here at a density of 12 to 16 dwelling units per acre. The general trend of Comprehensive Plan uses, if you move from east of the Johnson/North Avenue intersection to west, you go from highway heavy commercial and commercial uses to residential uses. Similarly, the zoning trend goes from more commercial…more intense commercial uses to less intense commercial uses to the RM2.7, which is the residential district that this is currently zoned. It’s staff’s feeling that C2-4 in this location would interrupt the trend to less intensity as you move further west and to residential uses as you move further west. It was also our evaluation that C2-4 isn’t consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for residential uses at a density of 12 to 16 dwelling units per acre. And as a result, staff recommends denial of the rezoning request. This ends my report. Jennifer Clary: Thank you, Tim. The applicant and the applicant’s representative. Tom Orr: Good Evening, my name is Tom Orr. I’m the…I’m Gene Matelich’s attorney; and I’m here to kind of give a little brief overview, but I think the best reason and why…and the person who can ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 4 of 19 probably best speak to why he wants to make this change and ask you to approve the rezoning is Gene himself, and I’m going to let him do that. But just a couple of things…I’ve got some pictures that…I mean, we’ve…the pictures that you’ve seen from OPG, I think, tell part of the story. The true story is that this is...I guess the best thing, the most-charitable thing you can say about the neighborhood–other than where Mr. Matelich’s present business is and Hellgate Tool is–that it’s a neighborhood that’s in decline. It’s…it’s just…it’s dilapidated. You’re looking at mostly some very, very dilapidated and old…old mobile homes, which is not to say that there’s anything wrong with that; but what we’re trying to do is simply make use and good….and make good stewardship of a existing lot that has always been commercial. As you heard, it was at one time a cabinet shop; throughout its history it’s been a commercial use. I think part of the problem that we have with the zoning designation is that it kind of assumes that there’s a one-size-fits-all. The…this lot is about 10,000…maybe a little bit bigger than 10,000 square feet. It…one of the zoning uses under C1, the reason we can’t use C1 is you could put a Jiffy Lube there, but a Jiffy Lube is not going to be…it’s not big enough for a Jiffy Lube. We…and we never anticipate that this…that this use as a very, very limited small, you know, essentially a mom-and-pop car repair use is what Mr. Matelich wants to be able to utilize the property for. It’s never…the…the size of the lot is going to define how intense that use is. It’s…this isn’t going to be a Blue Ribbon Auto or an Economy Body shop, it’s going to be at best one or two cars being worked on, probably by a guy who’s doing this part time. But as you’ll hear from Gene, the existing use, which is…essentially allows for a mini-storage, it’s not…it doesn’t allow for an economic, enough return on the investment to even pay the taxes. So with that I’m going to…I’d like to pass around some photos that I would ask you guys…you all to take a look at as to what this…the property looks like from Gene’s perspective, and the neighborhood; and then I’d like Gene to tell you why exactly he would like you to approve the rezoning. [inaudible, off microphone] Tom Orr: Gene, if you want to move over here. Is it okay if he sits? Gene Matelich: Excuse me, I’m 83 years old. Jennifer Clary: Yes, absolutely. You can actually set the mic down and then he could sit, yeah. Gene Matelich: But anyway, my name is Gene Matelich, I’m…I was born and raised in Anaconda, I moved here in ’62. I was in the Navy during World War II for several years and come out in good shape. And then, I went to school; I graduated from two colleges. I graduated from Michigan, then I went down to University of Miami and got a Master’s Degree in Business and I got it there. My father was there, and he moved back to Missoula, and I moved back to Anaconda, and I went into the car business, and then an insurance…I had a insurance and real estate office there and I was the largest…there was 12 new car dealers in Anaconda and the Daly Bank in Anaconda said I was selling more cars than all 12 of them. I mean, I just…I just was doing real good. And then I got in the mobile home business on the car lot that I opened in Anaconda…I mean, for trailers. I opened one in Butte out in Harrison Avenue; I opened one in Helena and Bozeman. And then in 1962, my father was in Missoula, he got out of the beer business, he sees the mobile home business is good, so he bought four square blocks out on West Broadway, that’s where the Tire-Rama place is and where you go into Travois Village. We had four…I moved over here–he needed me–in 1962; and then we opened up a trailer sales lot in Libby, so we was running six trailer sales lots in Montana. We were registering one-third of all the mobile homes in Montana. And then Bush became President of the United States and they raised the interest on our flooring from 6 to 18 percent, took away our dealer’s reserve, we used to on go on 600 on reserve, took…the banks ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 5 of 19 had to take away our insurance commissions, used to get 35 percent on the fire and theft and 50 percent on the…on the, if it burned or something and he took…the banks had to take that away, but anyway…but anyway… sat what? [inaudible, off microphone]. Okay. But anyway, Bush…we put us out there and there was three new car dealers that went out in Missoula on that getting out a loss and they didn’t have dollars equity and that. But any way I went into the mobile home…or the…I went in the tool and the equipment business at 507 Orange Street, that’s where [off microphone, inaudible]. I own Access Music and Open Road Bicycles next door and they’re doing real good. But anyway, I needed, when I had the trailer business, I had a service truck and a big van and I had my pickup…a pickup camper and a trailer and I needed room for all that stuff. So I saw this place, this 2012 North Avenue, and I bought it. It was…a guy had…it was a carpenter shop and here six