Loading...
Tab 27. August 8, 2008 City Council MeetingCITY COUNCIL MEETING 08/04/08 Mayor Kennedy: Councilman Kenyon. Councilman Kenyon: Thank you, Your Honor. I think the front end loading is an important issue, and I would like to add that multiphase front end loading density 27.21.020(3L)(213) as an amendment to the PUD. Mayor Kennedy: Okay. Is there a second? Councilman Saverud: Second. Mayor Kennedy: Motion from Councilman Kenyon and second from Councilman Saverud to amend Ordinance #1644, the Zoning Text Amendment for the Planned Unit Districts with 27.21.020(3L) adding items #2 and 3. Councilman Hafferman, discussion on the amendment? Councilman Hafferman: Yeah. Combining 2 and 3, I'll have to vote yes and no. For the simple reason that I completely support wording of #3, but I am in favor of the existing wording of the #2 as it was which says that future phases beyond Phase I should have a conceptual street layout and so forth• in other words, somewhat of a master plan. I e ieve t at's still an important part of the whole rocess. By just simply saying that each phase of a multiphase PUD must be able to be freestanding says only that Phase I has to have all of the documentation necessary for a PUD only. But I believe if you are going to master plan an area, you must have a conceptual understanding of what is to be coming Mayor Kennedy Councilman Hafferman Mayor Kennedy: beyond that first phase, but not in detail, only in concept for the other phases that are coming up. And those, of course can be revised as they come up, as long as they do not exceed #3 of that —that they —that —and through the whole process there is a method that we can still be working towards an ultimate PUD. We're not front loading the first phase which is #3, which is good, but we don't have any idea of how this ties in through the whole PUD, which we have annexed; and so, therefore, I would be proposing an amendment to an amendment? No sir, not at this point. Oh. Oh, okay. Mr. Jentz? Planning Director Jentz: Could I just clarify that? Councilman Hafferman, when I am inserting 2 and 3, I should have renumbered the next one that you referred to as a "4". We're not excluding that one. These two are being wedged in between those numbers, so that section which you just lobbied for keeping is still in the regulations. Councilman Hafferman: Oh, well, then I'm for it. Okay. (laughter) Planning Director Jentz: I apologize for that. It was an editorial slip on predication. Councilman Hafferman: Oh. Okay, fine. Mayor Kennedy: Thank you very much for that clarification, Mr. Jentz. Nice to hear that you're in favor of it Councilman Hafferman. Both items. Councilman Kluesner? Councilman Kluesner: Yes. I just have a question on what wouldn't you say in #2 of this, Tom, freestanding? I guess I don't understand what that —what freestanding means besides the facts that it can stand up by itself. Mayor Kennedy: That's it. (laughter) Councilman Kluesner: I don't. Unknown Male: Mayor and Council. That is... Councilman Kluesner: I hope the buildings are freestanding, that's all I can say. (laughing) Planning Director Jentz: Excuse me. That is the crux of the issue. We look at a Phase I project coming in that maybe Phase II will never happen, so Phase I has to be fully freestanding, fully able to function on its own, fully able to be part of the community and comply with all of our regulations. Now we hope that the future phases will happen, but we also have to look at it as if they won't, because they're not being finalized at the this point. So that's what freestanding... Councilman Kluesner: Planning Director Jentz Councilman Kluesner: Okay. ... able to stand on their own. Okay. Mayor Kennedy: Thank you, sir. Councilman Kluesner: Gotcha. Mayor Kennedy: Thank you. Anything else on the motion to amend 27.21.020(3L)? All those in favor signify by saying "Aye." Council: Aye. Mayor Kennedy: Those opposed, "Nay." Okay, we have a twice amended ordinance before you, Council. Ordinance 1644. Councilman Kenyon: Thank you. Tom, could you touch briefly on the relationship or potential relationship between storm water areas and undevelopable property? Planning Director Jentz: Council. If I can —I hope I'm going to answer this right, if not, correct me; but when we determine density of a project, we talk about a developable area. So, a developer comes in and he can apply for "x" amount of density. That density's based on his project. And we consider areas that might be used for storm water detention or retention as part of his developable land area, and he should be able to acquire density for it, but he cannot develop that for houses or commercial businesses because it is ultimately going to be storm water detention area. Just like streets. Some portion of that project is going to be in streets. They still get a credit for the density of the land, but some it's going to be removed for streets. Same thing for parks. So, storm water detention areas, streets, and parks are all part of the gross developable area of a project; so they get benefitted or counted, assessed for density, and we have done — that's what we have normally done. We've done that for the last "xty" years, but we all know when development happens you won't develop because they need to take care of their storm water, and they need to provide for streets, they need to provide for parks and other things. So, they get benefit for having that as