Loading...
08-11-98KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD - AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING AUGUST 11, 1998 CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City -County Planning AND ROLL CALL Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:02 p.m. Board members- present were Milt Carlson, Walter Bahr, Jean Johnson, Rob Heinecke, Don -Garberg, Therese Hash, Joe Brenneman, Gregory Stevens, and Don Hines, The Flathead Regional Development Office was represented by Nar-da Wilson, Senior Planner. There were approximately 32 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF The minutes of the meeting of July 14, 1998 were approved as written on N INUTES a motion by Bahr second by Carlson. DEAN ZONE The first public hearing was introduced on a request by William and CHANGE / FROM Bronwen Dean for a zone change from R-1, Suburban Residential, to I- R-1 TOI-1H 1H, Light Industrial -Highway, on approximately five acres on the south side of Highway 3 5 west of Helena Flats Road in Evergreen. OStaff Report Wilson gave a presentation on report #FZC-98-8. The application was reviewed in accordance with the statutory criteria- for a zone change. Based on the findings, staff recommended the zone change request from R-1 to I-1H be denied. She noted that the applicants .had other options to build a shop for their intended use other than getting a- zone change, which would constitute spot zoning. This was explained to the applicants, who chose to proceed with the application, as they did not want to . Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the zone change. In Favor Roland- Cork Andrews; representing the Deans; spoke in favor. He emphasized that there are a hodge-podge of uses in the area, and a shop would be in character with- the area: The Deans were told by FRDO that they had to get a zone change to put a shop on their property, and now it is being denied. They do not want to build a residence on the property in order to build the shop without a zone change. No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the zone change. The uKalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of August 11, 1998- Page 1 of 16 public. hearing was closed and it was opened to Board discussion. Board Discussion Stevens -did not think that spot zoning was a problem and if it was, then the County Attorney can decide on it. There are mixed uses out there, and, if the applicant needs a residence, then they could just put a mobile home on the property and go ahead and build their shop. Heinecke did not see this as urban sprawl. Carlson had concerns about spot zoning and the future spread of the I-1H zoning in that area. The light industrial zone would not be in character with. therest of the community, and the land use designation does not comply with the master plan. Motion . Bahr moved- to adopt staff report #FZC-98-8 as findings- of fact and recommend the -County Commissioners deny the Dean zone change request from R-1 to I 1H based- on- those findings. Carlson seconded. On a roll call vote -Gar -berg, Bahr, Carlson, Hash, Brenneman, -and Hines voted aye. Johnson; Heinecke and Stevensvotedno. the motion carried on a 6- 3 vote in favor of denying the zone change. HA11<Il14ER ZONE The next public hearing was introduced on a request by William Neil CHANGE / FROM Hammer for -a zone change from RA-1, Low Density Residential RA-1 TO B-4 Apartment to B-4; Central Business, for property located at 140 Fifth Street West in Kalispell. Staff Report Wilson gave an overview of report #KZC-98-3: The application was reviewed in accordance with the necessary statutory criteria. Staff recommended the zone change be granted from RA-1 to B-4. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor. In Favor William Hammer, the applicant, spoke in favor. His intention is to expand his office, the waiting room, and the parking. He has one employee and would like to add- more space for his existing dental practice, so they can work more efficiently.. No one else spoke in favor. The public hearing was opened to those in opposition. Opposition Vic Ledsoe, 527 2nd Avenue West, is totally against this. There has to be solid facts that there will be absolutely no neighborhood impact. We have Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of -August 11, 1,998 Page 2of 16 lived there over 20 years, and it isa quiet neighborhood. It is close to the high school and a grade school is nearby. The maniac high school- drivers have caused many wrecks and near misses, as well as -it being unsafe for the smaller kids- at the grade school-. There is a- problem with parking on both. sides of the street from the high school. We want no change or impacts. Penny Ledsoe, 527 2nd Avenue West, agreed with her husband, The streets are not adequate for additional traffic with parking on both sides of the street. With the expansion of the high school- there isn't sufficient parking, and the maniac high school drivers put -the grade school kids at risk. It is a quiet neighborhood and we do not want any change or impacts. There were no other speakers. The public hearing was closed and it was opened to Board discussion. Board Discussion The Board discussed the perceived neighborhood impacts and thought that by providing 6-8 off street parking