Loading...
Tab 31. March 12, 2013 Planning Board MeetingKALISPELL PLANNING BOARD MEETING March 12, 2013 President Graham: Good Evening, and welcome to this March 12'h meeting of the Kalispell Planning Board and Zoning Commission. Michelle, take the roll call. Michelle Anderson: Rory Young. Rory Young: Here. Michelle Anderson: Phillip Guiffrida. Phillip Guiffrida: Here. Michelle Anderson: Richard Griffin. Richard Griffin: Here. Michelle Anderson: Charles Pesola. Charles Pesola: Here. Michelle Anderson: Ken Hannah. Matt Regier. Matt Regier: Here. Michelle Anderson: Chad Graham. President Graham: Here. Has everybody had a chance to review the minutes? Can I get a motion for approval? Phil? Phillip Guiffrida: Thank you, Mr. President. I move to approve the minutes as published. Charles Pesola: Second. President Graham: Seconded by Mr. Pesola. All in favor say "aye." All: Aye. President Graham: Opposed? Okay. Next part of our meeting is to hear the public. We set aside this portion of the meeting for any public comment from anybody in the audience if they wish to do so at this time. This would be public comment in anything other than the agenda item on tonight's agenda. Seeing none. We'll move onto the public hearing. Tonight, we have one agenda item. It's a request from Gardner Investments, LLC for a planned unit development zoning overlay on two tracts of land on the southeast corner of the intersection of Highway 93 South and Willow Glen Drive. Sean? Sean Conrad: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, before the Planning Board tonight is a PUD request for two pieces of property on Highway 93 South. Just a brief background for the public and the Planning Board, the property that you're looking at is here where my cursor's at, the Highway 93. It's along the west boundary Lower Valley Road, it's along the north. These two properties are part of —were part of a larger annexation done in November 2008 where the property owners, the Gardners, brought in approximately 82 acres of land seen here in black outline, running from Lower Valley Road down here to Snowline Lane. There were several buildings on the 82 acres, but the majority of it was undeveloped at the time. When the City Council approved the annexation request, they zoned the property a B-5, which is an industrial business zoning district but also put a PUD placeholder on the entire 82 acres. And the purpose of that PUD placeholder was to ensure that as development came in, either all of this 82 acres being developed at once or portions of it, that the Planning Board and Council had a chance to look at it for the integrity of the development, make sure, you know, look at access points, and as this area grew out make sure it did in a cohesive manner that reflects the rest of the city. So, as I said, before you tonight is a PUD request for two existing lots located here, outlined in yellow. The area includes about 7.6 acres. The northern lot, where my cursor's at here, would be the site of a future Volkswagen dealership. The southern lot would be possibly another dealership or similar type use. The proposed site layout is on your screen right now. Again, just to orient you, Highway 93 here on the left, Lower Valley Road on the north. VW dealership typical of an auto dealership, you know, building with service bays, office inside. You're going to have the car lot out front. This area along Lower Valley and Highway 93 will be landscaped. You will have a bike trail running along it and Lower Valley Road, and you would expect similar treatment as you went south as this second tract of land developed. You —this would look much like the Toyota dealership which sits immediately north of here. Again, at the intersection of Highway 93 and Willow Glen. The two lot PUD request, again, here in the northwest corner of an area that includes approximately 55 acres. They —the developers gave us just a preliminary sketch of what they intend to do and this just shows another parallel road to Highway 93. They're looking at possibly putting in a regional storm water facility over here. As we looked at this plan we, as a planning staff, didn't have too much concerns with the exact area that —how this would be developed out, at this point. One of the reasons why, because there is a radio station and accompanying radio towers that encumber quite a bit of land on this property; so right now it's rather limited to the scope of development on there, but there's a recommended condition of approval before you that as the area on your screen right now, the area that's kind of shaded in this red. Prior to further development in this area, the property owner/owners would come back and give us a better idea of how this area would be developed out with possibly frontage roads, parallel streets to Highway 93, and any sort of interconnecting streets, storm water facilities, water and sewer lines based on how the rest of this area's going to be developed out. On that note, I would just point out to the Planning Board that after my staff report went out, discussions with the developer's engineer, APEC, they had just a question on —this is recommended condition 5, it's on your screen right now; and they just wanted to clarify it a bit, and I can see why. You know, the language here, "prior to further development on land under this P5 PUD." Well, what we were talking about is the land that is on this figure here. This is Figure 2 in your staff report. This is what condition 5 is referring to, further development on this area of land that's identified here. The developer would have to do a PUD layout plan and address the following, and this is, again, conceptual frontage road design if that is needed, storm water facilities, any other north/south streets, concept design for the future lots. So, just to be clear to you and the developer that it's not tied with further development of the two lots that we're looking at; it's just the larger picture on that 55 acres that's in Figure 2 of your staff report. So, with that Mr. Chairman, the Planning Department is recommending the Kalispell City Planing Board and Zoning Commission adopt the staff report KPUD-13-1 as findings of fact and recommends to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed PUD overlay zoning district be approved subject to the 20 conditions as amended and this would be amending condition 5, which I just talked about, in your staff report. That concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. President Graham: Okay. There's questions to Mr. Conrad? No more? Rory? Rory Young: Sean, could you clarify if you have a somewhat more defined, you say, a compatible use for the adjacent property? Can you define that a little bit better because... Sean Conrad: You know, when I talked with the engineering firm, they were looking at another auto dealership. I asked compatible type uses, you know it could be possibly a car wash, oil change. They were looking at things that might compliment the VW dealership there. You know, if there wereI also put as a condition, you know, if there's going to be maybe a retail business or an office space, those would be appropriate uses in this area. The reason why I wanted to put some side boards on the kinds of uses on this second lot is because the B-5 zoning district allows a wide variety of land uses. You know, anything from your gas stations and truck terminals to bakeries and banks and kind of everything in between. I wanted to put some side boards up to kind of restrict development as far as what you guys are looking at here and whatever the Planning Board is comfortable with. You know, if you would like to get some more information I'd suggest you maybe ask the developer if they had any more —they can embellish on that a bit if you're... Rory Young: Yeah, I guess... Sean Conrad: ... some (unintelligible) Rory Young: ...my question is more whether the city has a definition of what compatible use would be and it's just something that was proposed. Sean Conrad: Yeah, we don't have a definition of what a compatible use would be. President Graham: Any further questions? Phil? Phillip Guiffrida: Thank you, Mr. President. We have quite a lengthy document before us presented by Montana Ventures Partners, LLC as of this evening. It's something I haven't see prior to tonight. Have you guys had an opportunity to look over the document or is this something we want to discuss after they possibly talk during public comment? Tom Jentz: You know, I've read through the document and I'm prepared to talk about it. I would probable encourage discussion after the public testimony to see where that public testimony would take you and what they hope to accomplish by presenting that to you. Phillip Guiffrida: Okay. Thank you. Tom Jentz: Um hum. Yeah. President Graham: Any other questions? I have one real quick. On #8, under the conditions. Under the note it says that the eventual street design from Lower Valley Road, the trees that they may be required to be located on private property. Whose private property would that be and do they know that? Sean Conrad: That would be on say the VW dealership property right here. President Graham: Okay. Sean Conrad: And the reason why the Parks Department wanted