Loading...
06-11-91 Planning BoardKALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING JUNE 11, 1991 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Therese Fox Hash, President, at AND ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. Those present were Hash, Manning, Fraser, Gould, Loop, Sloan and Kennedy. James Stephens and Larry Dominick had excused absences. David Greery Senior Planner, represented the Flathead Regional Development Office. APPROVAL OF MIN- Manning moved to table approval of the May 14, 1991 minutes until UTES MAY 14, 1991 later in the meeting. Sloan seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. DEVELOPERS DIVER- Hash introduced the request by Developer's Diversified to discuss SIFIED PUD their application for a Mixed Use Residential Planned Unit Development. Mr. Berrvhill, representing Developers Diversified, stated that he is concerned since he had felt that they had come up with a fairly decent proposal. They have digressed a little. He added that they have thought of putting a mobile home park there, which would be allowed under the current zoning, or a landfill to fill the back area, or thought about pig farms. But in retrospect they would like to make this thing work and have it be the best site in the Kalispell area and have it be the gateway to the northern area of the valley. He added that they feel the city of Kalispell has done an excellent job in that area and want to continue the process. Doug Johns stated that hopefully by next meeting they will be coming forth with the residential mixed use proposal bringing the commercial area down to 35%. The diagram he showed reflected the mixed residential concept in a rough form. He added that by going with the mixed use residential PUD they will not have to amend the Master Plan. He outlined their proposed schedule. HALEY ADDITION Hash introduced the petition by Clark Haley for annexation and Light NO. 248 Industrial I-1 zoning for property generally located on Highway 93, south of Kalispell, in the vicinity of Hines Automotive Center and Burton's Warehouse Showroom. Greer gave the staff report stating that the petitioners want to put an airport related facility on the property. Currently the property is zoned B-3 (County General Business). Greer reviewed the 12 public interest criteria. The property is currently vacant and there is no public access to the property along Highway 93. Greer stated that a roadway from U.S. Highway 2 would have to be developed to provide general access to the property. The property is adjacent to an airport taxiway and aircraft could have access to this property. Upon annexation into the city, they can impose certain conditions of annexation that would address questions such as access. The staff � > recommended that the property be zoned Light Industrial and be annexed into the city limits of Kalispell. 1 Public Hearing Hash opened the meeting for comments from proponents of the zoning request. Clark Haley spoke in favor of the zoning so that they could develop the property for airport uses. There are 360 feet of frontage on the taxiway and wish to build hangars or any other storage related to the airport. There being no other proponents, Hash called for opponents to the zoning. There were no opponents and the public hearing was closed. Board Questions Sloan stated that she had no problem with the request since it is compatible with the uses in the area. Gould asked if the petitioner had any problem with the highway frontage remaining as General Business? Haley said he did not. Motion Fraser moved to adopt the findings of fact of the FRDO Staff Report #KA-91-6 and recommended that the subject propety be zoned General Business for that tract of land described by Certificate of Survey #2368 and Light Industrial I-1 for the tract of land described by Certificate of Survey #2321. Manning seconded the motion. Hash restated the motion saying that the zoning would be I-1 for both tracts of land and it passed uanimously. Gould asked for clarification regarding the motion and asked if the zoning was to be I-1 for both or General Business for one and Light Industrial for the other. Hash stated that the zoning would be I-1 for both. Fraser stated that his motion was for the zoning recommendation of the FRDO which would have both zoning classifications. Motion Fraser restated his motion saying that he moved to adopt the findings of fact of the Staff Report #KA-91-6 and recommended that the subject property be zoned General Business for that tract of land described ' by Certificate of Survey #2368and Light Industrial I-1 for the tract of land described by Certificate of Survey #2321. Kennedy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously in roll call vote. BALTRUSH ADDITION Hash introduced the Baltrush Addition #240 for property located near #240 the northerly terminus of Corporate Way, west of the Gibson Addition to Kalispell with a possible zoning classification of RA-1. Greer gave the staff report saying that this property was wholly surrounded on all sides by the city limits of Kalispell. The property is currently vacant and access is gained from Corporate Way. City water and sewer services are located there. RA-1 zoning is found north and west of the property. Commercial zoning is located to the south and the east. The Master Plan indicates that this is a transitional area. Greer reviewed the 12 public interest criteria. He stated that the staff recommendation is for RA-1 zoning classification. He distributed a letter from Susan L. Miller supporting the proposed zoning classification. Greer added that many uses that could be placed on that property under a RA-1 