sites Dr. Hammer would be helping the parking situation, which is associated with the high school and not his dental- practice. There wouldn't be any additional traffic associated with the expansion, as he not increasing his practice. Motion. Stevens. made the motion to- adopt staff report #KZC-98-3as findings. of fact and recommend that City -Council grant the requested zone change from-RA-1 to B-4. Brenneman seconded. On a roll call vote, the motion carried unanimously in favor. VALLEY DOME The next public hearing was introduced on a request by Jackola LLC Engineering for Pack and Company and ValleyDome L.L.C. for ANNEXATION & annexation- into the city of Kalispell and initial zoning of B-2, General. PUD OVERLAY Business, with -a Planned Unit Development (PUD) -overlay for -the southeast corner- of Highway 93. and West Reserve Drive. The property contains approximately 60 acres. Staff Report Wilson gave a detailed presentation- of report #KA-98-4 and #KPUD-98-- 1. The -recommended conditions were reviewed and -discussed the previous. day with the developers and- as a result I have submitted. a memo - reflecting some of the amendments to the conditions that we agreed upon. Three of the issues remain unresolved, and staff added a condition #28. Questions President Hash clarified that the revisions to the conditions as submitted by Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of August 11, 1998 Page 3 of 16 (� memorandum from Narda Wilson to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board, dated. August 11, 1998, has not been made available to the public or this Board prior to tonight's meeting. Wilson replied that was correct. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the proposal. In Favor Max Battle, representing the developers of ValleyDome L.L.C., was in agreement with Narda's proposed revisions with the three noted as being unresolved. The first unresolved issues were #8, which was to have one of the four -accesses to Highway 93 deleted; condition #10, addressing the internal roadways, landscaped boulevards and sidewalks; and condition #19, the signage. On the highway access, they have already given up two of six accesses. He argued that it should be a matter negotiated with the Highway. Department. A traffic study is recommended in condition #7, which we have agreed to complete, and if they tell us to delete an access, then so be it. Condition 410, they do not want to put in sidewalks on both sides, the five foot landscape buffer or the street trees. They would like to have free access within the parking lot, so that there will not be any obstruction to cars wishing to cut through to parking spots they can see. Condition #19, the - maximum signage they have asked for is what -is needed for the commercial complex to be viable. They submitted their proposed amendments to the conditions. No one else spoke in favor. The public hearing was opened to those opposed. Opposition Tom Tornow, attorney representing Citizens For A Better Flathead. Citizens have been- perceived as being against the Dome, but that is not true. Citizens For a Better Flathead recognize the need and the support of the community for a facility such. as this. From that perspective, they are pro -Dome. They have been pushing to ensure that the community gets the Dome and the other amenities that -are represented as going with it, and is not left with a shopping center and no Dome. In that capacity, as well .as FRDO, have promoted a planned unit development, a PUD, as the Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of -Meeting of August 11, 1998- Page 4of 16 �) appropriate .mechanism to make sure -that both parties get what they expect. The best way I can. describe a PUD is as, a contract between- the community -and the applicant, so that -both -parties what to -expect and wl�iat they are going to, receive. As- with any contract; the more detail- you- get,. the better. The -problem with -the -contract that is being -proposed by the applicant here, is. that are serious deficiencies of detail, which- compels. Citizens to urge this Board to -recommend that the --application either be significantly amended or be denied. The first -deficiency is the -property -owners' description. A -significant portion- of the property is. owned- by the Department of Transportation. The Department -of Transportation is not the applicant -before this Board. I believe that there is nothing in your packet that gives evidence, in - writing, that the Department of Transportation has -consented to this application-. If that is- correct, then you are being asked to act on zoning for a. -property that is owned bya -party that is not before you. A zoning that is- inconsistent with that owner's- current use. I may have overlooked something -and maybe that land has been transferred. At 2:00 p.m. August 11, 1998, 1 spoke with Dennis Unsworth, information officer at the Department -of Transportation. His statement was "This is far from -a -done deal-" meaning the transfer of property. Your regulations- 27.21.030 requires that the land for -a PUD be -under single ownership. That is not the case with this petition. The other problem is -that the petition, itself, the legal description excludes Lot 3D. Lot 3D is toe lot containing Pack's current office, parking, batch plant, and operations. In addition;. the packet before .you is -deficient when compared to your regulations.. 