that note placed on that condition is because they didn't know the ultimate build out of Lower Valley Road. They didn't know how wide that boulevard might be. Their concern was if the boulevard was too narrow and you had to stick a street tree in a boulevard that is only 3 or 5 feet wide, with the kind of traffic and the snow removal and stuff, they were concerned that if the VW dealership put a tree out there it might not survive. So, based on what the ultimate design of that road might be a tree might go in the boulevard, but if there's really not much of a boulevard to speak of, they wanted to work with the VW dealership to get those trees maybe on the private —on the VW dealership property. President Graham: Okay. Any further questions? Okay. Moving on, I'll open up a public comment on this agenda item. Anybody wishing to give public comments, please step forward and give your name and address. Ken Kalvig: Good evening, Members of the Planning Board. My name is Ken Kalvig. I'm an attorney in Kalispell. I represent Montana Venture Partners. My address is 1830 3ra Avenue East here in Kalispell. Before I begin my comments, I would first like to take some time to thank the city staff for their assistance. Michelle, and Tom, Sean, all of you guys took time to help me in my office this past week. I appreciate that very much. Charley Harball took time to meet with me, and it was helpful in not only learning about this project, and some of Kalispell's policies and regulations but also in preparing for tonight. In response to Tom's earlier comment a minute or two ago about what we hope to accomplish by submitting the packet; the first thing we hope to accomplish is that you'll read it. I know it's thick. I know it's a lot of information. I'm sure you would have liked to have had it a week or two ago, but that the nature of the process that you're in. Tonight's the public hearing and you got this information. There's a lot of information there on a variety of different topics. We've spent considerable time putting that information together because we have an interest in this, and we have concerns about this that we want to talk to you about tonight. Another thing I hope to accomplish with the packet is that you will consider it. Not only do I hope that, that is mandated by Montana law. Unfortunately, I've been on the other side of these things where I've had clients that have had projects held up because the governing body who's making decisions on these things hasn't done that, and so, I would encourage you to take time to consider the information that's been presented. It's a thick book. I will tell you right off the bat that a lot of the information is going to take you about anywhere from 10 to 30 minutes if that's really what you want to do. We've submitted information about past PUD proposals that have come before the City of Kalispell. I don't know if any of you guys were on the Planning Boards before when those projects came forward. Those aren't plans we expect you to study, but we would like you to go through that so you could at least see how these have historically been treated here in the City of Kalispell, and despite changes to your local regulations, I think that your regulations still require a considerable amount of information and detail to go into these things, and so that has been offered more as a comparison and contrast. That won't take you a lot of time to go through. Some of the information that will take you more time to go through, unfortunately, are the thinner documents, and that's where I've taken time to go through the regulations and your growth policy and to offer my thoughts and analysis on some of the statements and words that are in there and how they relate to this project. As I said before, my client is Montana Venture Partners, LLC. They were the developer of the old School Station Project south of Kalispell about 7 or 8 years ago. They are participating in this project for two reasons. One is that they are interested that quality development happen in Kalispell, especially the Highway 93 South corridor area. Your growth policy calls for planned unit developments on larger projects, for larger areas to ensure quality development along Highway 93 South. The second reason that they're participating in this process is they want to know what the plans are for sewer and water service to this site and to the larger Gardner 80+ acre PUD. They want to know how it is going to join with Kalispell's existing infrastructure. I will go through some material tonight so that you better understand why they're interested in that, why they're concerned about that. But Montana Venture Partners does have a vested financial interest in this issue. The PUD process requires an applicant to include its plans for many, many aspects of the development and that information needs to be included with the application for public review and scrutiny including sewer and water. My client was hearing some things on the street in regards to this development and how the sewer and water issues were going to be handled, and it raised concerns. When we turned to the city files to learn more about this, there wasn't much information. There really wasn't any information in there that told us how it was going to be connecting and how it potentially impacted Montana Venture Partners. One of the things that we learned in reviewing the file, is that there has been some discussion between the applicant and the city for a regional waste water lift system, and we followed up on that, talked to Charley Harball about that, went to Tom Jensen about that, and I also had a chance to talk to Mark Leecty from APEC about that, and what we have been told is that there aren't any firm plans at this point, at least not that we know of, but that the concept is out there that there would be a regional lift station that would redirect waste water away from the infrastructure that old school station put into Highway 93. If our understanding of that isn't correct, I welcome the opportunity to get more information on that, but that's what we've been told; and so, when we hear tonight that there isn't an overall concept planned for this development because there's a radio station and radio towers on it, it begs the question in my mind, why is there discussion about —why are they thinking about a regional waste water lift station? They're obviously thinking about servicing a larger area, and what I have been told is that the larger area does include the balance of their property. It also includes property to the east of their property and elsewhere. So, it certainly appears to us that there are some bigger ideas out there, and I think the PUD process is the time when those ideas ought to be out on the table for public review and discussion. Okay. What I'd like to begin with, we've got a fairly short PowerPoint presentation just to go through some background about Montana Venture Partners and the Highway 93 sewer and water extensions that were done a few years ago. And this will help explain better why Montana Venture Partners is very concerned about this development and what happens in all of South Kalispell. First we'll start with an aerial photo. Lisa, why don't you point out where the Toyota dealership is currently located. Okay, it's kind of up there at the top of the page, and then where the Old School Station development went in. Until Old School Station went in, the —(can you get it there? Okay. You're a little bit to the right, kid.) The Old School Station development is to the left of the red area that Lisa marked there. The City of Kalispell limits used to be where the Toyota dealership was until Old School Station went in about 7 or 8 years ago. In order to bring that project into the City of Kalispell, sewer and water lines were extended down to that development. When that was done, the city requested or required that those water and sewer lines and infrastructure be up sized so it could service a larger area than just the Old School Station development. And when they did that, the firm of Morrison and Maierle was hired to do a study on what the needs would be for the Old School Station project as well as for a broader area so that decisions could be made by the developer and the city in order to determine what the size of those lines needed to be. And this is a quote, a couple of quotes from that study that was done by Morrison and Maierle. And the quotes just indicate that the work is being done to accommodate property beyond just Old School Station. (slide) In that report they showed a study area or a service area, and the report indicates that this service area is not necessarily the only service area that would be serviced by those lines, but for purposes to decide how big to make those lines this was the area that they took a look at, and it's approximately 3,000 feet on either side of Highway 93. The Gardner property is just at the north boundary of this service area and the Old School Station development is at the south end of it. (slide) In 2008 the city updated its growth policy and revised its policies regarding development in south —along the Highway 93 south corridor. Not only was the text of that changed, but they also