Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes feb to withdrawFebruary 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 7 (cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-14-03 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends the property remain as Park/Open Space on the land use plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 1998) Brian Minyard of Planning staff presented the case. The property is in Park/Open space, it is a priority two acquisition for parks and that the property is in the floodway. We, as staff, do not recommend changing the Land Use Plan. Mr. Jerry Fitzpatrick, employee of the applicant, presented their case for changing the Land Use Plan. Mr. Mike Pinner, owner and applicant, spoke briefly. No one else spoke in favor or opposition. Commissioner Earnest referenced a letter from Steve Loop, Floodplain Engineer, Public Works, to Pat Herman stating "The property's location within the floodway of the Little Fourche Creek will require that the City prohibit any new development or substantial improvements, unless it is first demonstrated (through hydrological and hydraulic analysis performed by registered engineer) that such improvements will not increase the height of the 100 -year base flood elevations established on the FIRM Panel." Following was a discussion of whether the property lies within the floodway or floodplain and a discussion of the direction of the expansion. Steve Giles, representing the City Attorney's office, stated that "if the structural improvements you are proposing are in the floodway, no matter if the planning commission rezones the property, you cannot develop because it jeopardizes our flood insurance program. If it is in the floodplain, you may develop with the guidelines stated in the engineer's letter. We need to know that before we can take an action." When asked for a clarification on the floodway or flood plain, Ms. Herman "deferred to Public Works that are the experts and that it does lie in the floodway." Mr. Giles stated that generally to remove floodway encumbrances, the developer is required to do channel improvements. They have to get an engineer qualified in hydraulics to certify that those improvements have been done and that is given to the Corps of Engineers and they send it to Washington for a map restudy and redraw. It is complicated, but it has been done. We may not be able to help you. 2 February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 7 (cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-14-03 Mr. Jim Lawson, Planning and Development Director, asked "if the Planning Commission would have an opinion on changing the Land Use Plan to Light Industrial, regardless of the floodway matters because if these gentlemen go and do all of the engineering work and spend a lot of money, and come back and we say that we do not like it and deny it. We need to get a reaction from the commission. Larry Lichty, Commissioner, questioned how did they get there? Bill Putman, Commissioner, questioned how long have they been there? Mr. Fitzpatrick answered that they had been there 8 years. Mr. Pinner stated that there was a construction company there before us that was a non -conforming use and that we could stay as long as we are in business. Mr. Lichty said that "I hate to think that you have a viable business for eight years and want to expand and are going to be prohibited. I do not have any problem in giving a signal to what the commission thinks relative to the expansion of the business." Mr. Lawson suggested that we change to LI the area outside the floodway. If after research, all the property lies in the floodway, the plan would not be changed. You must have the engineering study. Mr. Lichty asked if a conditional approval could be granted only until the business ceases operation. Mr. Lawson proposed that the Land Use Plan Amendment could be denied, the applicant should come back for a PID, but we would have to deal with the floodway issues, that is preferable. Mr. Putman, asked for a Mr. Lawson to restate and clarify what he had just said. Mr. Lawson responded, "If they are serious, they could do an engineering study, come in with a PID, and deal with it as an expansion of a non -conforming use and not change the Land Use Plan." Mr. Pinner stated that they were willing to take the risk. Mr. Lichty said to the applicant that he must have more information. "I am looking for a way for all of us to be happy. Get the engineering study, come back with a PID, and leave the Land Use Plan as is." Mr. Lawson explained the PID process and stated that the applicant will have to spend engineering money, that is your only route. February 19, 1998 ITEM NO.: 7 (cont.) FILE NO.: LU98-14-03 Mr. Fitzpatrick questioned the validity of the FEMA maps and asked if they blanketed the area with floodway status. Mr. Lawson stated that that was a possibility. Mr. Lichty stated that Mr. Mizan Rahman asked if they could expand in a different direction. Following was a discussion of the direction of the water flow. Mr. Lichty asked Mr. Pinner to approach the dais and explain an exhibit and elevation differences. Commissioner Herb Hawn asked if "our actions require Parks and Recreation to purchase property in one year?" Mr. Lawson said no. He also went on to ask if the applicant would consider withdrawing. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if they had to have an engineer and how long would that take. Mr. Rahman asked what the timetable of the applicant was. After hearing the answer, he stated "You will not have time to do the study. I worked with the gentleman that you bought the property from many years ago. If it goes to the Corps and to Washington, look for one year or two. You could acquire the floodplain land next door, providing it is buildable. When asked, the applicant stated that he was willing to withdraw the petition. Mr. Lichty asked for a motion to withdraw. Mr. Pinner asked if he could sell this property. Mr. Lichty stated "As Parks." Mr. Giles said, "You have a non -conforming use on that property, I cannot act as your attorney or advise you, but generally speaking, you can sell the property as is, the next person will have problems getting flood insurance and there may be restrictions on the title insurance and you still have a use that you cannot expand." Mr. David Scherer of Public Works said that they could get flood insurance, and we could rezone, but the applicant could not make significant improvements to a building located in the floodway. If proved to be in the floodway, they can make minor alterations. A motion made to withdraw the application was made by Mr. Hawn. The Motion was seconded. The motion passed with 11 for and 0 against. 4