Loading...
10-14-14KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING October 14, 2014 CALL TO ORDER AND The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and ROLL CALL Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were: Chad Graham, Charles Pesola, Rory Young, Matt Regier, Steve Lorch, Karlene Osorio-Khor and Doug Kauffman. Tom Jentz, Kevin LeClair represented the Kalispell Planning Department. NEW BOARD MEMBER President Graham welcomed Doug Kauffman as the new planning board member. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Osorio-Khor moved and Lorch seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the September 9, 2014 meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission. VOTE BY ACCLAMATION The motion passed unanimously on a vote by acclamation. PUBLIC COMMENT No one wished to speak. FLATHEAD HIGH SCHOOL Residential On -Street Parking Permit Program around Flathead PARKING DISTRICT High and Elrod Elementary; Residents in the vicinity of Flathead PUBLIC HEARING High School and Elrod Elementary School have requested the Planning Board consider creation of a residential on -street parking permit program that would require a permit for on -street parking from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday to Friday, when school is in session. Only residents of the district would be eligible to purchase permits. The approximate boundary of the parking district includes an area bounded by 3rd Street West on the north, 9th Street West on the south, 2nd Avenue West on the east, and 6th Avenue West on the west. The cost of the permits have yet to be determined, but will be established by a resolution of the City Council, based on the cost to administer and enforce the parking regulations. BOARD MEMBER STEPPED Karlene Osorio-Khor stated she served on both the committee for DOWN the residential parking district, composed of school officials and residents of the district and a school committee also composed of residents and school officials. Osorio-Khor said because of that and the unique rules that this board runs under she feels that she must recuse herself from this discussion tonight. Osorio-Khor added this is a board they are not city council members. (Board Secretary note: With the exception of President Graham who is the city council representative serving on the planning board). Osorio-Khor continued they don't represent particular individuals or particular wards. Each board member brings a unique skill set to the board and they are all Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 14, 2014 Page 1 of 17 on the same boat called Kalispell. Board Member Osorio-Khor vacated her seat. Kevin LeClair, representing the Kalispell Planning Office provided a brief background on the issue of parking at Flathead High School. City staff has been working with residents of the community for about 1-1/2 years. The issue was raised to the council and the council directed staff to work with the neighborhood to see if a solution could be reached. Work Sessions/Open Houses were held with the school district, which were heavily attended, and several issues were raised. LeClair described the process of forming subcommittees — one of which was formed to specifically talk about the on -street parking issue; a series of meetings were held with neighborhood volunteers and members of the school district for 9-10 months; and a large volunteer outreach effort collected signatures from the neighborhood on a petition. In addition a representative from this effort presented a proposal to the planning board in June and a work session was held in July where the board directed staff to hold another work session in September and a public hearing in October. Ultimately the board's job is to provide an opportunity for the public to speak on the issue and make a recommendation to city council. LeClair asked that anyone from the public who wishes to speak, speak directly on the issue of the residential on -street parking district to help the planning board formulate a recommendation to forward to city council. The board knows a lot about the issues and the challenges both the neighborhood and school district has faced. Graham outlined the rules of decorum for the public comment period. PUBLIC HEARING Mark Flatau, School District 45 Superintendent, thanked the board for the opportunity to speak and thanked the individuals that have worked to find solutions to this issue which includes the residents in and around Flathead High School and Elrod Elementary, the city and school district staff. Flatau said they want to provide background knowledge and information, show some progress in regards to the issues and then present a proposed solution from the district's perspective. Flatau noted that he has never heard any of the school district's staff say the school is against the parking district but they are against a parking district that totally excludes staff and students. The district's proposal provides a parking district for residents, Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 14, 2014 Page 2 of 17 students and staff Flatau presented the school district's perspective on the parking district followed by a presentation of data they collected regarding usage of parking in the neighborhood and the school district's approach to addressing the parking issue. He was joined by Michele Paine, Assistant Principal Flathead High School who provided additional comments. A copy of their proposal is attached to the minutes. Graham addressed Peter Fusaro, Principal of Flathead High School regarding an email Mr. Fusaro sent the board indicating that a parking lot could be put together using a tax increment financing district. Fusaro said one of the things that they wanted to look at is buying some of the residential properties near the school and perhaps using a tax increment