months ago not Tim, but one of the other guys…we went up to one of the offices in the City; and they said when I bought it was the plywood shed with tarpaper roof with dirt floors. And I…my brother-in-law in Butte, he was a teacher, he got three months off, he and son come over and they put siding and a new roof on and concrete and put in lights and stuff like that and I needed more room from my…I had a fishing boat and a boat I used up on Flathead Lake for skiing. I built a section on the side of the building and…and put the boats and stuff. Then I was too close…I was too close to the zone, so they made me buy 25 more feet from the School District. And then, when that was done, I had the City Engineer go out and showed this contractor where…how to level it so that the water went out to the street. Showed them how to do it and where the stuff was; and in the meantime, they paved North Avenue and the edge was about 5 inches coming out of the lot was solid and then the street was this so that when we paved it, it just filled it right nice and made it real, real nice. And then the City Engineer showed them where to put the fence, so I put a big fence around so it protect all my equipment and stuff like that and…and… But, anyway…but anyway, for years I was one the road selling tools. I was driving 80,000 miles a year, going all over Montana and oilfields and going out to California and brining stuff in. But, anyway, I hurt my back and I had to get out of it. But, anyway, I advertised the warehouse…I advertised the building as a warehouse, and I didn’t have any takers. And in Missoula, I’d say there’s thousand, probably, rental places in town and people can rent those for 50, 75, 100 dollars; but they don’t have…they don’t have…they don’t have what this has got. But, anyway, I rented first of all to a couple guys. They put in a body shop; they got one or two guys. And through the years, I’ve had three or four different people; and now John Fitzgerald leased it, I don’t know how many years ago, and he was in the construction business and his son Sean, he was doing some body work in there himself. He was a [inaudible] some cars and fixing them and stuff. And here about six month, I mean, Sean, his business got bad and so he works for a body shop in town five days and then sometimes on weekends he’s in there piddling around with cars. But the thing is, this warehouse, it…you’ll see the big door in those pictures, there’s one door you get on the right side, you can only get one car, so the most you can work on is one car. So it can never be a big body shop where it’s fumes and all the noise and stuff like that. When he’s working on cars, they’ve got the door closed so you can’t hear it anyway. But the thing is, I mean, the thing is here about, oh, four, five years ago, they doubled my taxes. And I knew all the girls down the tax…I mean, I been buying license for all these Cadillacs for years and they knew me real good. I said, why did they raise…double the taxes, and they couldn’t send anyplace to go find out what it was; but they said that they must be taxing it like it’s zoned, so I said maybe they rezoned it, so there’s been nothing come up till here, a while back, there, they got on my ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 6 of 19 back and…and the thing is, I mean, the taxes, the insurance on the building, I have a pick up that goes with it, belongs to the deal and the insurance and the license plate on it; it runs about 4,000 a month for that stuff,. And then, the City license, water, sewer, the upkeep, the things that happen to it, is…brings it up to about $5,000; and to rent it for a warehouse, I would be lucky to get $150 a month, if I could find somebody; 150 would be 1800 a year, nd the overhead is 5. I’d lose about 3500 bucks a year doing that. And this year, I shouldn’t say this, but this year, I mean my overhead is going to be up around 7 or 8 thousand paying my attorney, but good attorneys come…they are expensive. But I’m just hoping that he can help me, because if we can’t get a rezone, I’m going to have to sell it. I just…there’s nothing else I can do. And my son, Lewis (I have six sons and a daughter)…my son, Lewis, works for Prudential Montana, he’s their top salesman; and he took those pictures with a Prudential camera and he’s had–you’ll see how good they are–and he’s had more experience than anybody in Missoula taking pictures. He’s a top salesman in Missoula, probably in Montana. I can go brag on my boys, but I’m not going to do it. But the thing is, I just hope you can get it zoned, because if you don’t rezone it, I don’t know what we’re going to do. I’m going to have to sell it. If I went to sell it for a warehouse, with all the taxes and stuff, they wouldn’t want to buy it and stuff. And if you look around town all these warehouses, they all got for sale signs. And here a few years ago, they put the sewer in the alley, and then we put a toilet and sink and stuff; and so it’s got a toilet and sink and lights and air conditioning and all the parking, it’s all paved, and it just…I mean, if you look at those pictures, across the street, it’s the mobile home park; it’s just they don’t even have sidewalks, just…and down my side of the street, the house next door, they got bushes out in front where there should be a sidewalk; and they put a log across so you have to walk out in the street, down the street on the inside; and the next, the next place is a mobile home and they don’t have any sidewalk; and the next place you look in the picture is the yellow warehouses and that’s…they’ve got grass where the sidewalk should be; and across the street is all mobile homes and they don’t have any sidewalks, they got parked where there should be mobile homes, you have to walk across the street…matter of fact, the whole block south of us is all mobile homes, it’s a mobile…it should be a mobile home park. I don’t know if you could call it residential; but on that street there’s only one house, and they call it residential, which is fine. But the thing I want to say is this…this building of mine is an improvement, and Hellgate Tool next door is an improvement. It’s the two nicest places on both sides of the street. And…do you have any questions? Jennifer Clary: We may at some point, thank you very