part of their land area, but they can't develop it. Councilman Kenyon: Okay. Can the storm water area be used as park or open space? Planning Director Jentz: On a case by case situation, based on the technology we're talking about, it may or may not. Point in case, if we have a huge soccer field that is capable of holding maybe 4 inches of water during a peak flood and it's there for 2:01:47, and it meets our storm management plans and it's an intrical part of the Parks Department, and we all agree that the impact from storm water management is minute versus the benefit for parks is positive, "yes." This is a maybe situation. This is not a cut/dry. If it's going to be concrete facilities and drainage channels and developed into buildings and structures, "no." So, it has to have a recreational use to have a recreational benefit. In some cases it might be both and in some cases it might be neither. Councilman Kenyon: Would that be a political call on the part of the Council? Planning Director Jentz: No. That's —it's going to be a recommendation from the Parks Department. The Parks Department weighs in on usable park space and usable parks plan. Public Works is going to weigh in on the necessity of keeping the public out of it, or this is a great, innovative way of approving it. So, we will give you on each situation, based on technology, and technology continues to change for storm water management, our best recommendations to you. A point case may be building a pond as actually a fishing pond. We've seen a beautiful project in Bozeman that has created a pond with a trail system, but it's their storm water management, and they got credit for open space. We are doing that for Starling as an example, but we have specific requirements for recreational land, less specific for open space, so that's why I want to emphasize it is a case by case situation based on design. We will give you the recommendation, and then you can choose to follow it or not follow it, but there are parameters in place that are very clear when it does and when it doesn't. Councilman Kenyon: One last question. Could you speak to... (clears throat) Excuse me. ...the relationship between information about the PUD being available to the public under the old PUD ordinance and under the new one? There seem to be concern that the public will have less information under this new ordinance. Planning Director Jentz: Yeah. It will have more information... Two years ago, when we did a PUD, the public would have heard it from the newspaper news story. Fifteen days before a notice would have gone out to the property owners, and a legal notice in the paper. Today, albeit through our PUD process, we have the information up on our web page, city web page, probably 30 days before the public hearing. Sixty days before the public hearing. Excuse me. We have incorporated in the PUD regulations a required public workshop to notify the adjoining property owners by letter, the meeting prior or more meetings prior to the public hearing; so, they're now being invited to a public workshop. There'll be a workshop. The public will have an opportunity to ask questions for information and the Planning Board —as always, we've held workshops in the past but we are now inviting the adjoining property owners to come and just learn more about the project. We require at least one of those prior to our public hearing. Councilman Kenyon: And there'll be sufficient information available to them... Planning Director Jentz: Yes. Councilman Kenyon: ...in the course of these? Planning Director Jentz: So, it's open on the web now. The regulations require that public workshop, which is brand new, has not been done, has not been required. So, we've added that prior to the public hearing. We feel it's important because we've felt long that the Planning Board needs to have that information to be able to make a good recommendation, but this will also help the public get the facts in order so that they can make their best recommendation for or against or see how it affects them Councilman Kenyon: So... Planning Director Jentz: We added that to the process. Councilman Kenyon: So, the public will have all the information available? Planning Director Jentz: Exactly. Councilman Kenyon: That's available to... Planning Director Jentz: Exactly. Councilman Kenyon: ...staff and the Planning Board? Planning Director Jentz: Yes. Yes, very much so. Councilman Kenyon: Okay. Thank you. Mayor Kennedy: Thank you, Councilman Kenyon. What I'm hearing from you, Mr. Jentz, is that contrary to what the public person had indicated at the podium, we are increasing the amount of time and information available to, and input from the public. Planning Director Jentz: In the front end we are dramatically increasing and encouraging that input. Yes. Mayor Kennedy: Thank you, sir. Councilman Hafferman. Councilman Hafferman: Well, I've got one more suggested amendment and that's on page 4 of 13 of the ordinance itself, which I —and it's the very last item, Item #2, which I guess is now going to be #3? Planning Director Jentz: Number 4 Councilman Hafferman: Oh. It's going to be #4? Okay. But anyway, the statement, "Future phases or major development components may show conceptual streets and other design features...." and so forth, which is going to remain. I believe it is essential that they "shall". That's the only way that you can fit Phase 1, Phase II, and so forth