27.21-.030 Standards for a PUD; subsection 5, says "the application shall include proposed plans for vehicular -traffic, parking, sewage disposal, drainage, ..." As- far as I can ascertain from the packet before you, none -of that: is addressed. In the Department of Transportation's- letter to Narda Wilson; dated- July. 31, 1998; it calls- for a comprehensive traffic study and site -plan before any -permits are -issued. Your Fire Department in letter. dated- August 3, 1998; calls the plan - `completely unacceptable'. Your Public Works Director in -a letter -dated July 29; 1998, calls for a `full- and complete engineering plan before any analysis -or -comment is even possible'. They also say that- a full and complete engineering details- of the traffic impacts and road system must be provided -before -any analysis or -comment by that -department is even possible. They say the same things with regard to water, sewer, and j Kalispell City -County Co Pl P ty- linty , arming hoard Minutes of Meeting of August 11, 1998 Page 5of 16 �i stormwater drainage. They are saying that the applicant has not given those experts enough information to even comment- on the packet before you, .let alone with providing you with meaningful input. Your own police department in letter. dated July 27, 1998, said that the proposal will create significant impact not -consistent with current manpower, and that planning cannot be accomplished without `greater details on the nature and number ofbusinessesin the development'. Your regulations also -require elevation drawings. There are none. The- regulations require bonding — not provided for, and not agreed to by the applicant. Another- problem- is. the signage. The pretty pictures you saw during the master plan process, I do not recall seeing a 3 5 x 3 5 foot sign. I do recall comments made regarding a `pedestrian friendly plan'. This is not pedestrian friendly. I do not see any pedestrian amenities in what is before you; today. I don?t see any. landscaping. The Citizens would submit; that at this point, you do not have -sufficient information to enter into a contract which willprotect the interests of the community and make sure the community -receives what it is being promised as part -of this- bargain. We request that you either table the matter to allow the applicant to - significantly -amend the application to address these matters, or recommend denial. Elaine Snyder, 540 Country Way South, across the river from this proposed- Dome. I am concerned about the neighborhood impacts to all the residents in the -area. A development like this, there needs to be a lot more open- space. I've wondered if this isjusta hot air balloon- that we see. drifting -over the valley: Everyone thinks its beautiful _right now, but will it really land and will it really come about. Mayre Flowers, Tally Lake Road, Whitefish, commented that I think it is outrageous -to hold a public hearing for which the public has not been able to receive -adequate information. I think this hearing should be rescheduled. It is totally. inappropriate. I made a concerted effort to get copies of material. I am not prepared to comment on issues that I cannot review ahead of time. I seriously question the legality of continuing the hearing given the fact that this information has not been made public and adequate notice given. We were led to believe in the public notice that was published in the paper that all -of the properties were being included in the zoning amendment, and as it appears, part of this property is being excluded from this request. Again, the public should have been informed of this way in advance. Information referred to in the public notice was not included in the packet we purchase from FRD®, and this information Kalispell City -County Planning Boated Minutes of Meeting of August 11, 1998 Page 6of 16 (�) should be readily available to the public. Lacking being able to comment on the specific changes that are. being proposed, and while the public has shown strong -interest -and desire -to see a facility of this nature -provided -in our community, I think our community is also very concerned that our elected officials -and representatives of this Board, really -ensure that we are getting what has been represented in the pretty pictures we have been shown. The landscaping -is very disappointing to see that the developers proposed- minimum standards; where the pictures showed- extensive landscape. The rhetoric that we were going have a pedestrian friendly facility isnotbeing honored,. or being proposed. I- strongly feel- the public be -allowed to see more detail -on what is being proposed, so we -can comment more specifically on that. It is very difficult for the taxpayers -to understand the risk that is being -posed to them. It -is my understanding that Kalispell- has had anextremely difficult time even funding the addition of one new fire engine for existing -needs. We still don't know how the city will afford- a new fire station at this- site. We have no- figures. on the addition cost for -police, for properly sizing the water and sewer lines to these areas. It is one thing. to- provide minimum size pipes to- these areas, but