include this map which identified where this area was. And if you look at this map and remember in your mind what the previous slide looked like, these areas are real similar to that service area that Morrison and Maierle took a look at. A quote from that Highway 93 South Corridor Growth Policy Amendment is that "Municipal water and sewer have recently been extended south from Kalispell along Highway 93. Adequate capacity is available to serve all lands within the Highway 93 South Corridor Growth Policy Amendment area." We discovered this brochure that the City of Kalispell has, and you'll —it's a trifold brochure, and you'll notice on the right hand side of this first slide that it's about developer extension or latecomer agreements. And Montana Venture Partners entered into a latecomer agreement with the City of Kalispell after it installed these water and sewer lines. And that agreement is a vehicle by which Montana Venture Partners gets reimbursed for the cost that they had of putting in these larger facilities. (slide) This is the other side of the brochure; real small print here. We've got some language that are highlighted in yellow. Rather than strain your eyes, (why don't you go to the next slide) this is that same language that was highlighted, and we've just included that to indicate again that the city is indicating —they're expressing "There is an agreement with Montana Venture Partners for water and sanitary sewer improvements installed in association with the Old School Station Industrial Park. The general area of this latecomer agreement is the area south of Cemetery Road.", which is where this property is. (next slide) Gardner Investments annexed their property into the City of Kalispell in, I think it was approved in December of 2008, and in the staff report that was written for that project contained this language which also indicates that that particular property is in the area that is intended to be served by the Old School Station water and sewer lines that were up sized in order to serve that area. (slide) When the City Council looked at this issue, Jim Atkinson commented that this area is developing as foreseen when Old School Station went in, and that's an excerpt that we pulled out of the City Council Meeting Minutes. Just across the highway from the Gardner property is, Siderius' and perhaps some other property owners also sought annexation for a much larger area. I don't know the exact acreage, but it may be 200 acres more or less. They annexed that property. They also put a PUD placeholder on that property with a couple of different underlying zones; and an excerpt from that staff report also indicates, again acknowledges, that the up sized infrastructure was intended to serve the area. I may not have really told you anything that you already didn't know. I think this has been fairly obvious, but let me explain why we are —why Montana Venture Partners is concerned about this, and it relates back to what we have been told that there may be a school of thought out there or there is a school of thought out there that with this two -lot PUD and maybe with the balance of the Gardner property that it would be designed and its facilities would be designed in such a way where it would not be utilizing, or there would be an attempt not to utilize the Old School Station infrastructure. I certainly understand people looking at costs and wanting to figure out what's the best and the least expensive way to get my development done, but that is what we have been told. We again go back to the service area that we talked about before and you can see the outline of the Gardner property that's been accessed on the east side of Highway 93, and that's got a PUD placeholder on it. You can also see the outline of the Siderius property on the left side of Highway 93. That has also been annexed and that also has a PUD placeholder on it. We don't know what's going to happen with the Siderius property, and we're not here to cast any dispersions on it, or those folks, or anything like that, but in regards to this regional waste water lift station, if the idea with that is that it would be done to service the balance of the Gardner property and that then would result in latecomer fees not being paid to Montana Venture Partners, you can see that that takes out a lot of property on the east side of Highway 93 that was intended to develop in a manner where Montana Venture Partners would receive reimbursement for the infrastructure costs that it paid out of pocket up front instead of using public dollars so that this area could open up and develop. Given the proximity of where the norther boundary and the northeast boundaries of the Siderius property are, God forbid we should see that same school of thought happen on the west side of the property. `Cause if it takes that out of commission, you've got a substantial area out of that service area that is possibly not using these other lines. Whether it's going to play out that way, I have no idea. This is just our concern. But when you start to look at the balance of the service area there's additional —you kind of really need to see what else is up there to kind of get an idea of the overall picture. The gray, shaded areas indicate where development has already taken place in that service area. That area may redevelop, it may come into the City of Kalispell, who knows, but as of right now it's not open, vacant land that you would think would necessarily be coming in for annexation. And you've got a lot of flood plain area also in here, and so, when you take out the PUD areas, the existing developed area, the flood plain area, and in addition to that in the upper left hand corner of that orange area there's a 40-acre site that's owned by the City of Kalispell, which I understand is used for treatment of Bio solids that come out of the Kalispell Wastewater Treatment Plant. That area probably not going to be developing anytime soon, and so when you look at the balance of the map as to what else could Montana Venture Partners reasonably be anticipating is going to develop anywhere in the near future that would be using its services. If the dominos start to fall, which we hope they don't, but if they do, it doesn't paint a very pretty picture for the developer that fronted the cost of extending that sewer and water. Again, we don't know if it's going to play out that way, but that is why my client is alarmed about what's happening with this little two -lot PUD. PUDs require far more information about a project to be given in advance than a standard zoning request, and I know you guys already know that. As I stated before, the information that we've provided in the book, we offer comments about the Kalispell PUD zoning regulations as they relate to this project, and I've got a lot of concerns about it which I'm not going to go through with you tonight. I wrote my comments in advance so that you guys can take time to read it. A few of the highlights from the zoning regulations; they do call that when there is a PUD that proposed plans by the applicant be given. And there's a pretty lengthy list of proposed plans that have to be provided. Vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic routes and trails, sewage disposal, conceptual storm water drainage, water supply, parks and open space, parking, prominent landscaping, buffering, site perimeter, entrance treatment features, other things which I won't read that aren't really applicable here, commercial directional and entrance signage, street lighting and parking lot lighting where applicable. On many of these things, what the applicant has done is they've just said, "we've got city regulations that deal with that stuff." That's not what the PUD regulations say. They say the applicant is supposed to come forward with its plans for handling these things. If all you have to do is cite to the Kalispell regulations on these things, what's the point of having your PUD regulations point that out? More is required. The PUD zoning regulations also call for a timeline. It calls for a timeline for the completion of the project and also for the order in which this project is going to happen. That's not just talking about the two -lot PUD. That's talking about the entire 80+ acres of this area. That's the way every PUD that's come before, that I'm aware of and that we've given examples of in our materials, has done it. There's always been discussion of multiple phases and when those —what order those phases would happen and estimates for when those phases would be completed. The excuse is being given we're not doing that in this case because we've got a radio station and radio towers, but if that's the case, if all the rest of that's just going to be open space then make it permanent open space. But we know that's not what's going to go on because there's discussion about a regional waste water lift station to serve the balance of the site. We should be talking about that now. We should have information on that now. And I would add that I don't think that the changes that took place with the Kalispell zoning regulations and the establishment of the PUD placeholder, and this was done about 4 or 5 years ago. I don't think that that