much. Do you have any further comments? Tom Orr: No. Jennifer Clary: Okay. Seeing that there is no audience out here, we’ll close the public portion of the hearing, and we’ll discuss as a Planning Board; and if we have any questions, we’ll certainly ask you. You can feel free to sit right there, that’s fine. Don MacArthur: Tim, can you review for me what the status of the parcel is right now? As I understand it, there was a Board of Adjustments…County Board of Adjustments in 1986 that said that some things were permissible. What’s permissible on that right now? You know, obviously there’s nonconforming use relative to the current zoning, but help me understand how that applies. Does that supersede the BOA thing from 1986, or what rules? Tim Worley: I think there’s a feeling at the City Attorney’s Office that if those 1986 County BOA conditions were adhered to, they could go ahead with the uses that were allowed in that decision—warehousing being the central use that was permitted as just a conditional use at that time. And I think they want to expand their ability to have more uses on this property as opposed to just warehousing. The decision was fairly limited, as I understand it, back in 1986; but I do ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 7 of 19 believe it’s the City Attorney’s opinion that that decision would still stand today, and if they met all their conditions, they could warehouse at this location. Don MacArthur: So the current status is that it’s been determined that since the parcel has a history of commercial use, that at one point it was defined that okay, it’s permissible to have the warehouse use, and the limited nonconformity was okay and could be continued, fixed, you know, maintained at that level of nonconformity; but no greater… Tim Worley: Correct. Don MacArthur: …intensity. Tim Worley: It’s a fairly limited decision and I think that’s one of the reasons for this request. Don MacArthur: Okay. And would the uses that are on the site, would they be…would they conform to the zoning that is requested? So, I guess this is really a setback question. The applicant’s requested a C2-4; you know, where that abuts residential, there’s 20-foot setback requirement, or something on that order, in places and that’s the question is would we be creating…I mean, are there additional nonconformities, even if we attempted to eliminate the use nonconformity? Tim Worley: Yes. I think there might be a setback issue to the west and, of course, whatever use goes on here, presuming this were to get rezoned, it would be subject to Title 20 in its entirety unless there was a variance request. I do think there could be a setback issue to the west, but not to the east with Hellgate Tool, which already has the C1-4. There’s some question as to the office that’s currently there, whether that would be legal. I think it perhaps could be; I think it might have some building permit issues, however. But I think there’s also some landscaping and buffering issues to the west as well, in addition to the setback to the west against the residents. Jennifer Clary: Do you have any other questions? Anyone? Jerry. Jerry O’Connell: Sir, when did you buy the property? What year did you purchase it? Gene Matelich: I think I purchased it somewhere [inaudible, off microphone] Jerry O’Connell: Okay. Gene Matelich: [inaudible, off microphone] Jerry O’Connell: That’s close enough, yeah. Gene Matelich: About 1981, I think it was the 24th of [inaudible, microphone off] Jerry O’Connell: That was my next question, thank you. Gene Matelich: B.C., before Christ. Jerry O’Connell: So, this has been running as an out of zoning operation for 24 years, that’s the way I read the zoning regs. It was zoned as a…for warehouse in 86 or had gotten an adjustment. Tim Worley: This actually started out as an unzoned parcel in the County in the early 70s, and it’s all…it’s consistently had some level of commercial uses. There was a little bit of a hiatus, there, in ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 8 of 19 the mid-80s but it’s…the difficulty with this rezoning request is that, yes, there has been some level of commercial use on this property dating back to the 70s with very little interruption. Jerry O’Connell: Then in the early…when it was first zoned, they were grandfathered in under that cabinet-making? Tim Worley: Yeah, they were zoned C-R2 in the County, which is roughly equivalent to the old R- XII and today’s RM2.7. Jerry O’Connell: And in 86, they received an official adjustment, a variance, so they could run a warehousing business? Tim Worley: Um-hum, that’s correct. Jerry O’Connell: But they’ve been running other businesses for that period of time. I just want to make sure that I understand. And now we’re being asked to rezone it to bring it into compliance. Got it. Jennifer Clary: Jerry. Jerry Petasek: The commercial uses that were onsite before, though, were primarily indoor uses; kind of like Hellgate Tool where, sure, it’s a building that sells commercial-type tools, but it’s active during daylight hours. Tim Worley: That’s correct. Jerry Petasek: And at night, everything’s stored inside. Tim Worley: I think it was mainly interior furniture refinishing and assemblage and that sort of thing–cabinet making. Jerry Petasek: A less-intensive, more… Tim Worley: Umm hmm. Jennifer Clary: Heidi. Sorry. Heidi Kendall: I just want to ask a couple questions to get some stuff on the record. Tim, the current zoning without the variances from the 80s, what would…what would the highest residential use be for that property, how many units, residential units, could that property accommodate? Tim Worley: That’s a good question. I’m more familiar with the R-XII, what it was in Title 19, which is the 16 dwelling units per acre ceiling and I need… Don MacArthur: Three or four dwelling units. It’s a little…it’s around 10,000 square feet… Tim Worley: …10,700 square feet… Don MacArthur: Yeah, so I don’t know whether it’s four or three, but somewhere there. Heidi Kendall: So you could have a 3-unit or 4-unit apartment building there, for residential. Okay. And I’m just curious about a couple things. When there’s a notice of violation and an order for corrective action, as there is in this case, how is that handled? Does the property owner come