there are additional properties that are in need for sewer. I -am concerned- about the potential cosh to taxpayers to have to go back in and - dig up insufficient lines. The public needs to be allowed to -see -detailed lighting plans, signing plans, additional internal signing proposals. I 1 understand that the request for the additional height for buildings, was to make those visible from the highway. I do not see the logic of adding 35 x 35 to the signs. I would speak strongly in favor of requiring this project to be bonded. We, as -taxpayers, are taking on a very substantial. burden; and we need to know that there are some assurances that this will be -built. Simply requiring the infrastructure be in place does not mean- that we will ever have the -dome. It does not offer any real assurances that this will become anythingother than. a strip development. We need to have more than that in -place, to know that there is some financial viability to the developers. B. I Carlson, 375 Grandview Drive. Mr. Battle talks about putting the cart before the horse, and I would strongly urge this Board to consider that on this proposal. Why is this proposal held to a different standard regarding a complete PUD, than for instance Buffalo Commons. It doesn't make any sense to me. You are being asked to make decisions without adequate information: I would ask this board to not only think about what is best for the community, but to be in compliance with the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. C Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of August 11, 1998 Page 7of 16 (� Suzanne Brown, Kalispell, stated that it is inconceivable and unconscionable for a zoning decision to made on this 60 acre parcel on the criteria that has been submitted. 20 acres was rejected a year ago, and the' ValleyDome is the only thing that prompts the new request. We were led to believe that this was the only place in the valley for a sports dome, as it would go in the existing excavated gravel pit. Now; it seems that the dome will be sited on an unexcavated portion of the area. It was stated that approximately 50 feet of fill in most areas designated for the commercial development. It would be interesting to know how many thousands of dump truck loads- it will take and where all the fill will come from. The fill will total approximately one million 500 thousand cubic yards, Over a -years time, more than one dump truck a minute moving in - and out or around the area, which will create quite a bit of dust. So much for the dome going into the existing pit. Are you a bit leery of all the misinformation? I would be. This rezoning will not improve the health, safety, nor convenience for the majority living in the area. The pedestrian - bike path, which has been recently completed, has been used constantly. Picture a huge complex, with an abundance of traffic, from here to the corner, with bikes and pedestrians trying to negotiate the 3-4 entrances, where ears will be turning. It would- defeat the purpose of the now unobstructed bikeway. With this kind -of money that is involved, desperate transactions- result. It could be outlet malls_. If leaders make decisions on nothing but commercial expansion, it will take true political courage to take stand. We stand to gain everything in the long run as it is a reflection on our -community -as a whole to keep sprawl to a minimum. Urban service boundaries should remain status- quo; and modification should only be in response -to the -desires of the local neighborhoods. I personally feel deceived- by the entire project- submitted, the misinformation, the noninformation, and it is scary how fast it- has moved through the system. If approved, it may be like a flower arrangement. Pretty when you get it, but dies a slow death. There being no other opponents, the public hearing was closed and opened to Board discussion. Board Discussion Brenneman heartily agreed that we do not have sufficient information to make an intelligent decision tonight. I think we have borderline, deceptive pictures. Motion Brenneman moved to table this matter for one month to give us time to consider the changed proposal and to allow the public to comment. Carlson seconded. On a roll call vote Bahr, Hines, Carlson, and Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of August 11, 1998 Page 8of 16 �f Brenneman voted aye. Heinecke, Garberg, Johnson and Stevens voted no. Hash broke the tie vote with a no vote, explaining her vote. Hash was most upset with the late submission of amendments to the conditions. I felt that the manner in which it was conducted was bullying, that it was done at the last minute. I was -concerned with the fact that the public would not have an opportunity to address those amended conditions. I have concerns with the ethics and procedures of this matter. In reviewing the amended conditions; I am satisfied that those amendments are not so substantial as to prevent discussion. I would favor proceeding. Discussion- Bahr- noted the point brought up by Tom Tomow that in order to consider a PUD, the land must be under one ownership. We -are being -asked to change the zoning on property that is not under that ownership. There was also a question about the parcel left out. Wilson- said that there was a letter from MDOT that said