Loading...
05-13-08KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MAY 13; 2008 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board CALL and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were: John Hinchey, Rick Hull, Jim Williamson, C.M. (Butch) Clark, and Troy Mendius. Richard Griffin was absent. P.J. Sorensen, Sean Conrad and Tom Jentz represented the Kalispell Planning Department. There were 3 people in the audience. INTRODUCTION OF NEW President Schutt welcomed new planning board member MEMBER Troy Mendius to the board. Richard Griffin, the board's other new member will be in attendance starting with the June 10, 2008 meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Clark moved and Williamson seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the April 8, 2008 Kalispell City Planning Board meeting. ROLL CALL The motion passed on a roll call vote of 5 in favor and one abstention. HEAR THE PUBLIC Mayre Flowers, Citizens for a Better Flathead asked if the planning board has considered revisiting the issue of a possible redesign of the Kalispell Bypass for the community to review. She said she thinks it should be considered and she would be happy to assist in bringing the parties together. CITY OF KALISPELL NON- A request. by the City of Kalispell to amend Sections CONFORMING SIGH 27.24.060 and 27.24.150 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance REGULATIONS TEXT relating to sign regulations. The specific provisions would AMENDMENT govern the extent to which non -conforming signs would maintain that status when the signage is discontinued or the face of the sign is modified. The proposal would also allow manually changeable reader boards to occupy up to 50% of a sign face, while limiting certain electronic messages. STAFF REPORT KZTA-08-01 P.J. Sorensen, representing the Kalispell City Planning Department reviewed staff report KZTA-08-01 for the board. The specific amendments are as follows: 27.24.060: General Standards for all Signs. (2) An electronic message board provided it displays time and temperature a minimum of every 30 seconds. be ineer-per-a-ted into the ­i6 inust primary sga than 0 the shall not eempr-ise more of primAIT The electronic message shall not change in Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 13, 2008 Page 1 of 16 0 increments of less than five seconds and shall not use flashing or blinking characters. The use of red and green lights in the display and streaming video eelerS, whieh eanbe-eenfiased v +,raf e signs sueh as rod or ^en, are prohibited. (5) A sign may include electronic and manually changeable reader boards. No more than 25% of any sign area may incorporate an electronic reader board, and no more than 50% of any sign area may incorporate a manually changeable reader board. In no event shall the percentage of sign area occupied by reader board exceed 50%. The reader board portion shall be architecturally incorporated into the overall design of the sign. No such sign shall be considered to be architecturally incorporated unless the reader board is contiguous to the remainder of the sign face and is bounded by the same or similar framework. 27.24.150: Nonconforming Signs and Signs Without Permits. Existing signs that do not conform to the provisions of these regulations but were legally in place prior to the adoption or application of this ordinance, are considered non -conforming. All non- conforming signs shall be removed or brought into compliance with these regulations as follows: (5). Discontinued freestanding signs shall be brought into compliance immediately unless part of a multi - panel sign, subject to Section 27.24.150(8). (8). Freestanding sSigns containing removable or replaceable panels shall be brought into compliance when a cumulative total of more than 50% of the sign area or sign panels are replaced or modified. One letter of support for these amendments was received from Flathead Industries. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KZTA-08-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed amendments to the sign regulations be adopted as recommended in the staff report. Hull asked what prompted these amendments and Sorensen said there were a number of situations that came up where businesses needed to change their signs. The city council looked at these issues at recent work sessions and this proposal was put together based on council's direction. Hull asked if the sign at Flathead Industries Thrift Store would be affected. Sorensen explained it would affect their Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 13, 2008 Page 2 of 16 signs. They have a non -conforming freestanding sign and a non -conforming wall sign that sits above the roofline. If this goes through, Sorensen said, the non -conforming freestanding sign would have to be brought into conformance and the roof sign would be allowed as a non- conforming sign. Clark asked for further clarification and Sorensen explained. Williamson asked for a definition of discontinued freestanding signs which Sorensen provided. Williamson quoted from the staff report that states "non- conforming signs could be maintained indefinitely with a competitive disadvantage