financing district in order to provide additional parking. Flatau noted a representative of the Northwest Montana Association of Realtors is here and he noted they are offering $1,500.00 to be used towards a parking study in the area. Lorch asked how school staff encourages kids to use the existing lots at the school. Fusaro said they have told staff to be good neighbors and use the existing parking lots. He added they have also told the students that they need to use the lots and if the senior lots are not full they will be opened up to all students. Fusaro said they continue to look at opening up the staff lots to students without permits and they are planning to remove trash bins behind the school on the west side which would open up additional spots. Erica Wirtala, NW Montana Association of Realtors stated the Association has noticed that the parking issue is becoming more of a problem and that real estate values are precarious in the immediate area. She suggested striping the parallel parking spots may help. The $1,500.00 grant money that the Association would secure could be used to add impartiality to the process and get numbers on the table to assist in providing a good resolution for everyone. Andi Utter, 347 3rd Street West, Isabell Dunn, 1828 Airport Road, Brittany Staat, 2140 Harlequin Court, all students of Flathead High School introduced themselves along with Amanda Matdies, Advisor of the Environmental Club at Flathead High School. Matdies noted the students asked her to come forward to oppose the residential on -street parking because they have a garden on the green space that is proposed for additional parking. They want to keep the garden. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 14, 2014 Page 3 of 17 Linda Geisell, 245 41h Avenue West said these are public streets and anyone should be able to park on the public streets. She has never heard of tax -paying residents having to buy a permit to park on the streets and she is against the parking district. Donna Smith, 839 3rd Avenue West said she has been involved with the parking discussions from the beginning. When the grassy area was put in at the high school they lost 24 parking spaces and it should be removed. This is an opportunity for Flathead High School and the school district to show their good faith in helping to solve this problem. She supports the residential parking district ordinance and addendum (copy attached) and is willing to pay for a parking permit in order to park in front of her home. Jesse Cady -Kauffman, 911 8fh Avenue West said she is in support of the School district's proposal because it is a proposal that offers a solution for both sides. She is concerned that the message being sent to the students is they don't belong in this community and by pushing the kids further out from the school it will create safety issues especially at night. In addition there is no transit system, like Missoula, that can transport kids to school especially from the outlying areas and the parents rely on the kids being able to drive themselves to school. Mike Lincoln, Assistant Principal, Flathead High School, 131 Sherry Lane referenced his email to the planning board that describes the parking district program in Helena and noted they are considering eliminating some of their districts because the interest for the districts has come and gone and they are not getting the enough revenue from the districts to support them. He provided additional information on other districts and added the other districts need to be considered in order for the board to make an informed decision. Isabell Dunn, 1828 Airport Road wanted the board to know that the garden was put into the green space because it is one of the best places for a garden and they want to be able to keep it. Jonathan Smith, 501 3rd Avenue West said he is opposed to the parking district because the parking problems have decreased with the construction of the Glacier High School in the last few years. He added since school has started this fall he hasn't seen his street full yet. He has several cars and he doesn't want to have to pay to park them out in front of his house. George Giavasis, 545 3rd Avenue West voiced his support of the parking district as submitted. The only thing the school district is Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 14, 2014 Page 4 of 17 addressing is the parking issues and not the other issues such as lack of services. Jeff Hutten, 132 8fh Street West noted they live on the edge of the proposed parking district and they have not had any parking problems in front of their house since Glacier High School was built. The school's compromise of alternating 3rd and 4fh Avenues is a start and is similar to the committee's two-year program, although it will push the congestion out further. He likes the ideas of striping the parallel parking spaces; the school coming up with the additional spaces; charging for school parking that would go into a fund for parking lot maintenance or acquisition; encourage car pooling by designating spaces for car pools; work release and after school activities; students who maintain a minimum GPA; and off -site parking with shuttles. Hutten is in favor of a solution and he hopes one can be reached. Linda Armstrong, 149 N Riding Road and Principal of Elrod School said she wants to address the safety issue in relation to the elementary children. They were told to use an alternative parking area for two weeks and when they did the streets were empty. The use of the blacktop area for parking would limit the area used for the 325 children at their school and the park area is not suitable in the winter and spring as it is either icy and snow covered or wet and muddy. She asked that the board consider the kids at Elrod when making their recommendation. Allison Schmaltz, 124 Buffalo Stage said in deference