they were willing to negotiate -equitable trade for this property if this PUD were approved. If this proceeds, the- MDOT has every intention of .entering into a land trade. I believe that lot 3D was an error of omission. Carlson commented on the process. We are here to make a recommendation to -the Kalispell City Council concerning annexation into the city, designating the initial zoning of a planned unit development. We are to make this recommendation based on findings of fact, not speculation: We are to comply with state law and the ordinances of the city of Kalispell. I want to mention -two things that deeply disturbed me regarding the recommendation. passed by this Board on June - 9t`, which have -a bearing on the current proposal. One is ex parte communication and second is compliance with the statutes on planning and zoning. It is- -on public record that prior to the June meeting an elected official stated that a planning board was under control with regard to changing the industrial classification under the master plan amendment. Followed up by a statement by another official -that members of the planning board had. been taken to lunch to discuss changes: We are a quasi judicial body held to high standards: There is a thing called -ethics. My 6 years on this board there has been full disclosure by all members of all such ex parte contacts, with attendant withdrawal from discussion and vote. This disclosure did not occur onJune9th. I. seriously question validity of the action takenas well as -having almost contempt for those who failed to disclose what I consider illegal action by inaction. Additionally, I felt that testimony of a - County Commissioner, who subsequently voted on the issue was out of Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of August 11, 1998 Page 9of 16 line ethically. No wonder the word was around town that this was a done deal. Second, this board passed a recommendation with inadequate findings of fact, tinged with the color of spot planning. This action not only caused fancy -footwork to be -performed by the -City Council, but also pushed their approval to the date of July 20th, which makes tonight's possible action questionable, not only expedited under the 30 -day requirement. The rush. to jump and dance to the tune of an impatient developer, whether -we are well fed or not —and I wasn't — thereby mares, this- Board- look foolish. I am- ashamed to see such- actions taken in this community, It reflects -on the community. Then we -got faced with a threat. If annexation is -desired by the -city, then we should -recommend it as long as state statutes- are complied with. The B-2 zoning proposed is for only the planned unit development overlay. City of Kalispell approved a planned. unit development for Buffalo Commons- after applying many - stipulations, which were complied with to the fullest. That was a PUD. This does- not have the requirements completed for a planned- unit development. This Board has to recommend tonight the shadow -of a plan for a strip_ development. The staff recommendation is only a token - improvement to a -plan that does not -contain the acreage necessary for a so called village concept. I've seen- many villages in my 68- years; but none so - unfriendly to people -as this appears. It -is -commercial -and parking. I want to comment on the drawings. The dome has grown from 90 to 110- feet. There are no drawings to reflect the visual impact on the environment. The PUD requires- elevation- drawings- which -demonstrate visually the general -architectural features -that -maybe -expected. Buffalo Commons did supply renditions- of what to expect. I have only seen a pretty artist rendition from about 100 feet in the air. Hash disclosed that I spoke with Nar-da- and the county attorneys- Dennis Hester and Jonathan Smith this after -noon, when it was brought to my attention that there were changes made to the recommendations. My initial reaction was the same as Mr. Brenneman's. I believed that the amended conditions did not substantially deviate from those initially submitted for board and public review. I, too, have concerns about what I feel- are ethical violations involved with this. Mr. Williams spoke as a commissioner in support of the initial master plan amendment. He then voted- on that change later. It appears to me there has been much - government involvement, massaging the way for this particular matter. As I walked in today, I saw Mr. Johnson and Mr. Stevens talking with the mayor. I am also surprised that an attorney as good as Mr. Battle needs to Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of August 11, 1998 Page 10of 16 apply so much pressure. If this is such a good plan, then it should carry on its own weight. Garberg has talked with people in the community and there is broad -based support for the project. When I what is- envisioned for that site compared to what is there, combined with the -idea that it is -compatible with the college and sports complex. I think the developers are making an attempt to make it a -pleasing gateway to the community from the north. I think we should help these guys, rather than hammer down with long, endless details. Johnson -responded to Hash'-s question. My dine -of work requires -me to talk to the commissioners; city council, just as