along the way. So instead of a "may", I move that "may" shall become ",shall." Councilman Kenyon: Second Mayor Kennedy: Motion from Councilman Hafferman and second from Councilman Kenyon to amend page 4 of 13 in the main report striking the word "may" and instead placing it with a "shall show conceptual street designs." Council discussion? Councilman Olson? Councilman Olson: Thank you. I guess I would ask Tom why it's the way it is; I mean, that's a logical thing. Mayor Kennedy: Mr. Jentz? Planning Director Jentz: Mayor, Members of the Counsel, we tried to parrot our process that we've done for the last "x" number of years, and we've done PUDs in full force since 2001. If I were to tell you that the "may" here is what we did for Starling and out fairly well. I in would probably say, "hum." Why it is written this way and that the "may" to "shall" here is a pretty significant pivotal change, and I want to help you there. If you are doing a 5 or 6 year project, right now the PUD regulations standing before you require the first phase to be bullet proof. I mean, every detail, every issue ironed out, but as you get to ture p ases, t is "may" here says those future phases may be more general in nature, but if they are, the next half page tells you how we take care of those concerns. They still have to show those specific issues by requiring developers to provide specific, detailed designs for projects that maybe 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 years out there. You're asking them to do a lot of time in Council. All you are seeing is a best guess that probably won't develop that way because markets suddenly change and uses tend to change, so we are just being realistic in our approach by saying those future phases may show conceptual streets. On a PUD they are conceptual. The only way you get a final alignment is in a final subdivision plan; so they're all conceptual in nature, but they need to provide that information. The following half page of discussion says that when it is conceptual, this Council can ask for more detailed information with each phase. You may be uncomfortable that the conceptual information provided isn't enough, and you can still ask for more right now or you can say, let's see how each phase comes in; so it sets up a clearing house to provide further information down the road. We don't ask for final water and sewer drawings, we ask for conceptual water and sewer. We ask for conceptual parks. This parrots what we've been off. It just clearly spells it out. In our minds, it was important to clearly spell out the process because it wasn't too many years ago down in Lakeside where a project was litigated and the project developer lost on a word that had nothing to do with the character or quality of a PUD project but the technical process, a procedural flaw. I don't want the City to be open for procedural flaws. I would like projects to rise of fall on their merits; so we tried to parrot what we do and follow through with the processes that we're doing; so that's why it was written the way it was. Mayor Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. Jentz. Councilman Kenyon. Councilman Kenyon: Thank you. Tom. Are these conceptual things, are they amendable at some point? I mean, if they present the front end part of it, and then if they give you the conceptual —or required to give you the conceptual of the rest, can they come back and amend their conceptual? Planning Director Jentz: Council, yes they can come back and amend it, but they do that in front of you. They don't do it by right, they do it by privilege of the Planning Board and ultimately the Council saying that's an appropriate change or that's an appropriate afferment. Some roads may —a road, for example, may shift 10 or 20 feet. You really don't care. A road may cease to exist. We all care. Councilman Kenyon: But isn't there a clause in there, minor changes don't come before the Council? Planning Director Jentz: Minor changes, and that's as I was saying, might be a road shifting 10 to 20 feet. Minor changes go to a Site Review Committee and we determine, yeah, their minor. It's not worth the Council's time to weigh in on what's going on. Significant changes of any merit at all come before you. Now, I want to digress one more point. I have been accused of creating some things here. We went to Bozeman, and Bozeman doesn't call it conceptual, Bozeman calls it a master plan PUD. It is identical to the process Bozeman is doing; so this isn't something the planning staff concocted, this is really planning staffs who are working in the field coming up, defining a process that we're doing; so I don't want the Council to go, "Gosh, is this something new we're doing?" We and Bozeman on parallel tracks developed, came to the same conclusion. Bozeman's in law right now and Citizens for Better Flathead asked us to review Bozeman and we did, and it was there; so I guess what I want to give you is a level of assurance that this is not out of the ordinary or unusual. It's not anv different than what we've been doing the last 6 or 7 years, it is in writing here though. Councilman Kenyon: Thank you. Mayor Kennedy. Thank you. Anything else on the motion to amend? Councilman Hafferman. Councilman Hafferman: I just got one comment on the different between "may" and "shall" "May" says you can do it; "shall" says you got to do it, and I think it's important that you have