excuses any of this, any of these things I am saying here tonight. I don't think that sets up a scenario where you can do a PUD on 80 acres and just come in and say we've got a vision for 10% of it, here it is. When we have a vision for the rest we'll come in and we'll talk to you. I don't believe that that is the way this works. I don't think that's the way your regs are written and your legislative history on this indicates that that's not the way it was intended to work. You do have a letter in your packet from Sitescape Associates, Bruce Lutz, who has worked on a number of different PUD projects in Kalispell, and I'm not going to take time to read that `cause I've already been up here long enough and I've talked a lot tonight. Nobody likes listening to lawyers. I understand that. The first thing that Bruce points out is that he's pleased to see this project happen, and he knows that there are good quality people that own the property and that are proposing this. And so, he welcomes good development. He wants this to be a good development, but he is very troubled by what he has seen with this application and by how it is being handled by the city and how this really sets a very different precedent for how things have been done in the past. I represented a lot of developers over the years, and I can tell you that if the city approves this and allows it to go forward as is, there are going to be a lot of developers raising a glass and having a toast. `cause they're going to be pretty happy about it; because it is going to lower the bar for what you have to do with these PUDs, and if you set the precedent that it's very easy to come in and do these things, then just be prepared to do it for every other developer that comes after this, especially the developers that I represent, `cause I'm going to be back up here talking to this board about that, `cause I want the same standards when the other guys come later. I've taken time to look through the staff report. I'm not going to take time tonight to go through that with you guys. I think that if you read it, if you look at the information I've given to you in advance of tonight, I think you'll know my issues with it. Frankly, when you get to the last page or two of it, I think that really summarizes one of the major complaints I and my client have got with this PUD process that's, that's —application that's before you. Sean Conrad, and I think responsibly so, is saying more information ought to be given, and he's trying to bandage this thing up before it gets to City Council or before a building permit is issued by saying, "You guys need to come in and you need to talk about traffic. We want to see a landscaping plan. We want to see information about a trail system. We want to see information about storm water. We want to see information about sewer and water, and you got to do that before you get your building permit." Okay? But if you look at your regulations, and one of the things that this group is charged with doing is making sure that the applicant has complied with its duties. The applicant has to be giving that information up front. That information has to be submitted with the application. Is my client interested in parks, landscaping? Not necessarily so, but we are very interested in sewer and water. And when we turn to look at the plans that would give us more information about that, they weren't there. We've got a right to look at those. You can't require the applicant to bring that information in after the public process has closed, and just let the city staff deal with that on the way to issuing the building permit. That doesn't give my client, it does not give the rest of the public the right to participate in this process. I thank you for your time tonight. I'm sorry that I was longwinded. I hope it was informative, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you folks may have of me. Thank you. President Graham: Thanks, Mr. Kalvig. Is there any other public comments? Okay. Andrew J. Miller: Good evening, gentlemen. My name is Andrew J. Miller. I live at 175 East Many Lakes Drive, Kalispell. (clears throat) Excuse me. I really don't have any dog in the fight tonight, but I do have one thing to tell you. Integrity. I was a partner with Paul when we came before the Council. We came before all the Planning Board and everything else to put together Old School Station. I've been in the commercial development business for 25 years, primarily the last 8 here, but the other in Southern California. We've built more buildings and projects together than all of you 2, 4, 6, 8 people who are up there. And I'm here not to talk about me, I'm talking about what's right. When we decided to buy that property on —which we named Old School Station `cause there was a school there once before, a grade school, and we thought that would add integrity to the projects that we did. We built a first class business park and we wanted to drive business up to Kalispell. Just walk out on the street. One of the things I am just for here in Kalispell is get jobs, get growth, get opportunity. Our young kids are going to college. They come back. Are there places to work? I don't know too many, and I want to see that happen here. We've got a great community, a great place to live, great people who work for the city, great people who put money into this, which we did. I walked away losing a lot of money because I'm no longer a partner; because I said to Paul, "I can't continue. I've gone through everything that I worked 28 years for putting this project together and I have no more funds. I've got to take care of myself and my family. But I am here to say that this is a great project. It should not even be in this situation. It should be up and going. There are companies that want to move here because we got great things, and you know that. We wouldn't all move here or live here and try to develop a better community. And one of the things that I'd like to say is that when I sat down with Jim Hansz, Jim Patrick and we went over this whole project, we up sized everything because we felt that there's going to be growth in the south side, industrial technology growth. The north side is more retail in development up there and residential stuff. Great place that we could put companies to come in here, and look what we can do with a great job force, good —I'm on the board of the college. We're getting good courses to bring young people in here and teach them what to do; and you're young, and you want to see your families stay here and make this community a very prosperous community. That was my dream, my desire, and we just seemed to couldn't get over the last 10 yards of the race. And I said to Paul Wachholtz, who was my partner at that time, I'm no longer a partner of Montana Venture Partners; I said, "Paul, I can't, I can't go any longer. I've spent everything that I have." And I haven't done anything since, but when —I just heard about this. Paul didn't ask me to come here. I came here on my own accord. I came here because I believe in one doing right is what's —its integrity is all it stands for, and that's what America is. And we can get companies here, but they're not going to come here and get into a thing that is 25 years old. They're going to get into something new with technology. We've put all the technology in there. We put all the infrastructure in there, the sewer, the water, all the fiber, everything else, state of the art stuff. And here we are standing up here, and I'm here on my own accord, saying, "Look, I want this to move forward." I want you to understand the value of what we can bring to this community, not to just the pocketbook of Paul. Mine is empty, but to Paul who's left in here. And all I can say to you is justI want you to recognize this as a quality development. It's a quality development that we can make happen with your help, with the city's help, with the county's help. We're in the county. But it's —we're in the county but we're city annexed; and we annexed, which we didn't have to. But I wanted to be —I wanted to annex in here, and I stood up here before other folks, men and women like yourself, and I said, "We need to annex into the city." It cost us a lot of money to do that. We're 4 or 5 miles south of town. But money wasn't an object at that point. The object was to bring jobs and economic growth to the valley, and that has not happened, and I'm sad to say that. But we've got a chance, and I thank you for my time. Thank you for letting me come. As I said, I don't have any dog in the fight except I'd like to see this thing successful. Thank you all. President Graham: Thank you, sir. Paul Wachholtz: Hello, Board Members. My name is Paul Wachholtz. I reside at 183 Fairway Boulevard and my mailing address is P.O. Box 1477, Kalispell. I'm a member of Montana Venture Partners as you've heard and we developed Old School Station Technological and Industrial Park about 7 or 8 years ago. Montana Venture Partners, LLC wants to see development happen in Kalispell as Andy said, quality growth is good for Kalispell and MVP, which has invested interest in what happens south of Kalispell. How much 44:35 is invested in latecomer's fees? $4,000,000 plus a loan secured