Loading...
Planning Board Minutes - October 9, 2007KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONZNG COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 9, 2007 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning ire g Board and CALL Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were: Bryan Schutt, Robyn Balcom, Rick Hull, John Hinchey, Jim Williamson and C.M. (Butch) Clark. Kari Gabriel was absent. P.J. Sorensen., Nicole Johnson. and Torn Jentz represented the Kalispell Planning Department. There were approximately 25 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF NOWTES Balcom moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to approve the minutes of September 11, 2007. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roil cau vote. THE PUBLIC No one wished to speak. MEADOVILARK A request by Danielle Heil and Joni Eystad for a conditional MONTESSORI use perrrdt to operate a. private preschool called the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Meadowlark Montessori within an R-4, Two -Family Residential zoning district. The school recently changed ownership and expanded in size serving approximately 12 to 18 students per day. The Montessori school is considered a day care center which requires a conditional use permit to operate within the zoning district. The property is located on the southeast corner of 9th Street East and 2nd Avenue East and the address is 204 9th Street East. STAFF REPORT KCU-07-06 Nicole Johnson representing the Kalispell Planning office presented staff report KCTJ-07- 06 to the Board. Johnson said this is a request to locate a preschool in an R-4 zoning district. The property is located on the southeast corner of 9th Street East and 2nd Avenue East and is surrounded by a variety of multi -family and single" -family residential units. Johnson continued explaining the reason for the conditional use permit (CUP) is the R-4 zoning district allows a maximum of 12 school children and once that number is exceeded a CUP is required to operate the preschool. There are approximately 18 school children attending morning and/or afternoon programs. The school operates from. approximately 8 am to 3: 30 p.m. and there is an after school program that runs until 5:0o p.m. Johnson reviewed the site reap of the property. She noted since the school has 2 employees they will be required to provide 2 off-street parking spaces to accommodate them.. Johnson conducted a site visit during the school's hours of operation and noted that there were approximately 2-5 cars at any iven time durin the dro off and pick_up hours and Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the rneetinv� of October 9, 2007 Page I of 19 the length of time the vehicles were parked at the school was approximately 10 minutes. She stated staff didn't feel 6 additional children would impact the general character of the neighborhood or the traffic situation, especially with the addition of the 2 off-street parking spaces. Johnson noted comments were received from. 3 neighbors and their concerns included increased traffic in the neighborhood, parking issues and safety of the children in the drop off areas, use of the unpaved alley, and the impact on the character of the neighborhood. Staff, is recommending the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KCU-07-06 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell. City Council, that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the 4 conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION dark noted the letters address the neighbors' concerns regarding the use of the alley and he asked why the parents would use the alley. Johnson said during her site visit she did not observe any use of the alley and there appears to be no reason for the employees of the preschool or parents to use it. The front door is located on 9th street Bast and most of the parents were parking on 9th street. Schutt asked where the proposed off-street parking spaces will be located. Johnson noted that there is not a specific plan for the location and she reviewed the possibilities for the board. she added the condition states that the spaces have to comply with the city design standards and zoning regulations. Schutt asked if backing out into the street would be allowed and Jentz said the school would be viewed as a residential use and they would be allowed to back out into the street. Hull questioned the condition that would require the juniper trees in the R/w be replaced by the property owner. Johnson said the applicant is coming in for a CUP and the trees are out of compliance. The trees are not on the list of allowed species in the R/ W and may be a sight distance issue. This would be a good opportunity to bring the property into compliance. Hinchey asked if this was a request to increase the enrollment to 18 students and if IS would be the maximum allowed. Johnson said 18 students was an average of their current enrollment. There was discussion on the number of students that should be allowed and Jentz suggested this could be dctern�ined by the board after the public heang is held and if the board decides to recommend approval of the CUP. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the t-neeting of October 9, 2007 Page 2 of 19 Clark also expressed his concern that the property owner would be required to remove the juniper trees from the city's R/W. APPLICANT/TECHNICAL Danielle Heil' introduced herself as one of the teachers of STAFF Meadowlark Montessori and added that her partner Joni Eystad and the previous owner Kara Basko were also in attendance and available for questions. Williamson asked if they are licensed by the state as a day care and Heil said no they are a private school. Williamson asked if the hours of 3:30 - 5:00 are an extension of the school and Heil said that is not school time but the children can stay until 5:00 if necessary when their parents can pick them up. Schutt asked where staff parking is currently located and Heil said. 2nd Avenue East. Schutt asked where the staff off- street parking will be located and Heil responded they would either renovate the garage area or could possibly rent spaces front the apartment complex. Williamson said he noticed 4 cars parked neat to the garage on the weekend and asked who would be parking in that area. Heil said it was probably residents of the apartment complex which is behind the school. Balcom asked if anyone was living at the school and Heil said no, however the previous owner had a tenant on the property. Hinchey asked Heil to address the current number of students. Heil noted they provided staff with an average number of their daily attendance. They currently have a half - day and full -day schedule so the number drops by half after the 1:00 pm pickup. Hinchey asked if the CUP was approved would they be able to operate with up to 18 students and Heil said she would like to negotiate that number. 