in and consult with OPG, with somebody in there and/or the attorney’s office and say what are my ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 9 of 19 options here; and then you give, you know, advice on whether to…and a rezoning would be one possible way of dealing with that. And you mentioned in your remarks that this is a partial response, I think that’s what you said…is that what you said, a partial response? Tim Worley: Well… Heidi Kendall: Or this is their…this is the response. Tim Worley: Yes. I think this is the response. We had, actually, a couple different meetings after the notice of violation and the meetings focused in on the rezoning option as opposed to meeting the original County BOA conditions of approval, which was the other major way they could have gone. It’s just that that’s such a limited option—it allows them to do the warehousing per the original conditions of approval. And the conditions of approval are fairly significant and it includes some landscaping that hasn't been installed. Now, granted, if this rezoning were approved, they probably have some landscaping ahead of them under Title 20. But, per these couple meetings that we did have, the choice was made to go with rezoning. Heidi Kendall: The choice by the property owner? Tim Worley: Yes. Heidi Kendall: Okay. And so what are…if we were to recommend denial and City Council votes to deny this rezoning, what other possibilities are available to them? I mean, what other kinds of advice did you give? Tim Worley: I think at that point, they would have a couple major options; and that would be, again, to attempt to meet the conditions of approval going back to that 1986 County BOA decision. Or, maybe request a less-intense commercial use, such as C1-4, which is what Hellgate Tool is immediately to the east. Heidi Kendall: One last question. The…there would be a notification to allow a protest for this rezoning, is that right? Of the neighbors? Tim Worley: There was one, in fact, I think it was… Heidi Kendall: There was one. Tim Worley: …Attachment B. There was just one comment. We didn’t get a formal protest, though, on this request. Heidi Kendall: Okay. So as far… Tim Worley: But the potential was there, because folks within 150 feet of the perimeter of the property were noticed about this rezoning request. Heidi Kendall: Okay. But as far as we know, this will not be protested before it gets to City Council. So we can just assume that that’s going to be the case. Tim Worley: Well it could be protested up to City Council. I’ve seen protests, as you have, too, Heidi, that have gone right up to the last minute, so that’s possible. Heidi Kendall: Okay. Thanks. Jennifer Clary: Thanks Heidi. Don. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 10 of 19 Don MacArthur: So Tim, I’m just thumbing through Title 20 to look at the differences between C1 and C2 in terms of permitted uses and they’re not very big. You know, there’s motor vehicle (general) repair, is allowed in C2 and not in C1. Limited motor vehicle repair, which probably…I don’t know what limited versus general is. That might fit the uses that are on there right now, that’s allowed in either C1 or C2. You know, there’s recycling service you’re not allowed to have C2, but you can have C…or vice versa, you can’t have in C1 but you could have in C2. I guess my point is, is that I’m not sure that the intensity level has dropped off that much by going to C1, and so I’m…you know, you can’t have a pawn shop in C1 and you can in C2. But there’s not a ton of difference in terms of permitted uses; so if the, you know, at least from my own perspective, if the will of the Board and Council is that C2 is not appropriate, I’m not sure that C1 would be, either. And this is a question that the applicant, of course, will face as they go forward, if that’s the way it goes. The C1 makes more sense to me in that at least it’s contiguous with the Hellgate Tool but then I look at…I look at, you know, what about the next parcel down the road, do you just keep extending C1 forever? You know, one parcel at a time? And I think that is not the way zoning is supposed to work. You know, zoning works based on an overall vision of where commercial usage should be encouraged; and I think that vision may have already been sort of twisted a little bit by the Hellgate. And we should, from my own opinion, I think we should stop there: the Hellgate Tool should be the last commercial use on the place, from the 20,000 feet up vision. Now, on the other side of it for me, is the question of the historic pattern of use of this slot and that there is, you know, there’s been this long history of some commercial use and what intensity has that been and has it ever really been recognized appropriately through the…through the BOA process in 1986? Gosh, I don’t know, but that’s kind of where it is, that’s all that our recommendation is…is that…is that warehouse determination from the BOA 1986; and I think, at least for myself, I’m going to go with that and I guess I’d be, for myself, ready to make a motion if other folks are ready for that. Jennifer Clary: Tim, could you just…do you have the general and limited? Could you read the differences between the two? Tim Worley: Oh, okay. Motor vehicle repair (limited) is a vehicle repair establishment that provides lubrication and/or checking, changing, or additions of those fluids and filters necessary to the maintenance of a vehicle. It’s where customers generally wait in the car or at the establishment while the service is performed, like a quick-lube type of service. So that’s limited. Don MacArthur: Right. So that’s why C2 was requested, is because the current use really wouldn’t be permissible under C1. Tim Worley: You could have a tire place, muffler, and transmission shops would be C1-4 or limited. And then when you get general, that’s…that includes body work, painting, or major repairs to vehicles. Don MacArthur: Yep. Jennifer Clary: Tim. Tim Skufca: Well I guess I don’t think it’s quite fair to…to characterize that neighborhood as declining. I kind of see quite the opposite very close to there–a neighborhood up and coming. So I…to feel that these photos are representative of that neighborhood, I don’t see that it as fair. The other…the one question is it’s in violation now, and I was wondering how long it’s been in violation? Is it the entire time? And what brought it to head now? ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 11 of 19 Tim Worley: I think it’s unclear how long it’s been, technically, in violation. This goes back to a 2007 complaint, and then Pat Keiley from our office actually issued the letter based on that complaint early this year, so there was a little bit of a lag period in there. I think it’s unclear how long it’s been in technical violation. Unfortunately, we’re driven by complaints with these sorts of things, so it’s hard to define what constitutes the violation when you’re not sure it’s happened yet. Tom Orr: Could I? Jennifer Clary: Sure, go ahead. Tom Orr: I guess I want to address a couple of comments that I’ve heard, but, the…it’s true that there was a complaint in 2007. And for your information, you should know that as soon as we got that complaint, we were trying to address it. We don’t have control over the workflow at OPG and so we were doing…we…you know, there was a trade of correspondence; and it wasn’t until January of this year that we able to actually to kind of have a face-to-face meeting and say, well, you know, kind of address what the concerns were and say, you know, how can we fix these. You know, what I’ve heard, though, is that, you know, when you recognize it that this has historically has been…it isn’t any different, you know, in essence, now, as it has been historically for the last…you know, 24, 25 years. And that…the problem that we have with your…the definition, again, is that it’s just…I think Mr. MacArthur recognizes that there’s not really a whole lot of difference between, you know, changing the oil and maybe buffing out a fender. That’s…we’re just asking, you know, to recognize, you know, what the place has always been since, actually, since the 70s kind of the same sort of use. So I’m hoping you’ll give us some concern, you know, some consideration. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. John. John DiBari: So, Tim, help me understand, under what conditions could the existing use stay, or is that an option at all given the history of the Board of Adjustment ruling and lack of compliance there with, etcetera. Tim Worley: Well, the existing use, as I understand it, is really this general auto repair level of commercial use, so I think it requires a C2-4. It is fairly limited, from what I can tell. I’ve not been on site where I’ve really even seen activity. I talked to the younger Mr. Fitzgerald one time, briefly, on the property. And it’s fairly limited, but I guess our overall concern is that once it gets rezoned to C2-4, you could see a more intense, auto shop use there at that location much beyond what Mr. Fitzgerald does now. John DiBari: Right. Tim Worley: So that’s one of our concerns. John DiBari: Well, what I’m kind of thinking, here, is that for some period of time, who knows exactly how long, maybe somebody knows; but someone’s been repairing cars, there. And I’m not necessarily asking this because I think this is the way you guys should go, but I’m kind of trying to sort out what the City’s responsibility is at some level. There’s been a non-complying use there for a number of years, and under what set of conditions could they essentially come in and say, hey, you know, I’ve been doing this for 15 years. Nobody’s stopped me. I want to whatever you get for continuing to do the use that I have currently? Jennifer Clary: Tim, was there a Business License ever given to that property? Did they apply for one? ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 12 of 19 Tim Worley: I don’t believe there is, but I’m not certain about that. Maybe Tom could relate to that. Jennifer Clary: That would be a method. Tim Worley: I think that the zoning issue would have been addressed at that time if there was a business license that came through. But I think the problem is in the RM2.7, I don’t believe you could do the current use as a conditional use, just to use that as a category. I think that’s the difficulty. You can’t have the current zoning, which is essential multi-dwelling residential, and then find any sort of remedy within that RM2.7 through any sort of process to continue what’s going on now. I think you have to do a rezoning as C2-4. You could go back to warehousing if those conditions were met from the 1986 County BOA decision. I think that’s the City Attorney’s opinion at this point, but I don’t believe that appears to be what the applicant would like to do. John DiBari: So at no point does the City give up its right to enforce what the legal conditions should be, even though it’s failed to enforce that for however many years? Tim Worley: I think that’s the City Attorney’s Office opinion, anyway, yes. Don MacArthur: I mean, you encourage…you encourage cheating, if you give up that ability. John DiBari: Sure, I’m just… Don MacArthur: And that isn’t…I don’t think that’s a good idea. I mean, what about all the ADUs that people have created in the University Area that have been there for 15 years—are they legal now? I don’t think so. John DiBari: Right. I’m not suggesting that this is the right way to go or anything… Don MacArthur: Right. John DiBari: …I’m just trying to explore what the range of options are… Don MacArthur: Yeah. John DiBari: …just so that everybody understands that we’re kind of…we’ve tread a path for a long time, but we’re still constrained by what the rules are. And what we’re trying to do now is figure out a way so that the use can fit the rules; and that was why you brought forward the rezoning, to see if you can change the rules in such a way that you can continue your use there. Jennifer Clary: Yes. Tom Orr: I guess what we’d like to clarify here is this is Mr. Matelich’s use, it’s the…he rented this out to a person; and we’ve told him, you know, that we don’t…you know, that we expect him to abide by the legal use. He…my understanding is that he’s not doing any automobile repair at this time. And we’ve made it really clear that we, you know, we don’t want him doing that. But the use of the property and Mr. Matelich’s interest in this…he wants…you know, he wants to be a good neighbor and he, you know, he wants to be in compliance with the law and he doesn’t want his