by Glacier Bank, and they're interested to make sure that our agreement with the City of Kalispell is as good as the paper that it's written on and it means something to everyone. The PUD zoning process has ensured quality development, and I think that's fortunate, and the people involved here in the development this evening are quality people. Old School Station Industrial Park was developed and oversized because of the demands of the City of Kalispell. The infrastructure is very, very well done. We basically had two water wells drilled, one 650 gallons a minute and one 750 gallons a minute, a pump house dedicated to the land for those things, basically put in a pump station for the sewer line by the Ashley —right over the Ashley Creek, and then oversized the development clear up to what is considered Four Corners and/or Cemetery Road, and basically for that infrastructure we had to come up with hard dollars to pay for that. It wasn't about Old School Station though. It was about increasing the demand because they knew, the city knew there was going to be development in the future. In our latecomer's agreement, we're allowed to be reimbursed for the cost of upsizing. And when latecomer fees are paid, the city gets a small percentage of that fee, 6%, and the rest, in this case, is shipped to the Glacier Bank, and the remaining money goes to my loan. Our new, basically south corridor is very, very well done and the principals involved in the development that's going to take place are quality people. But in turn, when the private sector invested money in these extensions and the city said we would be reimbursed for them, that was expected. Mark Owens developed West Reserve. Yes, there were complications in getting his fees but it was settled unfortunately in a lawsuit. Howard Mann invested some 5-1/2+ to take —and he paid for the services from West Reserve up to his development called Silver Brook, and of course he expects to be paid from his services. He wondered whether or not, "why am I going through this problem south of Kalispell?" And I said to him, "basically the conclusion is about this. It's where you hook into the sewer system." No, it's not. It's what land is basically annexed into the city system and that's the important point. Sure, it might be cheaper to go around and not pay latecomer fees, but in turn, that's not what our agreement says nor were we instructed to oversize our development because of that. The PUD projects as developed in the 93 corridor, the developer needs the plan —to show us the plans for the sewer and water. I found out from buying a new car for one of my coworkers, and he mentioned that we were happy to have a Volkswagen dealership south of Kalispell. He noticed that we had been buying Toyotas because of the ease of service for one of our businesses, and basically, I was surprised that they had been working on it for a long time and nobody had ever contacted me in any way, shape, or form nor Glacier Bank who has a security interest in the latecomer's fees. In conclusion, and I think it's very, very simple basically, is it expensive? Let me give you a little idea of this particular project, and I think mentioned it cost from 13,000 to 30,000 Volkswagen/DePratu dealership. A couple other examples, for Fed Ex it was $38,000 which amounted to 15, actually 1400s of 1% cost of the development, and for Fun Beverage, a very, very expensive development because of the water and the number of outlets we have there it ended up to be 32/100ths, and basically the most expensive hookup by far which was $345,000. Why was it so much? Because we have a 4-1/2-inch, I believe, line running in for fire protection. We save approximately $25 to $35,000 a year on the cost for what it costs to have insurance on that particular building. So, I'm not against the Gardners in any way. I'm not against the DePratus in any way, but I am going to fight for the rest of my life for the latecomer's fees, which I think we deserve and we were promised by our contractual agreement with the City of Kalispell. These are good people, it can be a good project, and they're a very, very minute part of the cost of doing business by extending those lines of water and sewer. And does it —does our system serve other property? Yes, it does. If there, let's just say we had a water line break at the Hilton Hotel. Basically, our system serves all of South Kalispell and feeds everything else. They all compliment one another, and they're looped. And that loop doesn't end at one point. If you're in a subdivision you'll know if that —if your water breaks in that store you'll get water fed from the other side. The same thing happens on our —on the processes that we have in, put in from basically Rocky Cliff up to what we call Four Corners or Cemetery Road. I thank you for your time and I wish very, very much that we wouldn't have to be here because it's a minute thing, but basically the loan is a large loan and what we were promised we want to make sure Montana Venture receives. We have no profit involved in any way. We're just getting back our capital investment. Thank you for your time. President Graham: Thank you, Mr. Wachholtz. Kim Larson: Hello. My name is Kim Larson. I'm speaking on behalf of APEC Engineering. My residence is 1234 McMannamy Draw and APEC'S address is 1 or 111 Legend Trail. Tonight, I am only speaking to the two parcel PUD which is before you. And I —we have read through the proposal and the recommendations and report from the Planning Department. Having done that, there are several items that on behalf of the owners that we have a disagreement with. One of them, I guess the first is under the criteria for creation of PUD, and that would be Item F-2-Control Over Vehicle Traffic. And this is a recommendation from the Public Works. What they're saying is basically they know what traffic, you know, there's been studies, what traffic is happening on Highway 93. And we know that MDOT is reviewing this right now as far as the existing access off of 93 and is going to come back with recommendations as to what needs to happen. Our bigger concern is on Lower Valley. As you know, when the entire stretch of 93 was rebuilt not very many years back, they also rebuilt the intersection with Lower Valley. When they rebuilt that intersection, the MDOT continued a road that curves around and straightens out where Lower Valley continues to the East. That roadway is built 34 foot wide. It has concrete curb and butter, both sides, with catch storm drains that one goes into a drainage ditch that's further to the east and another goes into a Swale that's up near the intersection. What we were seeing under this in the report was a recommendation from Public Works that as part of this two parcel PUD, that we need to take a look at the entire PUD, overall PUD that would include an additional 55 acres and come up with a study that that says how many additional trips we're going to have on this road. Our contention is that right now we are not looking at the overall PUD. We're looking at these two parcels, and we're excited about it because we're continuing development to the south. You know, it is going to be a Volkswagen dealership and the Parcel 2 we're not —Tract 2, we're not sure exactly what's going to happen at this point. So, at any rate, the —our concern is if we take a look at this as far as the exact street design improvements, we had come to expect that we would need to continue the curb and gutter along the south edge of Lower Valley Road to the end of the property which is like another 150 feet or 100 feet, or something in that nature. And we understand that we're going to need to include bike paths and work with the city as far as landscaping and all that. Our concern is, in talking to the City Engineer, he had brought up the fact that he believes this study would say, this is going to be a collect road by city standards. Now the city has jurisdiction because this has been annexed at this point over the south side of the road. And the city standards say a collect road needs to be 34 feet wide rather than 30 feet wide and have curb and gutter. And our contention is: Wait a minute. This road has just been built, and I have some photos here if anybody wants to take a look, the Lower Valley Road switches to 24 feet immediately after this 30 foot section. Part of the question is, we're saying, you know, are we going to be required to widen that whole stretch of road that was just built, and I can give you these photos. Here we go as well. Take a look at those and you can see that right now the existing curb and gutter, if you continue it goes right into the barrel pit of the Lower Valley Road. So, you know, already it's 30 feet. It's a good road and we don't see why that should have to change at this point. So, that is our argument on that recommendation by Public Works. Then under Conditions of Approval, Condition #2 mentioned that it is —they have restrictions that it is going to be either a auto dealership for Tract 2, or it would be a office —professional office building, or a use that would relate to the auto dealership to the north. And of all —we believe that that's the owner's intent. At this point, we don't know what's