zoning 2 classification would have to obtain approval through the conditional use permit process. Public Hearing Hash opened the meeting for public hearing calling for proponents of the zoning. There were no proponents and she called for comments from opponents. There were no opponents and the public hearing was closed. Board Discussion Loop asked if there was any response from the property owners regarding the annexation and zoning proposed. Greer stated they were sent a letter but no response was received. Kennedy noted that the potential use proposed by Susan Miller would require an RA-1 zoning classification and the property is bordered by RA-1 also. Motion Kennedy moved that the Board adopt the findings of fact found in Staff Report #KA-91-3 and recommended to the City Council that the property be Residential Apartment RA-1 in accordance to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. Sloan seconded the motion and it passed unanimously upon roll call vote. MAUZEY ADDITION Hash introduced the Mauzey Addition #244. The property is located at #244 the southwest corner of 8th Street West and 8th Avenue West and is wholly surrounded by Residential R-4 zoning. Greer gave the staff report saying that this is a wholly surrounded by the city limits of Kalispell with a single family dwelling on the single lot. The property has city water and sewer. The existing use would be compatible with the proposed zoning. The staff is recommending that the property be zoned Residential R-4 because of the surrounding zoning and the character of the property. Public Hearing Hash called for comments from proponents. There were none and she asked for comments from opponents. There were no opponents and the public hearing was closed. Board Discussion Sloan asked if there were any comments from the property owners. Greer stated that he has not received comments from the owners. Motion Sloan moved to adopt the findings of fact found in Staff Report #KA- 91-7 and recommend to the city council that the zoning classification be Residential R-4 for the subject property. Manning seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously by roll call vote. PACK WEST ADDI- Hash introduced the Pack West Addition #239 proposal. The property is TION #239 located generally between the Ashley Square Mall and Two Mile Drive. Zoning proposed for this wholly surrounded tract is Residential Apartment RA-1. Greer gave the staff report stating that the property is accessed from Two Mile Drive. He showed the location on a map. There are presently two residential houses on the property and is currently \ / zoned Residential R-1 in the county. The proposed zoning classification of RA-1 is proposed due to the adjoining zoning of 3 Residential Apartment. The Master Plan designates this as a ( ) transitional area from commercial to multi -family. The property is `-'- physically separated from the commercial designation since access is off of Two Mile Drive. The zoning classification will maintain the status quo regarding how the property is currently developed. Public Hearing Hash opened the meeting for a public hearing and called for comment from the proponents. There were no proponents and Hash called for comment from opponents. There were no opponents, therefore the public hearing was closed. Board Discussion Lopp asked if there has been comment from the property owners. Greer stated that they are in the audience but there has been no written comment. Motion Sloan moved that the Board adopt the findings of fact found in Staff Report #KA-91-2 and that the zoning classification for the property be Residential Apartment RA-1. Lopp seconded the motion and it passed unanimously on a roll call vote. RIVERVIEW GREENS Hash introduced the next annexation proposal of Riverview Greens ADDITION #241 Addition #241. Riverview Greens is a platted subdivision located on the west side of Whitefish Stage Road which adjoins the city limits on its southerly boundary. Residential R-3 is proposed. Greer gave the staff report stating that the process used in this annexation is that of contiguous lands. The property is not wholly surrounded; however, this subdivision is subject to the North Village Sewer District Agreement, which states that those who attach to that sewer system waive the right to protest annexation into the city of Kalispell. The subdivision is connected to the North Village Sewer District, whose sewer mains eventually find their way to the City Sewer Treatment Plant. Currently, Riverview Greens is zoned Residential R-5. The subdivision has been fully platted, developed with roads, water, sewer, hydrants and storm drainage. The lots mimic the R-3 zoning classification of the city. Therefore, the staff is recommending that the zoning classification be Residential R-3. Public Hearing Hash opened the meeting for public hearing calling for proponents. Louis Reis asked if the property is presently zoned. Greer stated that the property is zoned Residential R-5 in the county. He further explained that if the property is annexed into the city then it must have a city zoning designation rather than a county zoning classification. Greer explained what the R-3 zoning classification Would mean. Louis Reis asked what the affects are to the sewer agreement when a parcel subject to that agreement is sold. Greer did not want to get into the legal question but that the sewer agreement simply says that annexation can be considered when connecting to those facilities. Since the properties are connected to that facility, it is the city's opinion that they can annex the property. 