tenants to be doing that. But he’s not going to be able to have any tenants if he…unless we can get it rezoned. That’s what we’re trying to resolve. Jennifer Clary: Jonathan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 13 of 19 Jonathan Haber: I guess I had a…maybe a factual question. I was wondering how it’s determined that the current use or the use that’s intended there is actually a general use rather than a limited use and what are the salient features that make it a general use? Tim Worley: Under Title 20, under Use Classifications, there are two categories of motor vehicle repair: there’s general and there’s limited. That’s to flesh out the categories that are in the commercial land use, what you’re allowed to do in the different commercial zones. And, as I’m sure you all are, we’re still learning Title 20. But one thing that is helpful about Title 20 is the use classifications help flesh out what these different thresholds are, like this…and we found this a fairly critical one, this difference between the limited motor vehicle repair and the general motor vehicle repair. It’s in…it’s on page 20.105-11, actually, if you want to check it out. Jonathan Haber: Is there something that goes into more detail than that, because I heard the description of it, but I’m not sure I could tell, you know, whether this is closer to the description of the limited or closer to the description of the general. Tim Worley: I think this is as far as Title 20 goes with fleshing that out. What makes this difficult, of course, is that…is the level of repair of those vehicles. It’s obviously one or two vehicles at a time, that I can tell. Jonathan Haber: Would there be a way of specifying the limits to which he could operate as a limited vehicle repair? Tim Worley: That almost gets down to the level of the Zoning Compliance Permit; and I don’t know that we could do it to that level. Don MacArthur: I think we’re talking more about variance kind of process—you know, like a building-specific, lot-specific, you know, your business could be allowed to exist at this level and no more, that’s a variance, not a rezoning. So from my perspective, I think we’re in the…you know, C2-4 allows an awful lot of things that probably aren’t appropriate. Jonathan Haber: Right, and I was thinking along the lines of if it were a C2-1, could this be done in a way that would meet that requirement. Which is not on the table tonight, but… Don MacArthur: Right. Jennifer Clary: Tim. Tim Skufca: I guess the last little thing that I’d like to say is that even though none of the neighbors showed up tonight, I would think that the adjacent residential lots, even though their neighbor at one time did some commercial building and did some non-compliant things and then all of a sudden it gets legal, I think if I owned the property to the west, I’d be a little upset that now it is a little bit more accepted and it encroaches on…more intensely into that residential owners’ piece of property. Don MacArthur: Motion? Okay. I move that the request to rezone property legally described as Lots 25 and 26 Block 1 of Car Line Addition No. 2 and Lot 12 Block 12 of South Side Addition, located in Section 29 of Township 13 North, Range 29 West, P.M.M., from RM2.7 (residential multi- dwelling) to C2-4 (Community Commercial – Intensity Designator = 4) be denied based on the Findings of Fact in the Staff Report. Heidi Kendall: Second. Jennifer Clary: Second by Heidi. And further comments? Heidi? ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 14 of 19 Heidi Kendall: I would just like to say that as is almost always the case, Don MacArthur summarized the issues here really well earlier; and I think there are clearly some legal issues, here, but that’s not really our purview. And I think that from a planning perspective, which is what do do here, this comes down to, you know, whether we want to allow zoning creep in this neighborhood or not. And so I’m going to support the motion. Jennifer Clary: Okay. Let’s have a…oh, Jon, do you have something? Jonathan Haber: Well, I’m curious if there’s an official definition of zoning creep; but from my perspective, the problem I see is that simply rezoning it to that level permits a lot of things that couldn’t be done now, beyond what’s being done now. And that strikes me as zoning creep. So I would also support the motion. Jennifer Clary: I think we could do a voice vote. All in favor, say ‘aye’. [All Board members answered ‘aye’.] Any opposed? [All Board members were silent.] Jennifer Clary: Motion carries. So, Tim, when will this be heard? Tim Worley: This will go before, I think, next week’s PAZ Committee. Jennifer Clary: Okay, thank you. VII. COMMUNICATIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Jennifer Clary: Okay, Communications and Special Presentations. None? VIII. COMMITTEE REPORTS Jennifer Clary: Committee reports? Don MacArthur: So TPCC met today and there were a number of items on the agenda. There was an update on the ARRA projects that are going on around town, one of which is the North Higgins Project. There are two others: one is an accessible ramp project that I guess they are doing some ramps on 5th and 6th maybe right now and the other one is the Rattlesnake Gateway Project which is just about to be let as a bid, I guess, or as a contract. So all three projects are underway and they anticipate being complete on time and within budget. There was a discussion about this Transportation Modeling consultant that there was a request for qualifications out on the street for the last month or so; and they’ve been reviewing the eight submissions that they got and they recommended to TPCC that LSA, which is firm out of Fort Collins, be hired to do this, and TPCC agreed with that recommendation and gave authority for them to go ahead and hire LSA. The contract is going to create a more-detailed transportation model that can look at multi-modal transportation—car, transit, non-motorized choices–and actually sounds like it may have utility in terms of analyzing how various transportation choices in the Long Range Transportation Planning arena will change our congestion issues and other things. So it will be a tool that, hopefully, in a relatively near future, we’ll be able to use to analyze land use decisions as