going to go there and it is zoned, at this point, B-5, so we're questioning that restriction. We were initially looking at Condition #5. I believe that's been addressed by Sean previously. Item #10. That one is probably the biggest item, and again that is the traffic study that they say needs to be completed so that they can look at that Lower Valley Road and say, is this going to need to be rebuilt or what's going to happen along that road. At this point we're saying we are looking at two units, looking at a Volkswagen and the development to the south. And at this point, it seems excessive to do that traffic study and change that entire route for what's probably a minimal amount of additional use on the Lower Valley at this point. Number 14 is another item. That has mentioned that there needs to be a study made upon development of Tract 2 that show that we need to or prove that, you know one way or the other, something that would show that there a new regional lift station is needed. And at this point, the owners are only looking at the two units to develop. Again, there's radio towers on the other units. There's, you know, some other issues that they are hashing over that I'm not going to cover right now, but the reality is that Tract 2 can be served by utilities. It can gravity feed out the front to an existing sewer and we can get water to it as well, so that can be served off utilities from the front off 93 without having to worry about and regional lift station. So, in a sense, it's something that we're saying, well, why should we do that study for Tract 2 if we don't need to at this point and they don't know in the future if they're ever going to do the lift station. At any rate, that's what I had to say on those items and the items of contention that we had as far as the report from the staff. Thank you. President Graham: Thank you, sir. Mark Liechti: Good evening. My name is Mark Liechti. I'm the owner of APEC Engineering. I reside at 210 Capara Courtin Lakeside. My office is in Kalispell. I'm hereto just maybe give you a limited address towards the concerns that were brought up at the beginning of the meeting. Obviously, we haven't seen the submittal that was just given to you tonight. We'd like to read through it, too. I guess I would like to reiterate again that at this point we have a two lot PUD in front of you. What's happening in the future we don't know at this point. I can tell you with some of the issues that are going on or being discussed there may be very little happening beyond the two parcels that are currently for review in front of you. I'm certainly here to answer any questions if you have any, and I would, I guess, request maybe that the planning staff address some of the concerns that were raised from Mr. Kalvig, if there's anything that could be explained maybe for the rest of the public and for you, too. Thank you. President Graham: Thank you, Mr. Liechti. Any further public comment? Jeff Brown: My name is Jeff Brown. I am partners with Bob and Mark DePratu in the Glacier Volkswagen venture. My address is 230 Hart Hill Drive here in Kalispell. I just want to sell cars. You know, I want to build a building and sell cars, and you know, it's kind of the simple way of looking at it, but at some point, you know, what we have to do is we have to look at what's in it for us, what's in it for Kalispell. What's in it for us is obviously it needs to be a business. It can make a reasonable profit. I think we can bring a lot to the City of Kalispell. We did it when we built the Toyota store back in 2004. That was a bare lot until we got a hold of it and turned it into what it is today, and I think it's a very, very good example of what we can do with an auto dealership on the south side of town, and we'd like to try and duplicate that with the Volkswagen store. The things we have to look at is: Can we do it in a timely manner and could we do it affordably? And I think that's part of what we're talking about tonight is, you know. How much time does it take and how much money is it going to take, because at some point, with the economy the way it is, we may have to decide this isn't worth it. So, that's our motivation is to try and make this as quick and simple as we can. Our motive is to build a nice 11,000 sq. ft. building. It'll have capacity to have at least 8 technicians. It'll have a detail department. It'll have a wash bay. It'll have at least 4-6 sales people. It'll have office people. I think it's a great opportunity for not only Kalispell but the south side of Kalispell. That's all I had. Thanks. President Graham: Thank you, Mr. Brown. Any further public comment? Howard Mann: Howard Mann, 3154 Parkwood Lane, and I'd just like to say that I am very concerned because I also have a latecomer's agreement and was asked to oversize the infrastructure to the north at a huge expense. And I can't imagine that the city would allow a development to circumvent the very reason we were asked to put in the oversized infrastructure in the first place. 1, too, have a reimbursement area and when you take a portion of that area out, the chances for us recouping our up -front costs that the city asked us to do are in jeopardy. That's all I want to say. Thank you. President Graham: Thank you, Mr. Mann. Todd Gardner: Hello. I'm Todd Gardner at 3065 Airport Road, owner of most of this property. I'd like to address a couple things. One, that talking about the PUD and doing it in phases. When we talked about annexing our property into the city, you know it's a large piece, we explained what we wanted to do but we didn't know what was coming; and thankfully, at that time we didn't just develop the whole thing and go broke, which we would have, and you still could if you developed. There's a lot of subdivisions that that has happened. We are trying to develop it in a quality manner as there are demand for the lots. We've talked with the city about it. We've talked with Tom and Sean about it; and our agreement and plan was that, and even Tom said, you don't know what size lots are going to be needed. You don't know if you're going to hit a bunch of 1-acre people coming in or say Triple W talk to us about if they develop their piece, they'd like to move back to the back of this, beside our auction building, and then take 10 acres. So, we would like to leave it open and that's the way we —that's the reason we've planned it this way. Um, you know, and the thought that it was easier to do, you see our list of restrictions, it's the same. We're just talking about these two corner lots, is what we're talking about right now. There's been a lot of talk about the latecomer fees and insinuations that we're trying to go around them. If you've talked to Charley at all, if you've talked to Tom at all, you know that was not our intention. We own Gardner Auction Service, we —back over here we own Rock City, and we own Janitor's World. We brought the city water and sewer off these lines. We paid over $100,000 in latecomer fees to Montana Ventures. We used them where they all worked. We already had water and sewer to this corner, and we're working that out. I'm sorry you had to listen to all that tonight, but we do not like the insinuation that we're trying to go around or circumvent somebody. It's 40 some thousand dollars, about $40,000 in latecomer fees for the DePratu building and we are talking about that, open conversations. Right now, our only plan for those two lots and we don't have anybody for the second lot. We have the DePratus for the first lot and we're trying to address that and get a good quality development going, getting some things done on the south end of Kalispell. But thank you for your time. President Graham: Thank you, Mr. Gardner. Davar Gardner: I'm Davar Gardner at 3095 Airport Road. I really had no intentions to getting up here. When my integrity is challenged in the way it was tonight, and you folks had to listen to the things that have no bearing on what we are talking about here tonight, I apologize, though it is for what's going on. I've had the highest regards for Paul and Andy over the years. I have done everything possible to help them market the Old School Station from the beginning to the end. If you wonder who kept it all trimmed up and worked on and spent hours and hours out there on that tractor and that, it was me. And I'm still getting waiting to get paid for some of that. I've been fairly patient with them and I've tried my darnedest to make that thing work. The thing that bothers me is, if there's only about 30 people that is needed to hook up at the rate that things are going; about 30 hookups and that system will be paid for. And now, if we take and hook our system up to it, which we should not have to, because it will not service. They've got sewer running down one side, water running down the other. We had to drill underneath the road and everything to go to our three hookups over there at our expense. They didn't say, "Here's the sewer, here's the late fees." It's you bring it to me. It's a lift station. If we go down through there, we will have to put the lift station in in order to hook up to their system; where if we put the lift system in where we was talking about, we don't even