4 Hash asked if there were any opponents. There being none, the oublic hearing was closed. Board Discussion Sloan felt that the zoning was appropriate to the development. Motion Fraser moved to adopt findings of fact found in FRDO Staff Report #KA-91-5 and to recommend to the city council that the property have a zoning classification of Residential R-8 if the property is annexed into the city. Manning seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by roll call vote. FAIRWAY ADDITION Hash introduced the next agenda item of Fairway Addition #242. The #242 proposed annexation is for property known as Fairway Boulevard Townhouses which adjoin the city of Kalispell golf course and other residential subdivisions. The property is described as Fairway Boulevard Townhouses, Phases) I, II, III, IV, and V. Residential R-3 is proposed. Greer gave the staff report stating that this annexation process is subject to the same process as Riverview Greens Addition. Fairway Addition encompasses just the platted lots of Fairway Boulevard Townhouses. The platted lots have been fully developed with sewer, water, roads, and curbing. The subdivision is being done in phases. The recommended zoning classification is Residential R-3. Currently the property is zoned Residential R-4 in the county. The County R-4 zoning and the City R-8 zoning are virtually identical. The zoning is not changing except that it is going from county to city zoning. The townhouses will fit into the city zoning because the subdivision was approved as a cluster development (which is permitted) in 1979. The cluster development permit will be honored inside the city limits. If the property is annexed it will need the city zoning classification and that is the reason for this hearing. Public Hearing Hash opened the meeting to public comment and called`for proponents to speak. A member of the audience asked what it meant when the Board moves to adopt the findings of fact. Hash explained that the staff report contains certain findings that address the public interest criteria. Sometimes the highlights of the criteria are publicly addressed but not always since the Board has a copy of them. The member of the audience asked why they are not made aware of the findings of fact so that they can respond to them. Bill Gould felt that the members of the audience should hear the findings of fact. David Greer read in entirety the 12 criteria found in the staff report. Hash reopened the hearing for proponents comments. There were no proponents wishing to speak. Therefore Hash opened the meeting for comments from opponents. Terry Anderson stated that this is an approved planned ( /> but the zoning and annexation is only being proposed on ' planned development. He asked why they would propose approved planned development? Greer stated that there description for the platted portion of the approved plan time the city has only expressed interest in annexing lots. Mr. Anderson still could not understand it. development part of that to split an is a legal and at this the platted Mary Ann Schindler agreed with Terry Anderson's objection to splitting the development. Tom Trumble stated that he was opposed to the zoning because that would set them up to be annexed if the zoning were changed. He stated that he could see no good reason to be annexed. He also felt that the annexation was against the sewer contract which stipulates that the annexation can take place when 80% of the property is built out. Currently there are 34 out of 100 developed. He stated that he did not know of any of the 34 residents that wanted to be annexed. Hash asked if it is true that the proposed development was for 100 units. Greer stated that the planned development proposed 100 units but less than that have been platted. Greer further explained the process of annexation and how the Board is involved in making a recommendation on the zoning for that property. He added that part of the process is to prepare an extension of services plan. Tom Trumble reiterated that he is opposed the zone change. Others in the audience from that area also voiced their opposition to being zoned R-3. Sandy Schindler, president of the Homeowners' Association, stated that at the last council meeting they indicated that they would not make comments on annexation until they received the recommendation from the Planning Board. Kennedy gave the process that the city council will be following. Mr. Schindler stated that if the property that is currently platted is zoned with a city zone and annexed into the city the property directly across the street will still have a county zone. This means that one side of the street will have city services and the other side will not. The Evergreen Fire Department has stated that they can respond to our fire situations faster than the city can. The only connection that property has to the city is the fact that the sewer dumps into the city treatment plant of which the residents are paying 125% for that service. These two zones will reflect on the property values. He suggested that either all the property becomes part of the city or it all stays part of the county. Member of the audience asked to be put on the list to receive an extension of services report. Louis Reis stated that he was opposed to the zoning because he felt that it was spot zoning. He added that when he was a city council \ / member it was the understanding at that time the area would be annexed only when it reached 80% occupancy. That included the entire 6 development not just a portion at a time. He asked if the city were � ) to take over that area is the city going to take over the Evergreen water system since those lots are connected to Evergreen Water. A gentleman in the audience