'Their current total enrollment is 25 students but not all 25 are there at any given time. Clark asked if 25 students would make it economically viable for them and Heil said yes and she added they would life to stay at a lour class size. Williamson asked if they are regulated by the state as to a ratio of teachers/ students enrolled and Heil said they are a private school and are not regulated by the state but they want to keep it at 12 students per teacher/per day. However, she noted their facility can accommodate up to 36 students. W lli.arnson asked if there is a r equirernent as to the size of the outdoor play area per student. Kara Basko, the previous owner said although she doesn't know the exact numbers for the play area there is more than enoulzh outdoor space to Kalispell City Planning Board ?�l intsof theneeti€g t3fOctober ? Page 3 of 1.9 support the 36 students that would be allowed by their indoor square footage. Williamson said then with 2 teachers the student limit would be 24 at any one time and B asko said that was correct. PUBLIC HEARING No one unshed to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Balcom moved and Clark seconded a motion to adopt staff report KCU-07-06 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. MOTION - AMEND Hull moved and Clark seconded a motion to amend CONDITION # 1 Condition # 1 to read: "The proposal will be developed in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and hours of operation and the number of preschool children enrolled at the school will be limited to a maximum of 24 students at any one tune." BOARD DISCUSSION Schutt asked staff if 24 students would be unreasonably restrictive. Jentz said he felt 24 students was reasonable because if more students were allowed it would increase the impact on the neighborhood. ROLL CALL - AMEND The motion to amend Condition # 1 passed on a roll call vote CONDITION # 1 of 4 in favor and 2 opposed. MOTION -- DELETE Clark moved and Hull seconded a motion to delete Condition CONDITON #3 #3 that relates to the replacement of the juniper trees. BOARD DISCUSSION Clark noted that he is a great proponent of private enterprise, especially small private enterprise and he thinks Condition #3 is onerous. Balcom asked if the problem was with the juniper trees. Johnson noted the issue could be site distance and Jentz added juniper trees are not an approved species for the boulevard because it is a bush and not a street tree. Balcom disagreed with the motion because whenever there is an opportunity to bring a property into compliance the city should pursue it. Balcom added she doesn't consider this requirement a burden on the property owners. ROLL CALL - DELETE The motion to delete Condition #3 passed on a roll call vote CONDITION #3 of 4 in favor and 2 opposed. ROLL CALL - ORIGINAL The original motion, as amended passed on a roll call vote of MOTION .5 in favor and 1 opposed. ZONE CHANGE REQUEST A request by Bridgeland Development LLP for a zone change BY BRIDGELAND from City R--4, Two Family Residential to City R--3, Single DEVELOPMENT AND A Family Residential and reliminary plat approval for a 19 lot Kai ispell City Planning Board Minutes of the :neetin g of October 9, 2007 Rage 4 of 19 PRELIMINARY PLAT subdivision on 5.83 acres. The property is Phase 4 of the REQUEST FOR Northland Subdivision and consists of a 170 foot by 1,525 NORTHLAND SUBDIVISION foot strip of land located south of Four Mile Drive and north PRASE 4 of Northland Subdivision phases 1 -3. The Meadows, North Haven Heights, and Sumxnit Ridge Subdivisions make up the eastern boundary of the project. As part of the subdivision, a roadway connecting Summit Ridge Drive north to Four Mile Drivewould be constructed. A small park is also planned on the north end of the project site adjacent to Four Mile Drive that is 9,147 square feet in size. Board member Williamson recused himself from participating in the discussions of the Northland Phase 4 project due to conflict of interest. Wi hamson stepped doves.. STAFF REPORTS Nicole Johnson representing the Kalispell Planning K=-07-01 & KPP-07-11 Department presented staff reports K C--07-01 & KPP-07-11 for the Board. Johnson stated this is a zone change request and preliminary plat for a 19 lot subdivision. on 5.8 acres. The zone _ change request is from city R-4 to city R.--3. The property is located south of Four Mile Drive and north of Northland Subdivision Phases 1-3 and access is off of Highway 93 to Four Mile Drive on the north and Northland Drive from the south. Kid Sports and The Meadows, which was recently approved by city council is northeast of the project. Johnson noted that this property was previously part of the Waterford./Tou.chmark development and was intended to be part of a senior housing complex. After a certain amount of time when the development was not started, the property's zoning reverted back to the R-4 without the PUD designation. This property is designated on the Kalispell Growth Policy Map as an urban residential area and is surrounded primarily by single family developments. Staff feels that the change to R-3 is more consistent with the neighboring subdivisions and other development to the south and east of the project area. There are 19 lots and a significant amount of transportation improvements proposed. Northland Drive will be extended north to Four Mile Drive. Also Summit Ridge Drivewhich runs east and merest will be connected to Northland Drive. The small park area on the north end of the proposed subdivision was deemed unacceptable by the Pans Department because it was too small and immediately adjacent to the Kids Sport complex. Therefore the Parks Department has agreed to accept cash. -in -lieu of parks. This area is also intended to be primarily used as a stormwater management area for lots 12 -- 19. Lots 1 - I I will be connected to the existing stormwater management area in Northland Phase 1-3. Kalispell City Planning Board N iinutes of the meeting of October 9, 2007 Page 5 of 19 Johnson stated staff feels the project fits into the neighborhood and will not add significant impacts to the neighboring area. Johnson added comments were received and their concerns were related to traffic in general, the increase of traffic on Summit Ridge Drive; speed on Northland Drive, and stormwater concerns; water flows from Summit Ridge Drive and pools in the area where Summit Ridge Drive and Northland Drive will connect. Johnson noted that staff is recommending the following amendments to Condition # 6 that will address the comments received. Note: The flow and pooling of water at the west end of Summit Ridge Drive shall be considered in the design and construction of the road infrastructure and storm water management systems. Note: Traffic calming devices shall be utilized to maintain the posted speed limits along Northland Drive and Summit Ridge Drive. Designs shall be reviewed and approved prior to construction and a letter from Public works obtained indicating approval of any necessary measures prior to final plat. This shall specifically include a traffic calming device at the intersection of Summit Ridge Drive and Northland Drive. Johnson reviewed the project site for the board in relation to the stormwater management area. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning commission adopt staff reports KZC-07-01 & KPP- 07-11 as findings of fact and recommend that the zoning of the 5.8 acre site be R-3 (Urban Single Family Residential) , and recommend that the preliminary plat of Northland Subdivision Phase 4 be approved subject to the 23 conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Schutt asked how Summit Ridge Drive currently terminates and Johnson said it just ends and there are 3 concrete barriers in place. Hull noted that it appears that work has already started in the stormwater management area and Jen.tz said as part of The Meadows development, to the east of this project, a sewer main was put in so the R/ w has already been dug up but it is work related to another project. APPLICANT/TECHNICAL Bruce Lutz, Sitescape Associates, 385 Golf Course Drive, ASSISTANCE Columbia Falls stated that he is representing the developer Marvin. Galts. Lutz noted that Mr. Galts is in attendance Kaiispeli City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 9, 2007 Page 6 of 19 along with Brett Walcheck, 48 North Engineering and they can answer any questions the board may have. Lutz said this piece of property was the result of a land exchange between Mr. Galts and the Waterford/Touchmark group. Lutz added Waterford/Touchamark still plan to develop their- remaining property as a residential site for senior citizens. Lutz said they met with the planning staff and were urged to mare the shift from an R-4 designation to R-3, which allows only single family homes which was agreeable to there because it is compatible with the surrounding developments. Lutz continued in relation to the summit Ridge Drive connection this was not a part of their plan however, in meeting with staff and the Public Works Department the city felt it would be a fatal flag to construct this subdivision without the connectivity. Lutz noted the size of the lots will allow side loaded entries into the garage. The storm drainage will be handled partly on the northernmost lot and partly be incorporated into the existing system for Northland Phases 1-8. They are also considering traffic calming devices such as chokers and small traffic circles. Lutz noted they have no issues with the conditions. Schutt asked if they have the space to construct a traffic circle or a round --about and Lutz said the small circles would work where the road would split off to Summit Ridge Drive. The chokers could work anywhere along the long linear stretch of street. Clark asked who willl maintain that stormwater area in 10 years. Lutz said it will be perpetually maintained by a homeowners association. Johnson added the maintenance of the stormwater area is included in the conditions of approval. Hull asked for clarification on the stormwater area which Lutz provided. Brent Walcheck, reviewed the plan for stormwater both from this subdivision and the stormwater that may drain from Summit Ridge Drive. He indicated that a portion of the subdivision's stormwater will be retained in the northernmost lot and a portion will be handled through the existing system for Northland Phases 1-3 . In addition the stormwater from. Summit Ridge Drive is considered off -site flours and they manage that stormwater to bypass the system. He explained they detain the flows and release at a historic rate that would be routed through the facility but Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 9, 2007 Page 7 of 19 they don't hold it, it gets into the conveyance system along Northland Drive then ties into Stillwater Road ditches and works its way over to Spring Creek. Jentz said the runoff from Summit Ridge Drive is the reason Condition #6 was amended as noted above. He added staff is confident the engineer will develop a system that adequately deals with both the runoff from Northland Subdivision Phase 4 and the runoff from Summit Ridge Drive. Walcheck added the city's Public works Department provides a thorough review of the proposal. PUBLIC HEARING Wayne Worthington, 365 Summit Ridge Drive stated he has been living at that address since 1952. He likes the change in zone from R-4 to R-3 but is concerned that the zoning could change again in the future to allow a greater number of houses which would also increase the traffic. He has major concerns with the connection of Northland Drive and Summit Ridge Drive. He said additional traffic would not only - come from this subdivision, but also off of Highway 93 and he feels there are other alternatives for an additional access without using Summit Ridge Drive. Thomas Sierra, 429 Summit Ridge Drive stated he lives right on the end of the cul-de-sac and he has a major concern about the traffic coming down Summit Ridge Drive, It is a narrow road that would become a major thoroughfare for all of the developments to the west. when he purchased his house the # 1 criteria and what he thought added value to the house was the fact that it was on a nice quiet dead end street and now that is being taken away. Sierra is also concerned with the water problems that were just brought to his attention and he wanted to know how this will affect his property which is at a lower elevation than the proposed subdivision. Sierra asked the board to consider the current residents of the area in making their decision. He asked if it is determined that the connection to Summit Ridge Drive is not required what can be put in place so they axe not revisiting this issue time and again? Roger Bowman, 440 Summit Ridge Drive stated he is also opposed to opening up Summit Ridge Drive because it is a quiet neighborhood that would be used as a bypass from Farm to Market Road and Three Mile Drive to Highway 33 at an uncontrolled, dangerous intersection. He thought funneling the traffic to Four Mile Drive made sense because people can get on to the highway safely at the light and added constructing Four Mile Drive further to the west would also help. He is opposed to opening up Summit Ridge Drive. Vicki Kenzie, 406 Summit Ridge Drive stated she is against the road connection. There are a lot of kids and a bus stop in the area and kids and families walk around the area to get to Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 9, 007 Page 8 of 19 the park in