have to bother their system and that —the thing of it is, we pay for it, then they can hook theirs up for nothing but cost because it's hooking up to the city if our program pays for their cost of putting it out there, then anybody after that, once it's paid for, everybody else hooks up for just cost of hooking up to the city. I don't think that's fair. And we never, ever intended to go around do anything except try to make it work and build a quality system there that would work to serve the eastern part over there. And... Sorry you had to listen to all of this, but our problem is, is our two lot a good deal or not. It's not. Paul and our problems, it's, it's what the thing is. Not the problems that we have with them `cause that can —will be worked out later. Thank you very much. President Graham: Thank you, Mr. Gardner. Any further public comment? Okay. I'm going to close that portion of the meeting. Then we'll go on to Board discussion. There a motion? Phil? Phillip Guiffrida: Thank you, Mr. President. Due to the fact that if we want to have discussion we have to have a motion, so I'm going to make a motion so we can have a discussion on this and ask questions of staff. I move the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt KPUD-13-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council the PUD overlay zoning district be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report in addition to the change that Mr. Conrad added. President Graham: Second? Rory Young: Second. President Graham: Seconded by Rory. Okay. Discussion. Phil. Phillip Guiffrida: Thank you, Mr. President. I do realize this is out of order, so if the Board would allow me, I have some questions of staff now, due to the comments that have come before us. guess the first question, let me preface it by saying that a lot this stuff is based on hypotheticals and conclusions, and because of that I wonder if it falls under the scope of the Planning Board. A lot of stuff we're talking about comes with final engineering and the building permit process itself. So, my first question to staff would be, you know, when dealing with a PUD and approving a PUD of this nature, how often —how many times do we have final engineering? Because it sounds to me some of the concerns are based off stuff that we would see during final engineering prior to approving the PUD. Tom Jentz: You know, you're right. When a PUD is submitted we ask for preliminary plans and our goal there is to determine can a property be served? Our goal isn't to determine the final engineering. We have a Public Works Department and we have engineers who do that when they have their approvals in hand 1:13:10 it's worthy of expending the money necessary to do design work for the sewer system, to do the final design work; otherwise it's speculative money. We try to limit how much speculative money goes out. A precious lot goes out in projects anyway. So we look at preliminary designs. We don't look at the final design. We want to know, you want to know, the Council wants to know it can be served and there are potential plans to do it. The most appropriate and proper design come at final engineering. Phillip Guiffrida: Thank you. President Graham: Phil? Phillip Guiffrida: If you'll allow me to follow up. As you know, we were handed this document prior to the meeting tonight, and I have some issues making a decision tonight with having this document in front of me. So a question I would like to ask staff is: Did you have this prior to tonight, and if so, so you have anything you can speak to or is this something you need to review as well? Tom Jentz: I looked through it, read it, and realized that the team here probably wrote half of it, because it's a lot of old reports and minutes of meetings and things. I am prepared to go over through the 15 sections really quickly for you to highlight what you're looking at and give you some comment if you'd like. You do need to look at it. You need to consider that it was presented to the Board tonight, so we can't just gloss over it and say, "you know, it's a little late coming in. Tough luck." We do need to consider what's going on here. So I'm prepared to do that, and if you'd like to, at that point realize "boy, we bought off —bit off a pretty big piece", it would be your pleasure what you'd like to do or if you're comfortable with what's in here, move forward. So really looking for your direction on what we want to do. I think it will take —I did it, having been the authors on this. Some it's a lot faster for us to go through, but it was about 45 minutes for me to read it and comprehend in between dinner. President Graham: Phil? Phillip Guiffrida: Mr. President. Thank you, again. I'm going to change this, and once again, I appreciate the Board allowing me to ask questions during the segment that we don't usually ask questions, but I'm going to move this more to a discussion point just to get your guys' feeling on this. I can't, in good conscience, move forward not reading through this documentation because it was presented as public comment, and we have, you know, it's our responsibility to read through everything that's presented to us. You as well as I know that we had a workshop on this a month ago. There's plenty of time given for public comment, and there's plenty of notice given to the public, so I am a bit discouraged to see this here tonight. I would definitely have preferred to see this prior to the workshop so we'd have had some time to look over it, but with that said, I feel we do need to look over it. I want to know where you guys stand on that. I would definitely entertain a motion to table but also allow APEC Engineering who also stated they would like to read it and the Planning Board Staff an ability to create a memorandum for us to kind of highlight some of the points that they've seen as well at a later time. But once again, it's the whole Board's decision and it's entirely up to you. I can't stand tabling things normally, because I don't like holding up the process, but this does a great job doing this tonight which may have been the intention. So... That's my discussion. President Graham: Rick. Richard Griffin: Yeah. I have (intelligible) I agree. My concern is reading through this material, how much pertains to the PUD and how much pertains to the latecomers, which will fall into the PUD at some point because it then becomes part of the sewer and as part of the PUD, so I'm at a standpoint of this being a document that 100% dedicated to the PUD, I don't —but the second part of it is, I haven't had a chance to read through to know which part is and which part isn't. And I also don't appreciate being handed something the night of the meeting and then have... I'm not blaming staff for that, I'm just saying I'd have made a motion, out because it was too late but that's... (Laughter) President Graham: Rory. Rory Young: Chad, I welcome Phil's request to discuss tabling the issues so we can review what's in the file. I think it'd be worth for us to discuss, and maybe this is my decision, but it seems to me that we potentially may be delaying a PUD that is in front of us on the legal technicality, and sorry, Mr. Kalvig, it may not be a technicality, maybe it's a legal misunderstanding, and maybe we can ask Tom if he has discussed with Charley what the legal implications are of that —the map that shows that this is included in the original latecomer's agreement and whether we could consider the PUD and the legal team to fight over whether the sewer and that is a valid point. Tom Jentz: If I could just address a couple of those points, try to bring it concisely back together for you. There are two pieces of original information here and Kalvig's letter at the top where he says that Montana Ventures spent $4,000,000, that's a fact, to bring the system in. The second part of it questions —if you read the second letter it —he feels that the PUD itself is flawed in our review and in our presentation, so he's not just arguing that. He's arguing that the application we have in front of you and how the staff handled it is flawed. Now, I disagree! It's not the first time I disagreed with Ken. Heaven forbid. But, we do have all sizes and shapes of PUDs. Mr. Kalvig was last involved in on that was 460 or 480 acres and a $700,000 shopping center. We have done PUDs, as you remember, up at the hospital which was three pages long and dealt with setbacks and possibly a height issue. PUDs come in all shapes and sizes. This particular PUD is not a subdivision. Most of the PUDs we deal with have a subdivision component. The hospitals wasn't a P—a subdivision aspect. It was really helping the hospital to get past some setback issues by mitigation. When we went up north of town and most of the PUDs we were looking at, we were looking at 200, 400 acres of virgin land being opened up for development for the first time. We're dealing with scale and that's probably the perception issue that we're all struggling with as we hear this information flowing around. This PUD exists as two existing lots that has a water main and a sewer main out in front that is zoned commercial, and for all practical purposes meets almost all the standards of the B-5 zone. And