asked what precipitated the action to annex Fairway Townhouses. Greer stated the city council is discussing the merits of annexation and that this Board must address the zoning of that property. Kennedy stated that the city council will be holding a public hearing on annexation on July 15. There being no further public comment, Hash closed the public Board Discussion Gould asked why in the zoning consideration only a very narrow strip would be considered and leave out property to the south of that area being considered. Greer stated that the city directed the Board to only consider the platted portions. It might be appropriate for the Planning Board to make a motion that would reflect that in the event that the city decides it would be in their best interest to annex the entire development then the entire property should be zoned City R-8. Gould felt that, from a zoning standpoint, the Board should consider the entire development. Sloan asked if it would be appropriate to state that if the city were to annex the entire development the R-3 zoning classification should apply to the whole property. Greer thought it would be appropriate. Motion Sloan moved adopt the findings of fact found in FRDO Staff Report #KA-91-4 and to recommend the zoning classification of Residential R- 3 for the portion of the property under consideration and if the city council were to determine that annexing the remainder of the property would be appropriate then the Residential R-3 zoning classification be extended to include the remainder of the property. Gould seconded the motion. Gould stated that he would prefer seeing a stronger recommendation from the planning board that the entire development be given the same zoning. Sloan felt that could not be recommended by the Board. Gould felt that the Board could make a recommendation to the effect that it would make more sense to annex the entire development. Question Question was called and the motion was passed unanimously in a roll call vote. COUNTRY VILLA Hash opened the meeting to the request for preliminary plat approval CONDOMINIUMS AKA of Country Villa Condominiums, aka Royal Reserve Condominiums, a 24 ROYAL RESERVE -unit condominium development on 8.5 acres off of Garden Drive near CONDOMINIUMS Country Estates Subdivision. Recess Meeting was recessed at 8:24 p.m and reconvened at 8:80 p.m. Staff Report Greer gave the staff report stating that the reason for the two names is that after the application was submitted they determined that the second name would be better. This is.a long narrow tract of land with access off of Garden Drive. With each four-plex there will be four ( / covered parking spaces and there will be parking spaces in the ~ driveway area leading to each four-plex. Greer reviewed the eight public interest criteria. He cited the following concerns: 1) access from Garden Drive could be a traffic problem with residents of the condominiums having to back out onto that road and a possible 150 vehicle trips per day; 2) the back of the property line abuts up against the storage garages of Mountain Villa Apartments and the West Valley Fire Chief identified this as a fire hazard; 3) the children of this subdivision would probably be bused to various schools in District 5 since Edgerton School is full; 4) West Valley Fire District had concerns regarding the turn around capabilities at the end of Garden Drive and cited a need for tanker recharge hydrants; 5) some parking spaces and planter boxes are proposed inside the county right-of-way which is unacceptable unless outside of the right-of- way; 6) there is a lack of curbs, gutters and sidewalks and none are proposed; 7) County Superintendent feels that it would be inappropriate for the vehicles to back out onto the county road right-of-way; 8) possible problems with connecting to the Flathead Water Company such as needing to upgrade the pump; and 9) on -site septic systems are proposed and the neighboring developments are also on septic system of which Mountain Villa is having drainfield problems, possibly due to personnel rather than actual drainfield problems. One letter was received from Dennis Schwenk registering his opposition to the proposal (citing that the development is too dense). There is an intent to do the subdivision in phases. The / property is currently zoned Residential Apartment RA-1 in the county �--/ and the proposal is consistent with the zoning. The staff is recommending approval with twenty conditions. Board Questions Kennedy asked why Greer did not indicate that the hydrants would be required. Greer stated that condition #12 addressed that issue. Public Hearing Hash opened the public hearing calling for proponents of the proposal to speak. Bob Haffermanv engineer, stated that there is a 12 foot strip of land between the proposed subdivision and the fence of the Mountain Villa Apartments which is a drainage ditch that belongs to the property owned by Mountain Villa and is not included in the plat drawings. He raised concerns with five conditions. Condition #7 regarding the cul- de-sac is too restrictive. He handed out drawings showing their proposal for the cul-de-sac and then explained those drawings. They are proposing to improve the cul-de-sac to meet the county standard. He felt that it was unreasonable to require that they build a greater cul-de-sac than is called for by the regulations. He asked that condition #7 be amended to read "The cul-de-sac on Garden Drive meet county standards and that the design of the driveway entrance be approved by the Flathead Regional Development Office." Hafferman stated that, concerning condition #9, he did not find where a parking area is