North Haven and to Kids sports off Four Mile Drive. It mares more sense to route the traffic on to streets that have a lighted intersection onto the highway. There is currently access from all 4 sides of the subdivision and they don't need any more. They all moved there to be on a cul-de- sac and she doesn't think they need more traffic on that road. John Thies, 434 summit Ridge Drive stated he lives 2 houses from, the end of Summit Ridge Drive. Thies said they should not funnel traffic into a quiet residential area. Thies also said he was surprised about the park designation on the north end with a huge park across the street and he thinks the park area belongs more in the middle of the development. The drainage is a big issue and this spring the neighborhood worked together to pump out 2 different homes. Thies asked what assurances are in place to protect them flooding and Schutt said the board will address those issues during their discussion.. Thies said the note added to condition #6 incorrectly refers to the east side of Summit t Ridge and it should be the west side of summit Ridge. Johnson noted that correction. Lori Smithwick Hann} 435 Summit Ridge Drive stated that she is at the very end of the road. She attended the planning board and city council meetings regarding the Waterford development in 1999 and the city council gave them their word that summit Midge Drive would not go through. It was noted at that time that there would be a road, but it would be used for emergency purposes only. Smithwick Hann told the board they had major grater problems last year even though they didn't get a lot of snowfall. It is more than just people being concerned about the water issue it is a reality and since their properties are lower than this development, she asked where is the grater going to go? Smithwick Hann also said it gets very windy in this area and she has been constantly dealing with the construction dirt and dust which has prevented her from enjoying her property. She wanted to know who is responsible for monitoring the development to ensure that the construction site is watered, Smithwick Hann concluded by saying she would encourage the planning board to consider the purpose of having Summit Ridge Drive go through and weigh that against the impacts to the neighborhood. In addition she asked what value is there M' the words of the city council who in 1999 said summit Ridge Drive would not go through.. Steven Fauerso, 125 North Haven Drive stated he has lived at this address since 1980. Fauerso wondered why they don't develop this subdivision from where the existing houses are instead of the long linear strip that is proposed. He said this project seems haphazard and added some of the lots are steep and a.-D-Pear to him to be undevelo-cable. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meetin ey of October 9, 2007 Page 9 of 19 Jerry Gilhes, 11 o North Haven stated he was at that meeting in 1999 when the council promised that Summit Ridge .Drive would not go through and would only be used for emergency purposes. He said he is concerned about surface water and in addition he believes there is an underground stream that flows through that area in the spring that creates water in basements for some of the homes. He thinks 48 North Engineering is aware of the crater movement because he watched them pump a large amount of water into tanker trucks at The Meadows. He is concerned both the underground stream and the surface water will directly affect their North Haven neighborhood. Gillies said he supports the neighborhood in not having the connection to Summit Ridge Drive. It would be much better to funnel traffic out to a lighted intersection such as Northridge Drive. Marvin Galts, developer of this project stated the little park's primary purpose is to create a space for runoff retention but also create an open area at the front of their development. The maintenance of the park / retention area will be provided through a homeowners association. Galts said regarding the access when they brought in phases 1-3 of Northland Subdivision it was understood that Summit Ridge Drive would not tie in with Northland subdivision. He said their primary access for this subdivision was planned for Four Mile Drive. He added the people on Northridge Drive don't appreciate the fact that more traffic is going up and down their road either. Since that time their have been changes in thought by the city about access they although they intend to comply with the conditions, as far as they are concerned they see no value in connecting to Summit Ridge Drive. James Runner, 375 Summit Ridge Drive said that it appears that the crux of the situation is access and he asked if anyone knows if and when Four Mile Drive will be extended further west. If they can put that road through there is no reason for Summit Ridge Drive to go through. If you can assure people Four Mile to 93 and Four Mile to Stillwater that takes the flog to a major artery rather than rum* ing their neighborhood. BOARD DISCUSSION ! None. MOTION -- ZONE CHANGE Hull moved and Balcom seconded a motion to adopt staff report KZC--07--1 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell k'-;ity �:ouncil that zoning be changed to R-3 Prban Single Family Residential) for the 5.3 acre site. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meetinLy of October 9, 21007 Page 10 of 19 BOARD DISCUSSION I None. ROLL CALL -- ZONE The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. CHANGE TO R-3 MOTION -- PRELIMINARY Hull moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to adopt staff` PLAT - NORTHLAND report KPP--07--11 as findings of fact and recommend to the SUBDIVISION, PHASE 4 Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat of Northland Subdivision, Phase 4 be approved subject to the 23 conditions listed in the staff report including the amendments to Condition 6 as outlined by staff. BOARD DISCUSSION Clark commented that the board has made connectivity a priority so that traffic flows in all directions all the time. The board's vote will show that connectivity is important and the board will be holding to that course. Clark added that he is also confident that the engineer can handle the runoff. Schutt said that he wasn't on the planning board in February of 1999 and asked if staff knows what was said about Summit Ridge Drive by city council. Jentz said at that time Waterford was proposing a 250 -- 280 unit senior community. In 1999 it was agreed that the access to Summit Ridge Drive would be closed to emergency access only. Schutt asked if Northland subdivision was being discussed at that time and Jentz said no. Schutt asked if there was a second access out of the Waterford development and Jentz said there was a proposed road out to Stillwater Road. Lutz said when the