imposed on newer properties." and asked if staff is acknowledging there is a value to signs that are legally non -conforming. Sorensen said to some degree but if you are talking about amortization schedules and someone argued that it was some sort of a regulatory taking you would be looking at a 7-year amortization. Sorensen provided an example. Sorensen added they didn't think it would be fair to allow a certain business to have a sign that was 3-5 times larger than a competitor next door who was restricted on their signage. The idea was to put everyone on a level playing field and not create disproportionate amounts of signage. Williamson said it shouldn't be the government's role to level the playing field in business because business is competitive. Clark agreed with Williamson. Sorensen said the simple fact that a sign is non -conforming doesn't trigger the regulations it is when a business wants to change their sign. The current regulations cover any wall or freestanding sign if the sign is discontinued or if 50% is changed the sign loses its non -conforming status and then has to be brought into conformance. Schutt said he philosophically agrees with the amendments. Williamson asked why the time and temperature has to be displayed every 30 seconds on electronic reader boards. Sorensen said that isn't part of the amendment being proposed but it is industry standard and provides a public service. Williamson said if the city dictates content it could be a liability issue and Sorensen said he doesn't think it would be a substantial concern. Hull asked for further clarification on the Sportsman/ Flathead Industries sign and Sorensen responded. Clark asked if the LC Staffing sign was Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 13, 2008 Page 3 of 16 Sorensen said programming of their sign has recently been addressed by our Code Enforcement Officer and staff is trying to bring it into compliance. Clark thought the sign was dangerous because it is red and conflicts with the signal. Sorensen said they have been running into this issue and that is why red and green colors are not allowed on the reader boards. APPLICANT/CONSULTANTS None. PUBLIC HEARING President Schutt opened the public hearing and there being no one wishing to speak the hearing was closed. MOTION Hinchey moved and Schutt seconded a motion to adopt staff report KZTA-08-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the Non -Conforming Sign Text Amendment be approved as noted in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Hull said having participated in several meetings regarding the sign regulations this is a very controversial issue. The basic concern for the city is aesthetics. Hull added he is concerned about the wall mounted sign at the old Sportsman building (now Flathead Industries Thrift Store) because it is not attractive and he is disappointed that it will not be removed. Mendius asked if there is any precedent or has there been any consideration in this proposal for someone who might want to exploit these stipulations by constructing a sign that had the 25% electronic reader board and 50% manually changeable reader board? Sorensen said they would not be able to do both and he referenced the amendments. Schutt asked if they would be able to use a 25% manual and 25% electronic sign and Sorensen said he hasn't encountered this and added the concern has been with the electronic boards. Hinchey said he shared Schutt's concern and suggested an amendment that would read "a sign may include either electronic or manually changeable reader board". Sorensen agreed that would be a way to do it and Clark suggested another location in the regulations for this amendment. Further discussion was held and no formal motion on the amendment was made. ROLL CALL The original motion passed on a roll call vote of 4 in favor and 2 opposed. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 13, 2008 Page 4 of 16 0 C) CITY OF KALISPELL A request by the City of Kalispell for a text amendment to PLANNED UNIT update Chapter 27.21 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance DEVELOPMENT TEXT relating to planned unit developments (PUD'S), including, AMENDMENTS but not limited to, requiring a pre -application meeting, establishing a 2-tiered system of PUD applications to accommodate the level of information provided in phased projects or projects that will be built out over a significant number of years, providing a definition of developable area and revising the application requirements, the abandonment requirements and the density provisions. STAFF REPORT KZTA-07- Sean Conrad, representing the Kalispell Planning 04A Department reviewed staff report KZTA-07-04A for the Board. The amendments proposed are as follows: 1. Eliminating the requirement that a PUD be limited to a single owner or that it be under single ownership and requiring all owners of the PUD to sign the application or give a letter of support. 