a conceptual view of what's coming up. Mayor Kennedy: Thank you, sir. Councilman Hafferman: No details, just a concept, and you don't go into specifics of design in a concept. Mayor Kennedy: Okay. Planning Director Jentz: Mayor, if I could add one more point? That is what this says, because if you don't provide —you have the option of prov� icing a ccncent. If ; ou�'t vrovide the concept, you're reallv brovided—you're going to provide all of it. It's giving you an option to provide the concept; otherwise, you are required to provide all of the specific details. So, the way this is written, you have to provide a p ases, a etas s; ut you may have the option of providing some concepts but you have some safeties clauses here that if you do provide concepts, how they're going to be treated. So, I guess what I'm saying is, if that's Councilman Hafferman's concern, it is written that way right now. Mayor Kennedy: Thank you, sir. Councilman Hafferman: I'd like to see where that —have him show me where that's written. Mayor Kennedy: Mr. Jentz. Planning Director Jentz: Council, if you read #2, it's at the bottom of page 14, it says, "Future phases or major development components may show conceptual street designs, yada, yada, yada, yada", and then if you go onto the next page; if they do it, this Council has to make specific findings: "a) That the Planning Staff, Planning Board, or Council at their discretion may also request additional or more complete information if they don't provide all of it" and you have the going on finding that the outstanding items are significant. There's Roman numerals I, II, III, and IV. Those are all safeguards that if only conceptual information is provided, you pull from one of these four safeguards that allows you to ask for more information or ask for future phases to be submitted as full PUDs or as conditional PUDs. So you have the option of providing everything. Mayor Kennedy: So might I say then, Mr. Jentz that by substituting to "shall" what we're requiring is that they give us only a conceptual when they could be giving us something different. By saying "shall", conception is the only thing that is accepted but —acceptable. Planning Director Jentz: Exactly. Mayor Kennedy: But when you say "may", it gives them the option of giving us the reality or the conceptual plan. Planning Director Jentz: Exactly: Mayor Kennedy: Thank you. Planning Director Jentz: Exactly. Thank you. Councilman Hafferman: I'm now more confused than ever. Councilman Olson: Let's vote on it. Councilman Hafferman: If I submit a plan for Phase I of a six phase development and I only show everything that's required for a PUD in Phase I, where am I required to show how I intend to develop in idea of what the remaining five phases are going to be? Where am I held to that standard without having to go to the Planning Board or the Council as ask —having them request additional information? Mayor Kennedy: Mr. Jentz. Studying that information? Trying to come up with the answer? Planning Director Jentz: Trying to decide how I explain the concept of how this comes together. I'm not going to be able to pull that answer out in the first two or three minutes because it's the flavor of the whole document. Mayor Kennedy: Thank you, sir. Planning Director Jentz: I'm going to tell you that it's in there, that to provide all the information for a PUD. Mayor Kennedy: Thank you, sir. Councilman Olson: I'd like to call for the question. Mayor Kennedy: Okay, the question's been... Councilman Hafferman: Well, I'd like to get it clarified first. Mayor Kennedy: The question's been called for by Councilman Olson and Mr. Jentz had indicated that he wasn't able to garner that information at this time, so we will, at this point, being that the question has been called for take a vote on the motion to amend what will become the new item #4 and item #31, on page 4 of 13 of the report. What is before us is changing the word "may" to "shall." All those in favor, signify by saying —those in favor of changing "may" to "shall", signify by saying "aye." Councilmen Hafferman, Kenyon, and Kluesner: Aye. Mayor Kennedy: All those opposed of changing "may" to "shall" signify by saying "nay." Mayor Kennedy, Councilmen Gabriel, Larson, Olson, and Saverud: Nay. Mayor Kennedy: On a 5 to 3 vote, the motion has failed. Unknown Person: Your Honor. Mayor Kennedy: It was Councilman Kluesner, Councilman Hafferman, and Councilman Kenyon. So we have before you a twice amended Ordinance #1644 on the zoning text amendment revisions to the Planned Unit Development District, first reading. Is there anything further on Ordinance 1644? Roll call, please. Ordinance #1644 zoning text amendment. Councilman Hafferman? Councilman Hafferman: Aye. Mayor Kennedy: Kenyon? Councilman Kenyon: Aye. Mayor Kennedy: Kluesner? Councilman Kluesner: Aye. Mayor Kennedy: Larson? Councilman Larson: Aye. Mayor Kennedy: Olson? Councilman Olson: Aye. Mayor Kennedy: Saverud? Councilman Saverud: Aye. Mayor Kennedy: Gabriel? Councilwoman Gabriel: Aye. Mayor Kennedy: Mayor Kennedy? And aye. I mean a unanimous vote twice amended Ordinance #1644 has passed. Now onto Resolution 5291, Resolution adopting the Kalispell Transportation Capital Improvement Plan. Kalispell Impact Fee Advisory Committee has established a growth -related transportation improvement plan for projects eligible to be included in the calculation of transportation impact fees.