Northland PUD came through they had access out to Stillwater and there was some discussion with MDT that they would perpetuate that through their R/W. Lutz. said it ended up that MDT did not go with that so the Link to Stillwater was taken away at that point. Schutt asked what year that was and Jentz said 2003 or 2004. There was discussion regarding Four Mile Drive and at this time it is planned that Four Mile Drive will go through after the bypass is built. Jentz said connectivity is a major issue with both the planning board and city council and that is where the staff is coming from. Jentz said he would agree that if a traffic light were installed at Summit Ridge Drive and Highway 93, although it is not being proposed, it would generate more traffic but he added many access points distributes traffic. Schutt discussed stormwater, dust abatement and other issues that come up with construction and Johnson noted there are city programs in place to address those issues and they are part of the conditions. Hull also noted that the Flathead City --County Health Department monitors some of these issues as well. Jentz said this year seeding is required in disturbed areas but it is a new program and hasn't quite caught on yet. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 9, 21007 Page I l of 19 Hull said that he agrees with Clark that connectivity is something that is vitally important. It wasn't that long ago the board discussed the need for alternate access points so the traffic would be distributed. Hull noted that North Haven Drive doesn't go anywhere, the Christian Center has a road that is blocked, and there is simply no connectivity there and should be added as the area develops. Hull said he realizes the neighbors are unhappy but connectivity and a grid system is what makes a city. Hinchey said the he agrees with the need for connectivity but he is concerned there appears to be some sort of commitment between these homeowners and the city which he thinks should be honored to some degree. Hinchey said he would propose that the road be put in but chained off for emergency use only. Schutt said he is a big fan of connectivity. The issue here is there are so many dead ends that the traffic is forced into limited areas. He is in favor of the connectivity to Summit Ridge Drive and likes the idea of traffic calming devices. MOTION - AMEND Schutt moved and Balcom seconded a motion to amend CONDITION #6 Condition #6, last sentence. of Mote #2 to read, "This shall specifically include at a minimum a traffic calming device at the intersection of Summit Ridge Drive and Northland Drive." BOARD DISCUSSION Hull said the traffic is not going to use Summit Ridge Drive to get to Highway 93 because that doesn't make sense. He does agree that traffic calming is needed on the linear stretch of Northland Drive within this subdivision to get to Four Mile Drive. ROLL CALL - AMEND The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. CONDITION #6 BOARD DISCUSSION Hinchey thought the comments regarding locating a park adjacent to Kids Sports were valid. It seems that the park should be located at the other end or in the middle of this subdivision. Hull said the lot will be used for runoff and the developer will be required to pay cash -in -lieu of parkland to meet the parkland requirement for this subdivision. Johnson noted there was a miscalculation of the required parkland for cash in lieu and proposed amending Condition # 13 to read "parkland equal to o. 57 acres of land." ROLL CALL - ORIGINAL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. MOTION Board Member wilhamson was seated again at 3:00 p.m. CITE' OF KALISPELL, OFF- A request by the City of Kalispell for a zoning text STREET PARKING AND amendment to update Chapter 27.26 of the Kalispell Zonin Kalispell City Planning Board M i notes of the m eeti n g of October 9, ? 007 Page 12 of 19 LOADING STANDARDS Ordinance relating to Cuff -Street Parking, including, but not limited to, changes in design standards, landscaping requirements, and. the ;mum number of required parking spaces associated with specific uses. STAFF REPORT IZTA-07- P.J. Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning 03 Department presented staff report KZTA-07-03 to the board. Sorensen noted that the current parking regulations were drafted between the mid 1940's and 1992 and there have not been any major changes since 1992. Sorensen noted they looked at a number of cities to see what their ratios were which included Missoula, Bozeman., Billings, Coeur d'Alene, Boise, Bend, Salem, and Flagstaff. A majority of the changes were clarifications and organization of the regulations. Sorensen reviewed some of the major points for the board. The discussion was as follows: ■ Clarified that a change in use of a building could trigger a review of the parking conditions on the property. Sorensen noted this is not a new standard but was broken up into 2 sections and is now combined into the same section. ■ That commercial and industrial parking areas be landscaped and have proper drainage. Sorensen said a comment was received last creek that this change as it relates to interior landscaping may apply only to properties with more than 4 parking spaces. Clark suggested 5 parking spaces instead of 4 because he is concerned that a small business owner would have to have drainage plans approved ahead of time and would be required to put in landscaping where it didn't necessarily make sense such as in the alley. Sorensen said Landscaping becomes more important with larger lots in order to break up the "sea of asphalt" look and, he added, any time parking lots are constructed drainage should be taken into account. The Site Review Committee, including representatives from Public Works currently review drainage on construction of all parking lots. Hinchey suggested amending Section 6. a. to add "for lots larger than 4 parking spaces." • Sorensen continued updates were added to reflect the new lighting ordinance. Compact parking spaces, which are smaller in dimension than the standard parking spaces were originally included in the standards not because there was a need for compact parking spaces out there but it nrovidina some flexibility in desianina narrkina lots. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeti-n iz of October 9, ? 