well as transportation. So that’s in the offing and the contract for 120 thousand dollars and change is going to happen pretty soon. There was discussion about TIGER Grants, the federal government has issued 600 million dollars of new money to (they printed new money) to do some transportation improvements and the ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 15 of 19 improvements…there was a TIGER Grant process six or eight months ago that Missoula put in a proposal to do some trails and sidewalks, connections in the Missoula area. It was a 25 million dollar proposal, the Missoula one was. We did not get funded for it, although supposedly we scored fairly highly. There were…there was a billion and a half in the TIGER I Program, and somebody said there was something like 30 billion dollars worth of projects or 50 billion dollars worth of projects that were put in for it, so it was quite competitive. There…this new grant cycle has…seems to me to have a very strong, livable community component; and there also is some money in the new grant that allows for doing planning, not just for bricks and mortar building of infrastructure. So I suggested that we think about doing a planning proposal that had, you know, from the Planning Board perspective, we’ve been constantly discussing how do we link land use and infrastructure…transportation infrastructure; and it seems like we could use some of this planning grant money to do a study of how to do that better. We’ve also, at my Mountain Line hat, we’ve been talking about how Mountain Line can serve the Envision Missoula and other plans that the community has weighed in on, which uniformly asked for us to think about a more compact City Center and a little bit more urban–I hate to use that word in Missoula–but a little more urban feel; and that seems to us at Mountain Line to…one of the supporting features of that is to have good transit service. So we’ve been talking about the idea of maybe having…trying to create a transit corridor where service could be schedule-free and that land use could actually respond to that higher level of service in a different way. So that the idea would be, potentially, to do a…some planning that would integrate the land use and the transit provision and hopefully some funding and think about how as a community we could actually make something happen. So that was a proposal that I kind of pitched and we’re going to have some further discussion with MRA and with OPG Transportation, Mountain Line, to see if we can’t get enough interest to pitch in a few bucks to write the grant for it. So that was sort of on the planning side. And then on the side of it from bricks and mortar projects, I think we’re going to go back and look at the TIGER I Proposal and see if we can’t tighten it up and maybe come up with a little bit smaller project and a little bit more fiscally-constrained…TIGER II…TIGER I, you could get 100 percent funding from the feds; TIGER II you got to come up with at least 20 percent of the money from local coffers, so that changes the game a little bit. But it’s kind of exciting and I think that it does focus…it provides a way for the community to focus in on projects and hopefully projects that have a little bit of vision. John DiBari: So do you, Don, do you see that this contract that they’re going to ink with LSA is sort of a first step in trying to forge that linkage between transportation planning and land use; and what besides development of a model is going to come out of that—are they actually going to use the model and do a case study or what? Or is it, they’re just going to craft the parameters that one would need in order to do it? Don MacArthur: Right. So I asked a question pretty similar to that. The proposal and the scope of work for LSA was a little confusing to me; and what I found out was that basically, they are creating the model, they’re going to get all the inputs about ridership, about traffic counts, about the structure of our city and input the…input that into this, model and then they’re going to train our staff how to run the model. So we will then be able to use the model to analyze, you know, different what-if scenarios and see how those scenarios would affect the city transportation. So it…you know, I think it is a good evaluation step and it would give us a way to maybe bolster a case for some of these scenarios that showed a different future, which we don’t have…we don’t have a very strong scientific way to prove that, what the benefits would be. John DiBari: Any sense at what scale that’s going to work? Is it…would it be a useful model to look at a subdivision proposal or is really a model that used at…used to look at more sweeping changes in land use. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 16 of 19 Don MacArthur: That question was asked, also, and I think the answer was that it’s not something that you look at for a 10-unit subdivision. It might, you know, certainly would be something that you’d look at for a mill site proposal, you know, something that really proposed a sort of a shift in land use, not just a small increment in land use. And certainly, if you’re looking at a Wye-Mullan Plan or if you were looking at a, you know, UFDA scenarios or things like that, I think it’s probably not as fine-grained as an individual, you know, parcel with an individual use on it, unless it was a real big use. Tim Skufca: In time to make any effect on Russell Street planning? Don MacArthur: I don’t know the answer to how soon Russell Street planning is really going to be done. I mean, I think that it…my guess is that this scope of work will…I should know exactly how long it’s going to take, but I don’t think it’s going to take that long. I mean, it’s not that much money; and I have a feeling the consultant is going to come in and it’s going to go pretty fast. So it’s probably six months or eight months or something. Sharon, you don’t know the answer to that, do you? Sharon Reed: I don’t. Don MacArthur: No, okay. So it’ll be a…that will be interesting to follow and hopefully we could get Dave Gray, who seems to be the person at OPG who’s going to be one of the guys who runs that, maybe we could get him in to show us what can be done with it after they learn the software. You know, so we have an