2. In November staff had proposed a full application PUD as has always been provided in the PUD regulations as well as 2 other alternatives. The first was a placeholder PUD application which would. bind an owner to using the PUD process and label the property as a PUD but the owner would not provide any application materials at this time nor could he develop his property in any manner until a full PUD application was submitted and approved. This provision has been maintained in this draft. The second provision was called a concept PUD application which would allow an individual to submit a PUD with a conceptual road alignment, densities, uses and park lands plan. This would allow master planning of larger tracts of land without the problem of giving site specific designs for every aspect of .a development years in advance of when they will be built. The applicant would have to provide a full PUD application for each phase as the phases were developed. This concept was deleted at the direction of the council. 3. Adding a planning board and council review criteria for assuring that there is internal integrity of design in the PUD. This would include assuring that there are good design features within the development including streets and street design that fit with the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 13, 2008 Page 5 of 16 CJ proposed land uses, that there are transitions and buffers between different densities and intensities of uses, that pedestrian access has been accounted for, that signage, fencing and lighting is well thought out, etc. 4. Defining what developable area is within a PUD and not allowing densities to be based on undevelopable lands such as flood plains, wetlands, water bodies, BPA power easements, etc. 5. Generally reducing the allowable residential density allowed outright for each zone and then adding density incentives for affordable housing and additional open space and developed parklands. 6. Allowing PUD's to occur in P-1 (public) zones. Staff is recommending that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KZTA-07- 04A as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the Planned Unit Development Text Amendments be approved as attached to the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Hull asked for an example of a PUD in a P-1 zone and Conrad said the pre-release center that is being considered for Kalispell and KidsSports. Clark asked why the city would allow public land to be developed at all and Conrad said if similar developments were to come in staff thought locating them in the P-1 zones should be an option. Hull asked if someone has a PUD placeholder would it have to come back through the entire process and would there be a possibility it could be turned down and Conrad said yes. Schutt asked if it would be mandatory that a work session be held on every PUD and Conrad said yes. AGENCIES/APPLICANT I None. PUBLIC HEARING Mayre Flowers - Citizens for a Better Flathead, 35 - 4+h Street West asked if the board had in front of them the submittals that Citizens gave to the board last October and Schutt said no. Flowers indicated her frustration with the process and said she doesn't think there has been adequate public participation. Schutt asked if she was referring to the Pitkin County and Bozeman information and Flowers said yes. Schutt stated that he had reviewed the information when it was first presented to the board. In regards to the PUD amendments Flowers stated Citizens Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 13, 2008 Page 6 of 16 for a Better Flathead feels some positive changes have been made to the amendments. They do, however, still have some issues that she wants to address: • There should be a statement on the plat that the owner at the time of application agrees to abide by this PUD and wording should be inserted to cover subsequent owners so that they don't run into legal issues of trying to enforce conditions on a owner who is not party to an agreement. • The placeholder PUD is a feasible concept and they appreciated the fact that the concept PUD was removed according to the council's direction. However, they are concerned to see that it has essentially been reinserted on page 4 of the regulations. • Flowers encouraged the board to consider increasing public notice. Missoula County and city requires a public notice in the form of a sign be posted on the property which gives the adjoining property owners an opportunity to get involved in the process up front. She added Flathead County has now added that to their subdivision regulations and she feels it is appropriate for the city. • Section 27.21.020 needs stronger language inserted that would require that subsequent owners of this property comply with the PUD. • Page 3 of 12, under Item 3. c. Add to the mapping required, stormwater facilities. Flowers used Valley Ranch as an example and said a part of that property along the highway is used by people in canoes in really wet years because it floods. The city reviewed a PUD for Valley Ranch that proposed very intense development in that area and it would be appropriate for the city to know how they intended to address stormwater. • Under Item 3. e. she would suggest that a section on trails and sidewalks be added and a Safe Route to Schools Plan be included to show how the children from these large developments will get to and from school. • Page 4 of 12, Item 3. g. Flowers suggested that a statement be added that the text will include a discussion on how the design features enhance or address compatibility issues with neighboring properties. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 13, 2008 Page 7 of 16 C) Item 31 Flowers asked the board to go back and look at the original wording for homeowners associations, page 67 of the existing zoning ordinance and include it in the amendments. In addition a provision for providing covenants should also be included even if the city is going to choose not to enforce them because it lets the public and the planning board know what is being proposed and what type of maintenance will be included. • Also under Item 3.1 Homeowner associations are not allowing parking on private streets and she thinks when subdivisions or PUD's have streets that are private they should provide adequate parking to allow the public access to public trails and parks. • Flowers stated the bonding issue is more clearly worded in the original regulations and she asked the board to consider that wording. • Item 3.1. This provision essentially reinserts a concept PUD into the regulations and she believes this should be deleted. • Page 5 of 12 Flowers stated they appreciate the language that was added under 4.d. & 4.g. which relates to compatibility with existing neighborhoods. She suggested the board look at the Blaine County and Bozeman regulations and insert language from those documents and requested that the board have a work session to review the criteria. • Under Item 4.h. The existing regulations require the city attorney review terms and conditions and provide the board with comments that the phasing and terms are adequate for enforcement. • Flowers suggested the language about subsequent owners be inserted on page 6 of the amendments. • Page 7 of 12, Item 7.d. Flowers referred again to the need for additional public notice in the form of a posted sign and suggested it be included in this Section. • One of the issues she didn't see addressed that came up in other PUD's is requiring the large scaled phased projects to build the public benefits portions like parks and trails in the first phases. • Page 8 of 12, Item 10.a.2. Flowers thought the use of the word anytime was too broad and said both the city and Bozeman had a much more time specific Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 13, 2008 Page 8 of 16 deadline. 27.21.030, Item La. The definition of "developable area" includes open space and she is not clear if this definition and the definition in the existing zoning ordinance are compatible. She asked the board to look at the existing definition on page 175 of the zoning ordinance. Also under the same Item La. "undevelopable area', she asked the board to include stormwater facilities and lift stations. There have been a number of developments that have come through that have placed lift stations within parks and she doesn't think they should get credit for that land as parkland. Page 10 of 12 Flowers said they strongly support the affordable component. Flowers added they need to, under 2.c.2., insert language that affordable housing needs to retain long-term affordability. If the city is going to allow a density bonus for affordable housing we need to know it is a long-term, permanent affordability. • She thought it would be useful to do the math on what the density bonus will be for the Siderius Commons project which is proposed as a 100-unit community land trust south of Four Corners. • On page 11 of 12 under Item 6.b. she thought the section number cited should be 27.21.030 (1(a)). • Flowers had the same questions about adding PUD's to P-1 zoning districts and thought the conditional use permit process might be more appropriate on public land. • Under the residential PUD on page 12 of 12, Item 5. The commercial uses in the mixed PUD are the same as those permitted in a commercial PUD and she believes a residential situation should be limited to those specifically serving the neighborhood. • Flowers said the PUD standards for commercial state they serve the neighborhood first and second the larger neighborhood and she thinks it is pretty vague. Jentz noted there was one letter received from Sands Surveying and they generally supported the concepts but they did raise issue with not allowing floodplain areas along creeks and rivers to be counted as open space. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 13, 2008 Page 9 of 16 MOTION Clark moved and Schutt seconded a motion to adopt staff report KZTA-07-04A as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the PUD text amendments be approved as attached to the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Williamson asked about the direction by the city council to strike the concept PUD. Jentz said although he continues to be supportive of the concept PUD he feels the need to have updated PUD regulations is more important. He thinks the concept PUD was misunderstood in what it was intended to achieve. Jentz continued when it went to council they struggled with the concept PUD so it was pulled. The placeholder PUD is very important especially as land is annexed. Williamson asked if Jentz would agree with the