your line of work requires you to talk with the county -attorneys. My _discussions with the mayor tonight was. a casual- discussion and had nothing to do with- the outcome of tonight's meeting. It may have revolved around something post -outcome, but nothing to do with the vote. Stevens declared that he did get a free hockey puck when they were giving them away at the mall. I have communicated- with people, and I communicate with just about every applicant that comes before this board. I have communicated with officials. If we need to talk about ethics as- a- board member, we better do it. I talk -to just about everyone I can, so I can get enough background- information that I can make an informed decision as a board member, -rather than taking all my information from the government bureaucrats at FRDO. There is no project that would ever get done if 100% -of everybody had to be pleased by it. I am surprised at the opposition to this PUD. We threw a PUD out, as a result of the master plan thing. As t see it these guys are -doing it -as a courtesy to the opponents. They could have gone for a straight B-2 zone. None of this PUD stuff would have to -come up. They -did it -as a courtesy -and in exchange this is what they get. I don't make my decisions- before the meeting. I have leanings, I have ideas, I investigate. I come and listen to public input, and I value public input from everybody. If something comes up that I think affects health, safety, general welfare of the community, and I think it is legitimate, I take it into consideration. I haven't heard - anything that will affect the health, safety or general welfare of the -people in a significantly negative way. It has to be significant, not just a little bit that hurts. They have worked with FRDO and butted heads, and got down to three things that need to be hammered out. Discussion on The Board proceeded to work through the three conditions in contention. Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of August 11, 1998 Page 11 of 16 Unresolved Conditions Condition #8 was requested to be deleted. Garberg did not feel he could read an engineered traffic study, and agreed to have the experts do it. Hash noted for the audience that condition #7, which the applicant had no problem with, asks for a comprehensive traffic study. There was general consensus on the Board to delete condition #8, and leave it in the hands of other bureaucratic agencies, the Department of Transportation. Condition #10 pertains to the internal roadways and boulevard landscaping. Garberg asked for a clearer explanation on FRDO's position. Wilson explained it was. an attempt to provide a streetscape or village, concept within the development. Subdivision regulations do not allow unlimited access into a parking lot. The other reason is for aesthetics and to provide for pedestrians. Stevens thought that aesthetics should be up to the developer. This is not a public project, it is a private project, funded with private money: There would be other concerns such as snow removal, traffic flow, and liability. Hash asked the developer- for clarification on they wanted. Battle detailed - the developers' position. A -proposed landscaped drawing was passed around for the Board to review. Hash was willing to go along with staffs amendment, with a sidewalk on just on side. Brenneman agreed with staff s language, and was glad to see the drawing, because that is exactly what he would like to avoid. It looks like every other development around here, lacking character or distinction, which I would like to think the Flathead Valley deserves. Giving up a space for a tree or some grass in this 40 acres of parking lot, I don't see that this can't be addressed with the expertise of the developers to provide for safety, snow removal, parking and traffic flow. We were told in June that this Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of August 11, 1P98 Page 12of 16 (� would be a village concept development. Battle responded that everyone's concept of a village is different. Carlson commented that this is a tribute to the automobile. By not providing reasonable pedestrian access; you will make people drive from one place to -another within the -development. More driving is repugnant to me. I agree with -Mr. Brenneman, and FRDO staff; that we are required to follow regulations that exist. I feel uncomfortable recommending to City Council that their own city regulations for streets be negated, especially when pedestrian access is so badly needed in this development. Motion on Brenneman moved to amend condition #-10 as proposed by FRDO. Bahr Condition #10 seconded. On -a roll -call vote Carlson, Brenneman, Bahr, and Hines voted aye. Johnson, Stevens, Garberg and Heinecke voted no. The tie vote was broken by Hash with a no vote. The motion was defeated on a vote of 4- 5. Motion on Heinecke moved to adopt the language proposed by the developer for Condition 410 condition 910, Stevens seconded. On a roll call vote Johnson, Stevens, Heinecke, -and -Garberg voted -aye. -Carlson, Brenneman, Hines and Bahr voted no.. Again, the tie vote was broken by Hash who voted in favor of the motion. Discussion on Discussion resumed to condition #19, the signage plan. Condition #19 / Signs Bahr clarified that the Kalispell Sign Ordinance would apply