required to be setback five feet from the right-of-way. Greer stated that this is a condition that the staff feels would be required for aesthetic purposes. Condition #10 requires a separate parking area for the development for overflow traffic. He requested 8 striking the portion of the condition about the separate parking area \ ) since they are providing two parking spaces per unit. He also ^ requested removal of the 20 foot setback from the county right-of- way. He did not know where they would put the parking if they set it back 20 feet and what purpose it would serve. Hafferman stated regarding condition #12 that they have a letter from the Flathead Utility Company stating that the subject property is within the service area of the Flathead Utility Company. Further upon receiving the required approvals, the Flathead Utility Company will provide water service to the condominiums. He was not sure whether hydrants could be put on the water system. He requested removing the first two sentences of Condition #12. Hafferman requested that concerning condition #20 they would like to have three years rather than two years for the completion of the preliminary plat requirements. There were no other comments from proponents and Hash called for comments from the opponents. Sandra Farmer, 155 Arbour Drive, stated that the proposed development would share the same entry off West Reserve Drive, school system, water system etc. as Country Estates and therefore would seem like it would be an extension of their subdivision. The lots in Country Estates are one-half acre, but this subdivision proposal would place 24 families within three lots of her residence, vastly changing the character of the area. She did not feel that it was compatible with their development. She felt that the standard of living would deteriorate immediately and would not provide a buffer between their development and four-plexes. There could be up to 96 more residents, 48 more children, and 48 more pets immediately adjacent to them. She did not feel that their development could handle this kind of increase. She recommended that the property should be developed in single family residences on one-half acre lots. Terry Farmer stated that even though Mountain Villa is a multi -family development it is for adults only and totally separated by buffer fence and storage units. He reiterated that the density is too high. Joyce Rauch, 128 Trail Ridge, stated that her property is adjacent to this development proposal which will be extremely dense. Debbie Jones, Trail Ridge Road, asked how many people were notified of this subdivision. [Greer stated that the only requirement is to notify the immediately adjacent property owners.] Debbie continued by saying that there are currently 67 houses finished in the Country Estates subdivision and a number more under construction this year. The water system is currently inadequate and they are not in favor of having to increase the water fee in order to replace the pump. She felt that the water system as it currently exists would be inadequate due to current problems. There will be increased traffic which will cause hazards for pedestrians and children. She did not want to have her child bused somewhere else. She also felt that the value of the homes in Country Estates would decrease due to this development. She \ / felt that this would become part of their development and the area is too small for that density. 9 Chris Dabneyrecommended that the property be kept for single family residential use. Bill ? stated that he would be against the proposal. Sherry Carlburg asked how thg parking would be sufficient and she felt that the development would cause a major traffic jam. A member of the audience asked how the property was currently zoned. The property is currently zoned Residential Apartment RA-1. The density could be that of the Mountain Villa. There being no further comment from opponents, the public hearing was closed. Board Discussion Kennedy stated that she has some problems with the entrance to the subdivision. Fraser asked if the roads in the Country Estates Subdivision are private? Greer stated that they used to be private but they are now county roads. Fraser asked how much separation there is between Garden Drive and the Mountain Villa entrance. Greer stated that there is about 80 feet. Hash asked Mr. Hafferman how feasible it was to establish the / \ landscaping barrier. Mr. Hafferman stated that the units could not be �-/ moved back much due to amount of drainfield required. Now with having to put in another 1/2 parking lot per unit that again cuts down on space available for additional landscaping. There will be landscaping at the drainage ponds and more between the parking areas and the boulevard. He presented a sketched idea of how that would look. They have changed the design so that there could be extra landscaping in the front. Loop asked where the developers would be able to put an additional four units that have been hinted at? Howard Ferguson stated that there has been discussion about bringing sewer to the area and if that were to happen then four more units could be placed where the reserve drainfield is now placed. Fraser asked if there would be any Health Department review of the hook ups proposed to the Flathead Utility Company? Bob Hafferman stated that the water lines exist in the street and all the subdivision would be doing is installing individual service lines. Greer stated that the FRDO would require a certificate of Health Department approval before the Revised Preliminary Plat could be approved. The approval would cover the septic and drainfields and the hook up to the water system. Manning asked where the extra parking could be placed? Hafferman �J showed him how they would lay it out on a plat he provided. 