statement that (Item 1. on page 4) is a reintroduction of the concept PUD that was removed by council and Jentz said no. He added you could look at the last several PUD's that came through, Starling in particular, and when reviewing future phases, 20 years from now, the detailed -park plans are not quite as detailed. Jentz asked, would you pay a landscape architect to provide a detailed park plan for 20 years from now? To ask for the level of detail that is so specific when they know in 10 years the design will change doesn't make sense he said, so they set up procedures to come in for major or minor review of these changes. Jentz continued PUD's will change over time and Citizens for a Better Flathead perhaps is concerned that there isn't enough public protection and awareness. Staff wants to make the PUD regulations work, apply to the real world and be functional. Hull asked how does the board ensure they have an opportunity to review the PUD's when they actually come in and Jentz used Valley Ranch as an example. Jentz noted Valley Ranch is proposing an assisted living facility and under the RA-1 zoning they could just build it. With a PUD staff would say yes you can have an assisted living facility and the developer would provide general parameters. However, when they are ready to build it they would have to submit a conditional use permit. Knowing that we cannot anticipate all of the future impacts we want to provide future staff review through a CUP with a public hearing and review process. Therefore in 12 years if they can't meet the conditions and face the public scrutiny it won't be built. Hull thinks the placeholder PUD gives the city less protection than the conceptual PUD unless conditional use requirements are included. Jentz said they already do that for some of the PUD's and perhaps the wording needs to be clearer. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 13, 2008 Page 10 of 16 r� Schutt said when they talk about multi -phased projects he is ok with things being fuzzy that are 10-12 years out but he wants a firmer plan for the first few years, say phases 1- 4. Hull said what happens if the developer runs into financial trouble and has to sell to someone else and how would the new owner/developer be held to the PUD. Jentz said they still have to meet the conditions of the PUD. Hull said his concern is that there needs to be some type of additional public review and Jentz said that could be added. Hinchey noted what is being discussed is the suggestion made by Mayre Flowers that subsequent owner responsibility should be included on the final plat. Hinchey asked if they need to include wording that ties the subsequent owner specifically to a PUD and Jentz said no because it would be redundant and he explained. Jentz added they are already bound by the ordinance that the city council adopts. Schutt clarified they would be locking the owners in at the beginning of the process and at the end of the process that ties back to a city council ordinance that approves the PUD. Jentz said yes but to be honest he would be perfectly comfortable if they struck that entire certification, which was carried over from the old regulations. Jentz said it could be just as easy as directing the Zoning Administrator to certify the final documents. Schutt noted he really liked the PUD density allocation and the mandatory PUD work session. However he still wants to go back to section L under multi -phased projects where It states "may show conceptual street design, proposed parks, conceptual open spaces, etc..... vs. detailed lot, block, park development etc." As a planning board member he looks at a project and wants to have a certain level of comfort as to where they are going with street layouts, lot sizes and lot orientation. Schutt said he doesn't know how to suggest that it be worded differently but he wants to prevent the approval of a conceptual plan for 100 lots and when it comes to final plat there are 120 lots. Jentz suggested adding, "no phase shall be developed unless it meets all of the PUD criteria." Jentz added the density is locked in which is not negotiable unless additional hearings are held and public notification is done. Jentz continued when you look at the first phases of Starling they knew exactly where the streets would be. The last phase which had a road with estate lots along a parkway could vary 50 - 100 feet when it finally comes in for preliminary plat. Jentz asked would that be a problem as long as the number of units stays the same, he didn't Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 13, 2008 Page 11 of 16 0 O think so. In addition he doesn't want the public to have a perception that they could walk out there and survey the location of the road in phase 14. Further discussion was held. Schutt again mentioned he wants to see phase 1 nailed down and he asked if phase 2 should be too if it is submitted within a year or so because he thinks it is too fuzzy and needs some definition. Jentz said that is why the concept PUD was suggested because they would still had to come back for full approval and suggested adding a condition where as future phases come in that do not comply with all the PUD