to all interior signs, and those ,along the highway. Wilson explained that the height limit for signs is 28 feet. The PUD allows for deviation to allow a taller sign. StaT- s position is that signage is one of the critical elements on defining this -project. The consensus of the community is that we are tired of big, flashing signs We fought hard to control over billboards. To allow a 35 foot sign that 35 feet wide, with an electronic readerboard, is not in keeping with the character of what we are trying to establish as an entryway to Kalispell. I think -an integrated sign plan is critical. ]Battle addressed their request for maximum limitations of 35' x 35. It won't be a square sign. What is really being proposed is something more like a sculpture. He elaborated, at length, on the need for their proposed language, as signage is essential to the success of the project. We are Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of August 11, 1998 Page 13 of 16 �) trying to attract traffic. Stevens favored letting them have what they want, This is just another hobble. Carlson said the city will require more information, which has not been given, such as sewer, water, as well as the signage. I think the language for an integrated signage plan submitted by staff should be kept. Garberg was. comfortable with the language submitted by the developers. We -are not designers. It helps protect the public by providing them more - flexibility in their signage. Wilson agreed that they will probably need additional signage, as well as an electronic reader board- for displaying events, however, the proposal does not comply with the sign -ordinance. It would have been helpful to have had a sign plan with more time to evaluate this. Battle conceded to -add language at the end of the submittal stating "We will submit a detailed sign plan for review subject to approval by City Council." There was further debate on the signage. No consensus could be reached. Motion on Bahr made the motion that condition #19 read: "All signage must meet Condition #19 Kalispell Sign Ordinance regulations. Brenneman seconded. On a roll call vote Johnson, Bahr, Carlson, and Brenneman voted aye. Garberg, Stevens, Heinecke and Hines voted no. Hash broke the tie with a no vote. The motion was defeated 4-5. Mot -ion on Stevens made the motion to replace the language in condition #19 with the Condition 91.9 language submitted by the developer in its entirety. Garberg seconded. Amendment to Garberg moved to amend the motion to add the language that "a signage Motion plan be submitted for approval by City Council". Stevens seconded. On a roll call vote Hines, Stevens, Garberg, Heinecke, Brenneman, Carlson, Bahr, Johnson, and Hash voted in favor. Roll Call Vote on On a roll call vote on the amended motion to amend condition #19 Hines, Motion Bahr, Brenneman, Johnson, Stevens, Heinecke and Garberg voted aye. Hash and Carlson voted no. The motion carried on a 7-2 vote. Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of August 11, 1998 Page 14of 16 Discussion Carlson brought up under section 27.21.030(5)(m) states "the city council shall require bonding or any other appropriate collateral to ensure that all required improvements shall be satisfactorily completed in accordance to the approved- plans; specifications and time schedule". I feel that condition #25 as modified is -in conflict. I have a problem with it. It is just a half- baked compromise that is being passed on. The city will have to deal with it. Motion Stevens -moved to -adopt FRDO report #KA-98-4 and #KPUD-98-1 as findings of fact and recommend that City Council, upon annexation; zone this property B-2 with the PUD -over-lay, subject to the 28 conditions as amended by discussion. and Board action. Hines- seconded. On a -roll call vote Johnson, Garberg, Heinecke, Stevens, Hines and Hash voted -aye. Bahr, Brenneman and Carlson voted no. The motion carried 6-3. NEW BUSINESS Stevens wanted a copy of the ethics, for planning board members. The September meeting will be on Thursday, September 10th, due to the holiday, which bumps the Council meeting to Tuesday. There was no other new business. OLD BUSINESS Under old business, was discussion on the letter from Russ Crowder, dated March 16, 1998. Based on that input, staff proposed some amendments to the Kalispell zoning regulations, which were attached. The Board discussed the issues brought up. Motion Bahr moved to -direct staff to add the language to zoning ordinance as proposed. Johnson seconded. Amended Motion Stevens moved to amend the motion to delete the word eeueetiw and replace it with other. Heinecke seconded. On a roll call vote on the amendment Stevens, Brenneman, and Heinecke voted in favor. Hash, Bahr, Carlson; Johnson, Garberg and Hines vote no. The motion died on a vote of 3 -6. Roll Call Vote On a roll call vote:on the original motion Brenneman, Johnson, Hines, Heinecke, Garberg, Stevens, and Bahr voted aye. Hash and Carlson voted no. The motion carried 7-2. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m. Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of August 11, 1999 Page 15of 16 Therese Fox Hash, President E , zabb Ontko,. Recording Secretary L/ i APPROVED: Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of August 11, 1998- Page 16of 16