when we talked about what would the design look like we said, "We love the Toyota dealership. Most people in town love the Toyota dealership. Mimic it." That's the kind of standard we're looking for, so this is not an in depth, focused PUD at the same scale as we have with some of the other PUDs. It's scale. It's this, for all practical purposes, these lots are almost developed. They're not developed to an urban scale, but they have utilities and services there, so how much more do we ask of them? We asked for design issues. So, this is not a subdivision. This is a zoning PUD, and we're dealing with zoning aspects. So, when we talk about general standards in place, we are almost at the building permit level, because that's where these lots are. We're not creating new lots. Now, you are asked in the PUD process to review municipal —or let's see, an overall plan for sewer and for water. We are looking at a two lot subdivi—a two lot PUD right, not the 80 acres. The two lot PUD in front of you has water out in front. Now, we assume it can be fully developed using those lines out in front. If the applicant proposes something different, if the developer proposes something different that'll be worked out through the agreement that's in place, through the Public Works who reviews those standards, but really, your bailiwick here tonight is to say, "can the lots be developed?" Yeah. I'm questioning —and when I talked —your question — when we talked to Mr. Harball, the question was, "yes, do you need to consider this information but your role in this process is not necessarily the arbitrator of an agreement. Your role is to be sure that sewer, and water, and streets can be provided, that storm water can be provided, that there's a landscaping plan that's suitable, that the design aspects are suitable. We're talking about the overall concept. We are not asking you to be —except for, except for Rory, none of you on this board are engineers, so it's very difficult for you to do that work. We're not asking that of any of our Board Members. There is a time for this to be discussed. Definitely. We don't see that happening at the Planning Board level. Now the Planning Board may —you can place a condition that you don't want redundant sewer lines out there. And with talking with Charley, that's the condition. What does that mean? So really, how far do you want to get into the sewer aspect of this? If this was a PUD and sewer wasn't out there and it was virgin acreage, I think we would be concerned about how it's going to work. There are many ways to provide sewer here. A regional lift station may be the answer. I think the question is: Where does the regional lift station pump to? That is an engineering question. You need to know that there's a facility to handle and take it. It becomes a legal issue on where it goes and who gets it. Do you understand kind of where I'm going? So, I am prepared to go throughoh, the second piece of information here is Bruce Lutz. He wrote a letter as a landscape architect thinking that our —and that's in the middle here. That's new information that you haven't seen before, and that discusses what he feels is a lack of pertinent landscaping information to show what could happen out there. Those are two new letters. Everything else in here I'm prepared to got through a piece at a time if you'd like tonight. Really is, is the staff reports that we've done over the past five years. You'll see PUDs in here that we've done to show the scale that we've done for some projects which compares. This project is this versus the PUD projects that that are like that. I'm prepared to go over each one of those if you'd like. The other thing I'll offer is that if you do continue it, maybe two weeks. We normally have a work session the end of this month. So, I'm just tossing options out, but I just kind of want to put into perspective what we're dealing with here. There are different scales of PUD out there. Not all of them are on virgin ground, and this is a fully subdivided, already existing lots. It has a different scale of the expectations of what comes in. I know I talked a lot. Rory Young: My answer was in the middle there somewhere. Thanks. (Laughter) Tom Jentz: Had things to say. President Graham: Any other questions or discussion? Charles Pesola: Um. President Graham: Charles. Charles Pesola: Thank you. I'd also like to reiterate that 1:25:19 had this prior to tonight and I'm convinced that the whole intent of this is to question the integrity of the Staff Planning Report but rather —sorry, --but rather than in the fight over the reimbursement which I'm also not sure is our jurisdiction. That being said, I agree with Mr. Guiffrida and Grif that we probably should be tabling this and look at it more in depth, probably at a work session. President Graham: Phil. Phillip Guiffrida: Thank you, Mr. President. There's no discussion on the table, which is why I thought it important that we made the motion and actually have some discussion prior to it. But seeing I'm getting a feeling from everybody that a table may be in our option, I'm going to go ahead and move that we table this for two weeks; so to have another Planning Board Meeting in two weeks to discuss this. That'll give us a time to go through this information, hopefully get a memorandum from staff in regards to this information as well. So, that's my motion. Richard Griffin: All right. No discussion, President Graham: Is there a second? Charles Pesola: Second. President Graham: Second from Mr. Pesola. Hum? Tom Jentz: Nothing special. President Graham: Right. No. Michelle? Michelle Anderson: Rory Young. Rory Young: Aye. Michelle Anderson: Matt Regier. Matt Regier: Aye. Michelle Anderson: Phillip Guiffrida. Phillip Guiffrida: Aye. Michelle Anderson: Richard Griffin. Richard Griffin: Aye Michelle Anderson: Charles Pesola. Charles Pesola: Aye. Michelle Anderson: Chad Graham. President Graham: Aye. Okay. That closes our public hearing for this evening. Is there any old business? Tom Jentz: I don't know if it's appropriate or not to ask if there's any research we should be doing between now and two weeks? That's what I was why I was trying to get your attention before you voted on it. President Graham: Oh. Tom Jentz: If there's specific questions you want us to address to help you make a better decision. President Graham: Grif. Tom Jentz: Not to debate the issue, but are there questions we should —additional research so you can make a decision? Richard Griffin: Mr. President, I will read through this word for word, but I'm not going to guarantee I'll understand any percent of it. So, I would appreciate some clarification of where our authority is —stops and where the authority of the Building Department and others take up as far as the whole agreement that's been into place and to what extent do the land owners have an option to look at alternative uses or alternatives under the city ordinances, alternative application of the water handling. Just a clean document, one page maybe two, that helps guide. That's for me personally. Phillip Guiffrida: So, I would like to echo what Mr. Griffin said and then also if you guys could take a look at Section F under Public Services — water and sewer. As you read through the first paragraph, towards the end there, just some clarification on that, because that's kind of where it drags into our jurisdiction a little bit, whether should even be there if it's not within our scope. I'd appreciate, you know, your feeling on that, but once again it's —we need to know what's within the scope of the Planning Board; because, you know, from time to time we get into fiscal issues that are outside of our scope, from time to time legal issues that are outside of our scope; so, you know, we need to be careful, too. But more importantly, I need time to read this. It's just —it's the public has presented it, it's our duty to read it, so we need to read it. President Graham: Okay. Any new business? Unknown Male: No new... Tom Jentz: I'm not sure we have any. Do we want to talk about anything? No? We had a section on policy update. Prepared to really say anything? Sean Conrad: It's just that we're still drafting up sections of the growth policy based on public comment we received back last year when Tom and I went out to 40 something groups, and we plan on going back to those groups, and then probably having more sessions in the upcoming months to update you guys and just start showing you those draft sections and getting your feedback. President Graham: Okay. Ready to do it. What'd we get? Rory Young: That meeting in two weeks, is that a full Planning Board Meeting or is it... President Graham: It's a continuation of the hearing. Tom Jentz: Well, yeah, continuation of the —the hearing's been held, continuation of Board action. You could act that night. President Graham: Okay, so it's not a work session then, it's... Tom Jentz: Not a work session. That's the way it was presented. President Graham: Okay. Okay, everybody's ready to adjourn? Richard Griffin: What's the date of that? President Graham: What's the date? Tom Jentz: I believe it's the 26th. The 26th. March 26th. Richard Griffin: Okay. President Graham: Okay. We're adjourned. Thank you.