standards they have to go back before the board for review. Jentz noted now when each subdivision comes in for a PUD that subdivision preliminary plat comes before this board and specific engineering and location designs will be reviewed at that time. Hull wants to ensure that the board has a say when other phases are built 20 years from now. The Glacier Town Center/Wolford project was discussed. Schutt said he agreed with Ms. Flowers' suggestion regarding adding the location of stormwater facilities to the initial maps submitted. General discussion was held regarding stormwater and the depth of information that should be submitted initially. Jentz noted there are stormwater systems that the city will not currently allow and reminded the board that 10 years ago the city was not required to address stormwater, nor did the city have Stormwater Regulations or a Stormwater Engineer on staff and now they do. Further discussion was. held regarding stormwater. Schutt said when they are looking at projects at the scale of Willow Creek he thinks it appropriate to require conceptual street layouts, lot densities, and how the stormwater facilities will fit into the entire project. Jentz said staff can ask for it but the board needs to realize it will be conceptual. Jentz added he thought this discussion was already covered under Item 3.e. Schutt suggested adding trails and sidewalks to the list under Item 3. e. and requesting a Safe Routes to School Plan as requested by Ms. Flowers and Jentz agreed it could be added. Schutt referred to Section 31 that addresses elevation drawings and asked how binding those have been in the past. Jentz cited some examples and said they expect to see elevation drawings on commercial projects. He added what they are trying to do in this case is create an Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 13, 2008 Page 12 of 16 0 exemption for single-family, townhouse, and duplex design,. since those designs are on a personal level. P.J. Sorensen said an example is the buildings at Hutton Ranch. The first designs had a lot of towers and before long the Architectural Review Committee grew weary of seeing the same design on every building. Sorensen suggested they may not want to necessarily hold them to the first design which would allow for flexibility of design. Jentz added 5 years ago the city didn't have an Architectural Review Committee either and their role is to review all commercial building designs in Kalispell. Schutt asked on Item 31 on page 4, where do covenants fall into the whole PUD process. Jentz said covenants are designed by the developer to protect the standards of his development while he is selling his lots. At 2 / 3rds ownership he turns the covenants over to the homeowners. The city does not enforce covenants and fully understands that covenants, the day they approve a subdivision, could be and are amended by the developer. So if the city has concerns Jentz said they have to be discussed up front and added to the conditions and design standards. Hull noted the county and perhaps the city used to be party to covenants until the Human Rights Commission discovered covenants that prohibited children and everyone was sued. Now the county and city no longer enforce covenants. Schutt said Ms. Flowers also mentioned that the bonding as currently written in our PUD regulations is better than what is being proposed in these amendments. Jentz said that is true but there is no reason to bond a PUD. You would however bond for a subdivision because when a final plat comes in lots have been sold and you need a guarantee that the conditions will be met and the work completed. Schutt clarified on page 9 where residential PUD districts are being established they can do a PUD for less than 2 acres in size but it is not eligible for bonuses and Jentz said yes. He added PUD's on 2 acres or less could be used for infill projects. Schutt said there are density bonuses for parkland and for medium income housing, is there anything else? Jentz said park, open space and housing and added there was a concern about long-term affordability but those issues will be dealt with under the soon to be organized County Housing Authority, Habitat for Humanity, Northwest Montana Human Resources and other agencies, but not the city. Hinchey said he thought President Schutt touched on most of the comments by Ms. Flowers but he thought the idea of Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 13, 2008 Page 13 of 16 0 O posting public notice on the property is a good one and he asked staff to consider that suggestion. Jentz said he will come up with a concept for the board to consider. Hull said the health department started to post notices when people were burning and they found it helpful because the neighbors would know there was going to be a fire on the adjacent property. Williamson wanted to touch on PUD's in the P-1 zones and Jentz said his concern is if someone has P-1 zoned property and wants to do a PUD the city has no option but to say no. Jentz noted there is also a pre-release center that will need to be built somewhere in the community that will be constructed by a private developer and he thinks it would be great to