10 Gould asked why sidewalks were not being required when they were required for the subdivision on West Evergreen? Greer stated that the previous subdivision had internal private roads with high density. The only place that sidewalks could be placed is along Garden Drive. Greer also added that Country Estates does not have sidewalks. Lopp felt that omitting the sidewalks would be inconsistent. Gould stated that due to the topography the density is squeezed in with no room for adjustment. He felt that the density was as much as it could be. The request for additional parking is valid. He also felt that if there was a problem with the drainfield there would not be any room to deal with the problem. In general he felt that it was too dense. He felt that he would be more comfortable with half the density. Hafferman stated that they have provided for drainfield reserve of equal size to the drainfield. The soil is good for drainage. Gould felt that the sewage would tend to drain to the river. Lopp asked how Greer felt about the request of the developers to adhere to the regulations for the cul-de-sac rather than the request of the West Valley Fire Department. Greer stated that the Subdivision Regulations are the minimum request but that the staff often requests what the fire department indicates they need. Sloan felt that this was too dense for the area. Howard Ferguson stated that as the developer he lives in Mountain Villa and that he was developing this property with the idea of providing a nice living place for adults who did not want the responsibility of taking care of a large property. Randy Jones presented an artist's conception of what the development would look like. The property is zoned Residential Apartment. No pets would be allowed. Something like this would be more appropriate than to have Hagadone develop another 100 units to Mountain Villa. He added that as soon as sewer is available they would plan to install sewer at their own expense. The whole area will have more density soon. Someone will build on this property eventually. Gould statedthat he is not opposed to the overall concept but that it is packed in too tight. Howard Ferguson, Dave Greer and Dawn McAlister stated that they can meet the setback even with the additional five foot for landscaping. Fraser stated that there is no latitude for error and therefore it would be better to have fewer units. He also felt that there are other parcels that lend themselves to this type of development easier than this location does. Manning stated that one of the developers mentioned there would be no pets and in the absence of covenants are there any other covenants that are being considered? Randy Jones stated that the covenants have 11 not yet been completed but they will be forthcoming. He added that \ / they are targeting the older community. Greer stated that if there were some specific items the Board would want to address in the covenants now would be the time to make those conditions. They only have a general format at this time. Lopp stated that even though the design has met all of the details of the regulations but the impact on the adjacent areas must be considered. If the density significantly impacts the adjacent neighborhood, there must be adjustments. At this time he felt that he could not support the proposal. Motion Manning moved to adopt the findings of fact found in the FRDO Staff Report FPP-91-17 and based on the comments and input concerning affect upon the neighborhood the recommendation is for denial of the preliminary plat request. Lopp seconded the motion. Gould asked if there was any other alternative to denial such as reducing the number of units. Manning felt that it should be denial at this time. If they wanted to come back with covenants and fewer units later, they could. Fraser called the question and the motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MIN- Fraser moved to approve the minutes for the May 14, 1991 meeting. UTES MAY 14. 1991 Kennedy seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. WORK PROGRAM Hash introduced the discussion on the 1991-1992 work program for the 1991-1992 Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission. Greer stated that the Board must decide what will be on the work program fro the coming year. He stated that the Site Plan Review Committee agreed that the Airport Neighborhood Plan and the North Meridian Road Neighborhood Plan would be appropriate. Gould asked about a park plan for Lawrence Park. He felt that it would be appropriate for the Planning Board to have some input. Manning felt that the city needed to develop their plan through the parks department and he suggested Gould serve as the arm of the Planning Board with the Park Board in order to keep the Board informed in the event that there is something that needs to be addressed by the Board. Motion Manning moved to adopt the two items raised by Greer for the work program for 1991-1992. Fraser seconded the motion and it passed ' unanimously. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS Hash asked if the Board wanted to go to the summer hours. After some discussion they settled on 5:80 p.m. 121 Motion Kennedy moved to approve the resolution concerning Brent Hall and \_ ~/ have it signed at the next meeting. Manning seconded and it was - passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Manning moved to adjourn and Fraser seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Therese Fox Hash, President Ava Walters, Record cretary !rl 13