007 Page 13 of 19 Staff believes that other changes within the proposal including a reduction in the number of required spaces and reductions available for providing bike racks accomplishes the Board's goal and therefore the proposal does not include compact spaces. However, compact spaces can be added back in at the Boards discretion. Sorensen noted there is a concept called administrative adjustments which is similar to variances. staff will bring forth a proposal adding administrative adjustments to the zoning ordinance. It would apply to any provision in the zoning ordinance. An example would be if there is some unique character about the lot you could file a petition with the Zoning Administrator and could possibly receive a reduction in the required number of spaces. • Allowing up to a 5% reduction in required parking with a provision of bike racks. Sorensen said a clarification would be to install one bike racy with enough space for 5 bikes. The moray it was worded in the current text was confusing. * Defining a usable area which is used to calculate gross square footage for parking purposes to include a basement or crawl space with clearance of 5 or more feet, access with a door or stairs, and a hard surface for the floor. There was considerable discussion regarding this amendment and Jentz noted that this provision is not focused at the downtown area but for new construction. Sorensen said the idea is to prevent developers of new construction from creating habitable space in a basement without providing the required parking spaces to accommodate that space. Schutt agree there needs to be a definition. + Lowering shopping center parking from. 5 spaces / 1,000 sq. ft. to 4 spaces/ 1000 sq. ft. • Moving towards a "300 square foot per parking space" standard for more uses so that we do not inadvertently create parking shortfalls when a building is converted to a different use. We propose moving banks (ISO sq ft./ space), convenience grocery (100 sq ft/space) and medical/dental (200 sq. ft./ space) to a minimum 300 sq. ft/space standard and at the same time taking professional offices from 400 sq. ft. /space to 300 sq. ft. • Reducing the demand on multi -family housing from 2.5 spaces per unit to just 2 spaces and allowing a one space/unit requirement for efficiency units. + Under off-street loading standards we propose reducing the number of off-street loading berths Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 0., ?007 Page 14 of 19 required for various uses as more deliveries are done by small package delivery trucks (UPS, Federal Express) than over the highway semi's in today's market. i Sorensen added a suggestion of changing the title of the chapter from. Off -Street Parking noting that the chapter does not completely regulate the parking of cars off-street but it is a parking lot design ordinance and therefore should be titled off Street Parking Lot Design Standards. Sorensen said they did call out a few areas with clear - vision triangles, making sure that parking lots do not have cars parked where they block traffic at intersections. Right now there is a generic standard and is another change that they are looking at bringing forward. BOARD DISCUSSION Balcom asked if other cities have a basement standard and Sorensen said they haven't defined them either and that is why they tried to look at other things that would define a basement as usable space. Balcorn asked if there is a standard for medical office parking and how is it figured? She added she recently had to walk quite a distance from parking to an office on Burns way. Sorensen said if there was a new medical facility constructed they would take the gross square footage and divide it by Zoo and that would be their requirement. He added Burns Way had a higher parking requirement and were given a variance to get a significant reduction in the number of parking spaces that were required. Williamson asked for clarification on the removal of the compact parking spaces and the alternate mechanism where people can petition the Zoning Administrator to receive reductions. Sorensen said that mechanism is not a part of the update because the administrative adjustment is a general provision and not just for parking. Williamson said then the board would have to add that provision to the parking section and Jentz said yes. Sorensen directed the board to the map of the Special Parking Maintenance District #2 that was included with the staff, report. Sorensen said the district boundaries are from Center Street to 5th and from 3rd Ave West to 3rd Ave East. Within that area there is a specific section in the standards that address the downtown parking and certain standards such as parking ratios do not apply to downtown. Clark thought that was unclear ana Sorensen explainea for the board. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October t9, 2007 Page 15 of 19 Sorensen said in the downtown area the parking requirement is a flat 1-400 ratio. The only thing that would trigger an additional parking requirementwould be new construction or adding on to an existing building. A change in use would not lead to an additional parking requirement for properties within the downtown Special Parking Maintenance District #2. Jentz suggested they could add language to make it clearer. Schutt said then they are saying that existing uses, even if under parked, are grandfathered in. Sorensen said yes. Sorensen said one final thought related to the downtown area on page 1, paragraph 2 that states "Parking spaces shall be increased whenever a change 'n use increases the amount of required parking except for properties within the boundaries of the Special Parking Maintenance District #2." Sorensen suggested that wording could be added to the section discussed above to mare it crystal clear. Hinchey thought "increase' might not be the right word and suggested "reviewed". His concern is what if the use required fewer parking spaces." 'There was additional discussion on the wording. PUBLIC HEARING Michael Blend, 104 West Bluegrass provided written comments to the board and he reviewed them. (A copy is attached to the minutes). Clark asked Blend when he is talking about sub -lots was he referring to pads and Blend said he is referring to townhouse or multi -family lots where each building has their own lot so they can be sold individually but them there is an undivided common interest in the parking lot. Sorensen addressed some of the comments that Blend presented. Mayre Flowers, citizens for a Better Flathead stated she is concerned about the reduction in parking at the current Kalispell Center Mall. If there are additional businesses constructed in the Malls parking lot would that put pressure on other businesses in the area with parking spilling over from additional uses at the Mall. BOARD DISCUSSION Schutt asked where the board is an these amendments to the parking standards. The public hearing has been held and he questioned if they should table the discussion for a decision at another meeting or should a work session be held. entz 5 ugge5teu staff could b�c9hig in some addi ti.onal amendments to address the comments by the board and the public. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the rneetin u of October 9, 1007 Page 16 of 19 Hinchey said with the removal of the compact spaces, he understands what staff is saying, they are smaller and hard to monitor, but today when cars are getting smaller and gas is getting more expensive is it prudent to eliminate compact spaces. There was discussion on whether the administrative adjustment could be used to compensate for the removal of the compact spaces provision. Hinchey asked if there was some rationale for the new allotment of parking for square footage. Sorensen said they compared the allotment to this community and the S other cities that were reviewed and cane up with an average. Sorensen said one of the general comments that the board has made is the city is over parked and has "seas of asphalt". Jentz said staff is not saying they can't provide more parking but this is the minimum. Schutt asked the planning board members to provide written comments to the staff before the next meeting or work session. MOTION Hinchey moved and Clark seconded a motion to table the amendments to the off -Street Parking Standards to the next available meeting. BOARD DISCUSSION None. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. CITY OF KALISPELL - A request by the City of Kalispell for a text amendment to PLANNED UNIT update Chapter 27.21 of the Kalispell zoning ordinance DEVELOPMENT relating to planned unit developments, including, but not STANDARDS limited to, requiring a pre -application meeting, establishing a 3 tiered system of PUD applications to accommodate the level of information provided in phased projects or projects that will be built out over a significant number of years, and revising the application requirements, the abandonment requirements and the density provisions. STAFF REPORT Tom Jentz representing the Kalispell Planning Department KZTA-07-04 presented staff report KZTA-07--04 to the board. Jentz noted this is the same document that the board discussed last month, with a minor amendment as follows: Section 2 7.2 1.030 (1)(a) General Standards adding, "Far sites of less than 2 acres, a PUD application may be submitted however, it will not be eligible to receive a residential density bonus." Jentz reviewed the proposed densities for the zoning districts. He also noted that staff will be proposing another zoning designation where a PUD would not be done yet there would be smaller lots with reduced setbacks and deli Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meetinu of October 9, 2-007 Page 17 of 19 Schutt noted this is the first public hearing on the amendments for the PUD section and it will then go to the city council for review. He added this is the first of several sections of the zoning ordinance that will be amended in the coming year. Clark liked the part that the developer can get an idea of how their project will be received before spending thousands of dollars on a project that would not be approved. Williamson said he understands the benefit of the concept PUD but asked if Nis. Flowers has a point about public input when there isn't enough specific information for the public to review. Jentz noted a public hearing would still be held on a concept PUD but the comment was they aren't getting enough information which will always be the struggle. Schutt suggested the developers be required to provide web ready information on projects when submitted because it is then readily available to the public. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: Jentz noted that there will be a special meeting of the planning board on October 23, 2007 to discuss the revisions of the willow Creek project. Following this meeting there will be a work session on the Glacier Town Center. General discussion was held. ADJOUPIqMNT The meeting adjourned at approNimately 10: 40 p.m. A special meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission is scheduled on October 23, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. (Secretary's Note: The Special Meeting was cancelled, willow Creek has been rescheduled for public hearing on November 13, 2007.) The next regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and zoning Commission will be held on November 13, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. Bryan H. Schutt Michelle Anderson President Recording Secretary APPROVED as submitted/ corrected: /-/07 Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 9, 2007 Page 19 of 19 City of Kalispell Planning Board 10/9/07 Re: Off- Street Parking Ordinance Chairman and Planning Board Members, I applaud the Planning Staff, Planning Board and the City Council for tackling this very important task of revising and updating the Kalispell Parking Regulations. I appreciate your careful consideration of these six suggestions to fine-tune the proposed regulations. I am fully in support of this document, but also feel that this is the time to make sure the intent of the document is very clear and easy to interpret. Sincerely, Michael Blend, Blend Design & Build Parking, Ordinance Smested Changes 27.26.03� �) I I -I I I I I I .I I II II I I�..I� I� I III II 11 1.1.11� Location. Parking and maneuvering area(s) shall be located entirely outside of a public � , right-oi=way, except single family residential and duplex's, which may utilize driveways. 27.26.03� 2a For single-family, duplex, and multifamily residential dwellings: Off-street parking is required on the same lot as it is required to serve or -Mon on a directly ad'oinin.tz lot. See Section 2 7.2 6. 040 regarding. re uirements for off -site parkin 2. 27.26-030 J6)(41 l..l For parking -lots of ?o s aces or more. a minimum of 5% of the total interior parking lot area (excluding any landscape buffer) shall be landscaped 27.26.041� ---I I- II II IIIIIIIIII III.I■ III I suggest we do not eliminate the compact parking spaces but rather reduce it to "no more than l 0% of the off street parking'. Compact spaces do help under tight design conditions and many people do drive compact cars. 27.26.04 Reductions: The total number of re uired arkin T s aces will be reduced by -one sace for each five S bicvcles that are provided for b th.e installation of bike racks to be used by the businesses and/or residents served_by. the parkinja lot. Maximum total reduction under this provision is fivepercent of the total required arkin s aces. 2 7.26.050 Minimum Standards by Use. Please consider the following text as an alternate to the currently proposed text. The current text does not make it clear if one, two or all three of the criteria must be met in order to require parking for this type of space. I am also concerned about the use of the ward "door" in (b) since a crawl space floor hatch or attic access could be considered an access "door". Where a calculation is based on. (Yross floor- area of a structure. s Lure footmye meetincr all three of the followin.a criteria shall be included in. the gross floor area: a a clearance of 6. or more; , b _ an access stairwav"' c a hard surface floor such as steel, wood, or concrete. MEMORANDUM TO: KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD FROM: (:111ZENS FORA BE` FER F-TATHEAD SUBJECT: PROPOSED CH-ANGES TO 11-1E PLANNED UNIT DEVEWPNIENT STANDARDS DATE: 10/ 17 /07 CC: Dote: This memo summarizes oral testimony given at the public hearing on this matter on October 9` . 