idea about when we should actually expect to see it and how it can inform our decisions. Tim Skufca: That was part of the counts, the non-motorized counting the last couple weeks? Don MacArthur: On somewhat unrelated activities, although that information is going to be used in that modeling; and they…and thanks for reminding me, because they showed us some mapping of that…of those counts. And they had, you know, essentially maps of Missoula with a pie…with the size of the pie representing the total number of non-motorized people that they saw at that intersection and then they had mode split in the colors of the pie; and they had done a count on…I don’t know, Thursday afternoon or something like that, 4:00 to 6:00 and then another count on a Saturday from 12:00 to 2:00. And it was interesting to see how those two things differed and there were…you know, there were some areas like near the market on the Saturday, which was also the Wild Walk Saturday, there were, you know, 1500 people or something like that, who went by that intersection in a 2-hour period. So it was…you know, there was some areas where there was some pretty high traffic. But there were…you know, even in places out at Reserve Street, there were, you know, people every…pedestrians every couple of minutes. So there…you know, even in places that it’s very pedestrian unfriendly, there were people braving it. So it was kind of interesting information and it will be…I’m not sure how they use it, exactly, because it did seem like those numbers are about as…were picked to be the absolute maximum numbers that you could ever imagine for those places. I mean, Wild Walk on a…one of the first Market, you know, probably not a lot more pedestrians that that, ever, in Missoula. You know, maybe a few other parades. Tim Skufca: One last…you mentioned a Rattlesnake Gateway… Don MacArthur: I don’t even know what that is. Tim Skufca: You don’t? Okay. Don MacArthur: No. Sorry. Heidi, do you know what it is? ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 17 of 19 Heidi Kendall: It’s the intersection of Greenough Drive, Madison and what is that, Spruce? So it’s right by the railroad tracks. Tim Skufca: Under the highway? Heidi Kendall: Yep. Don MacArthur: So the one other piece of business was noticing that two of the people who are influential on the Metropolitan Planning Organization are leaving their jobs. Roger, everybody knows is leaving in June 15th or so, and the other is Steve Earle, who is the Mountain Line Director is leaving on June 30th to take the Fair Board job–or the Fair Director job. So both organizations are in process of trying to select successors. Jerry O’Connell: So, where’s Roger going? Don MacArthur: He is doing to be the National Smart Growth…I forget what his exact title is, does anyone remember it? He’s going to be in Missoula at least for the time being, but working for Smart Growth, you know, the National Smart Growth. Jerry O’Connell: Cool. Don MacArthur: So that was it. Jennifer Clary: Thank you. IX. OLD BUSINESS Jennifer Clary: Any old business? X. NEW BUSINESS AND REFERRALS Jennifer Clary: New business and referrals? XI. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Jennifer Clary: Comments? Seeing none, we are adjourned. Thank you. Sharon Reed: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Jennifer Clary: Oh, that’s right. After my fifth e-mail today, I almost forgot that. We need a show of hands of anyone that can attend the July 6th meeting. I think Tim has something that is kind of under the gun, is that what it is. There’s a time limit? Sharon Reed: I believe… yes, he has something that needs…it has a time deadline. Jennifer Clary: Something that has a time limit to it. Sharon Reed: Right. Jennifer Clary: I won’t be here, sorry Heidi. Okay, Don will be here, okay, show of hands for people who can be here. Jerry O’Connell: That’s people who can be here? ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 18 of 19 Jennifer Clary: Can be here on July 6th. One, two, three, four. Four. Jerry O’Connell: No, I think you’re not here. Jennifer Clary: I can’t be here. Okay, we have four. Sharon Reed: Okay. I’ll take that information back to the office and we might have to look at rescheduling, possibly rescheduling that. Jennifer Clary: Okay. To possibly…what if we did a special meeting the following week? So, no meeting on July 6th. I don’t know if that would meet Tim’s timeframe or not but would that work for people, just so she could go back with that information? Anyone? Jerry Petasek: What date is that? Jennifer Clary: What date? Sharon Reed: Thirteenth? Jennifer Clary: Thirteenth, yeah. Jerry Petasek: Of June? Sharon Reed: July 13th. Jennifer Clary: July 13th. Jerry Petasek: Oh, of July. Jennifer Clary: Okay, show of hands of who could do that, I could do that. So that would work; we’d have a quorum for that. Sharon Reed: For July 13th? . Jennifer Clary: Yep. Sharon Reed: Okay, what if we did it the week before, just in case. Jennifer Clary: The end of June? Sharon Reed: Yeah. The… Jennifer Clary: Is that…I can’t remember if that’s our meeting. I don’t have a calendar, does anyone have a calendar? Sharon Reed: Is there one in your…I do have a calendar. John DiBari: The 29th. Jennifer Clary: Twenty-ninth? I can’t…I think I can’t do that, I’ll be in Wyoming. Yeah. Jerry Petasek: Are we purposely not being told what it is so that we will show up? I just want to know that ahead of time. ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Consolidated Planning Board Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 19 of 19 Jennifer Clary: Probably. So that looks like that will work, if you want to do that. Sharon Reed: Okay, the 29th will work, also. Jennifer Clary: I think so, I think there were enough hands raised that, yes, that would work. Sharon Reed: Okay. Jennifer Clary: Okay. Sharon Reed: I think it might be another rezoning, but I just can’t remember what it is, I’m sorry. Jennifer Clary: Okay. Thanks you. XII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Recording Secretary: Transcribed by: Sharon E. Reed Deni Forestek Administrative Secretary Administrative Aide Missoula Office of Planning and Grants Missoula Office of Planning and Grants (To listen to this meeting in its entirety, click on this link)