locate the center as a PUD in a P-1 zone. Jentz continued P-1 zones are intended to be public but there can be privately owned properties within them, such as with the city airport area. Williamson thought P-1 zones had a connection to public ownership of land and he is opposed to public owned lands being developed. Further discussion was held regarding PUD's in P-1 zones. Mendius noted that Mr. Mulcahy, in his letter from Sands Surveying, voices his concern over why floodplain areas along creeks and rivers cannot count as open space. Jentz said the city's parks department has been adamant about not accepting floodplain and wetlands as parks in the past but he said he would be willing to discuss with them the inclusion of a portion of these areas as parkland in the future. Jentz added Mr. Mulcahy is talking about a particular developer who has Stillwater River frontage, some in the floodplain and some surrounded by floodplain. Jentz also noted that after these initial amendments are adopted staff will be looking at the entire zoning ordinance for review and that will include another review of the PUD standards. Schutt said on page 8 where they are defining developable and undevelopable area is the 100 year floodplain going to count as undevelopable area? Jentz said for density calculation, yes. Schutt said a lot of property descriptions go to the center line of say, Ashley Creek so people do buy property that is undevelopable. Schutt said he enjoys seeing those undeveloped areas of land, such as the buffers along Ashley Creek as in the Willow Creek project. Schutt does agrees, however, that the parks department should be contacted to discuss this issue. Clark said if they are talking about once every 100 years for flooding and for a park these areas would be fine, not the floodway but the floodplain. Clark added the developers shouldn't be penalized because it is floodplain. Jentz said Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 13, 2008 Page 14 of 16 O the current subdivision regulations do not allow lots or parks in the floodplain but staff will take a look at that. Williamson said he also has an issue with the 30% slope and asked if it appears in other regulations. Jentz said that is pretty much a traditional undevelopable standard and is part of the city's subdivision regulations. Williamson asked if there is any flexibility if he as a developer wants to put structures on the 30% slope land and Jentz said no. Williamson noted Whitefish lost that argument in relation to their critical areas ordinance. Hull said the issue is whether they would be able to count these areas toward the total density or not. Further discussion was held. MOTION TO TABLE Williamson moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to table the PUD amendments to the June 10, 2008 regular planning board meeting. ROLL CALL TO TABLE The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS: Schutt mentioned the issue that was raised by Ms. Flowers regarding the possibility of this board discussing the redesign of the Kalispell Bypass and asked Jentz to tie that into the recently approved Transportation Plan. Jentz said the recently approved Transportation Plan adopted the current configuration and location of the bypass as designed by MDOT. Hull suggested the need to look at a bypass with a 45 mph speed limit otherwise it is never going to get completed. Clark noted that is not a decision that this board can make. Hinchey suggested maybe this board could suggest a few changes to get the bypass built in their lifetime. Further discussion was held. NEW BUSINESS: Jentz noted the Election of Officers for the planning board will be scheduled for the June 10th meeting. There was discussion regarding the tentatively scheduled planning board work session on May 27th and the work session scheduled after this meeting and it was decided neither session would take place. Conrad reviewed the projects that are scheduled for the next meeting in June which are a conditional use permit for the Flathead Chemical Dependency Clinic Women's Home Recovery Facility and annexation of a property located on Shady Glen near Woodland Park. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 13, 2008 Page 15 of 16 �l Jentz also noted that the planning office has received the applications for the Siderius Commons Annexation and Growth Policy Amendment, located south of Four Corners. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m. WORK SESSION: Immediately following the regular meeting a work session was held on the following items: 1. Entrance Corridor Standards Text Amendment 2. Kalispell West Growth Policy Amendment Due to the late hour this work session was not held. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission is scheduled for June 10, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the new Kalispell City Council Chambers located at 201 First Avenue East. The work session tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, May 27, 2008 was cancelled. Bryan Schutt President )2 4�ZA aA-0�� Michelle Anderson Recording Secretary APPROVED as submitted/corrected: 6 / / a /08 Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 13, 2008 Page 16 of 16