2007 CBF has three main areas of concern with the proposed new Kalispell PUD regulations. These include the new regulations failure to address: + Public Benefit: Ensure that the density bonuses provided to the developer under a PUD are justified by providing significant public benefits such as additional open space, access to trails and water bodies, parkland far and above the standard requirement, or permanent/long-term affordable housing. • Public l T tice; Clarify and provide for a me..anm' gful public nonce and process in all types of proposed PUD's including new wavier processes that are proposed. ustifxcation for Si 'ficant Chan es: Provide justification for removing numerous current provisions of the PUD regulations that protect the public and city from unintended consequences of more vague standards. Public Benefit: Alll city residents are stock holders in the City of Kalispell much like in a 1 corporation in the sense that they invest and pick up the cost over -runs of city government. Density represents a significant public asset that should not be simply "given away" without a reasonable public benefit or a return on the "stock" investment of city residents. This principle is upheld in the criteria developed for ad-iinistering fair PUD regulations in many progressive communities across the vest. We provided you an example from Pitkin County, Colorado as one example of a PUD regulation that includes clear and comprehensive criteria for PUD applications and their reNq'ew. We offered (and still do) to provide you additional examples, but the planning director discouraged us from doing so. We feel that the changes to the PUD regulations strip the regulations of any real public benefit and make increased density an unjustified give-away. Public Notice: The new PUD regulations and particularly the waiver process should I nclude public Comment process and at public appeal process. section in the l'UD regulation should include a clarification of how the public process will be handled as the new regulations significantly reduce public access to information that is vital to public input in a zone change. Ju-stificat-ion for Significant Chan es: There was simply little to no justification provided for the following changes: 0 The new standards do not require the application, preliminary plan., or timeline showing the building phases, as is required by the current PUD standards. s The new standards allow for a 'Concept PUD Application.' which does not require developers to submit all relevant inforrn.ation with the application for a PUD. The chapter does not say when this information will be obtained. As in our current regulations, all pertinent information should be obtained with the application to allow for adequate public oversight. * 3t would allow the following information to be submitted at a later, unknown date, and consequently would not allow for adequate public oversight: ■ Submission of architectural renderings, building designs, parking lot layouts or landscaping plans ■ Park and open space plans, plans for recreational facilities or common./homeowners facilities ■ Multi -phase projects 'n which one or more early phases meet the full PUD application criteria. ■ where a subdivision is required to implement a portion or all of a PUD and the subdivision application does not accompany the PUD application. The new standards allow a project to fall out of compliance with its approved completion schedule one or more times before it's considered abandoned and is converted back to its previous zoning. The current plan states that the city may oril� art one extension before a PUD is considered abandoned. Furthermore,, the section outlining what constitutes abandonment was also removed, leaving it open to different interpretations. ■ The new standards deleted the (5) .Effect of pproval which states that no building permit shall be issued for any structure within the district unless such structure conforms to the provisions of the plan. This policy ensures that standards set forth in the PUD are complied with. * Standards for PUD, (1) Location o�'PUD was deleted from the near standards. This policy stated that a PUD shall be located in an area where public and private facilities and services are available or are to become available by the time the development reaches the stage where they will be required. 0 The new standards removed the requirement that a PUD shall be under single ownership, in the (2) Land Area Requirement section. This is problematic because if the PUD standards are not met it is much more difficult to address the situation with a number of different owners as opposed to just one. In addition, it also took out the rest of the paragraph which outlines how to determine whether the minimum area requirements for PUD have becti met. Under (2) Establishment of PUD Districts, section (2), of the current standards, the policy that limits what commercial establishments are allowed in a residential PUD district was deleted. This leaves the requirement that "such establishments shall be so located, designed and operated as to serve primarily the needs of persons within the district" wide open to different interpretations. Under (2) Establishment oPUD Districts, section (4),, of the current standards, the policy that states "no building permit for any convenience commercial establishment shall be issued no may any building be used for convenience commercial establishment before 60% of the dwelling units contemplated have been built and ready for occupancy" was deleted. This policy ensures that the residential portion of the PUD will, be built and ensure that the predominant land use character of the district will be residential. The requirement that the maximum permissible building height be limited to 35 feet was deleted. This policy is important to protect our view sheds and ensure buildings respect the character and quality of existing communities. In conclusion we recommend that the planning board take additional time to look at other PUD models from other areas and strengthen the proposed PUD regulations with criteria that provides a clear public benefit and standards for the quality of development that the city washes to encourage. Furthermore we would recommend that the conceptual PUD option be withdrawn as it fails to provide the public access to information essential to meaningful public comment.