to the concerns of the adults who own property around the schools, the issue is not only the parking but the disrespect of the kids that goes along with that. She complimented the administration for trying to find solutions to the problems. She thinks marking spots would be helpful and limit the blocking of driveways which has created confrontations between adults and students. The board should maintain what the children at Elrod have because crowding that many children into a smaller area is a problem. Devin Kuntz, 725 2nd Avenue West said he is in support of the committee's proposed parking district with the addendum and not necessarily opposed to the school's proposal. There will be some inconveniences for those who commute but the board needs to consider the property rights, quality of life and livability of the residents in this neighborhood. He thanked the school for creating some additional parking spaces but a timeline needs to be attached. He noted the inability to receive services such as snow plowing, leaf pickup and contractors coming to your home to do work. The school district's proposal doesn't resolve the congestion issue and doesn't address the lack of parking on their property. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 14, 2014 Page 5 of 17 Kuntz said they are thankful that crime is on a two-year decline but it still exists which is another safety issue. He does commend the schools for doing a better job with litter pickup. He added it is necessary to ensure resident parking beyond the west side of 3rd and 4fh Avenues respectively. Much of the feedback from residents opposed to the parking district is payment for the permits and he agrees they should not have to pay for the services they already pay for via taxes although he is willing to pay if that will mitigate the problem. He added the residents' proposal provides a mode of sustainability and a mechanism for maintaining a district by the collection of parking fines and paying for permits. Kuntz reviewed statistics that show the parking problem will grow with growth of the City of Kalispell. That will saturate the district even more without an appropriate plan. The solution put forth by the residents will bring the issue to a head and be a catalyst for change. It is fair, equitable, long-term, sustainable, and has been proven effective in many other communities. He asked the board to recommend approval of the residential parking ordinance to the city council at no cost to the residents or their guests. Austin Henderson, 327 8fh Avenue West said he strongly agrees with the school district's proposal mostly because he has walked every street in Kalispell in every kind of weather since Kindergarten. There are no street lamps almost all the way to the high school and it is very unsafe walking in winter. He worries about the safety of his cousins and siblings having to walls to school in the dark. Kaki Mendius, 99 Sunrise View Lane said she is the parent of a Flathead student who lives out towards Creston and who drives to school because he has a job after school. The residents' proposal is not fair because students are not even being considered they are being pushed out into the dark and into unsafe areas without street lights. The residents already have parking in their alleys behind their houses. She noted she paid less for her home on the east side because it is near the railroad tracks just like people paid less for their home on the west side and now they are trying to "move the train". Jess Roper, 836 3rd Avenue West said he lives within the proposed parking district and asked the board not to recommend this proposal to council. The proposed solution would benefit a few at the cost of many. He likes the school district's proposal but he fears it will push this problem to their neighbors. School District 5 is not a for -profit business and the cost of buying land to increase parking would ultimately fall on the taxpaying community. Roper Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 14, 2014 Page 6 of 17 said his proposal would be to have a resident only parking space in front of their homes with the cost for the signs paid by the homeowner. He applauds the school on their efforts toward cleanup and added the city needs to help them out because they are not receiving services, perhaps the city could provide services on Saturday or before or after school. Toff Mendius, 99 Sunrise View Lane said he is a student of Flathead High School and he disagrees with the parking district proposal. He believes the school district's proposal is closer to a solution however he doesn't agree with the destruction of the garden and green areas around the school because he thinks the students need that space. He also addressed the safety issues of walking in the dark especially in the winter and changing the schedule for city services to after school or on the weekends. Elma Giavasis, 545 3rd Avenue West thanked the school for taking the time to look at the problem. Safety of the children is her biggest concern. A long-term solution is to have more on -campus parking and if the school district can come up with this much parking in a month what can they do in two years. They have not seen many kids having to park in the residential areas after school hours because they are parking on campus for after -school activities. Stacey Schultz, 304 Stoneridge Drive and a parent of a student at Flathead High School said she is in favor of the school district's parking proposal. Her daughter is currently in Missoula at a varsity volleyball game and their bus is due back at 11:47 p.m. She encouraged the board to look at the sex offenders in the neighborhood because once you push the kids out, the number of offenders' doubles. Schultz added she is pretty sure everyone knew they were purchasing their home near a high school. Daniel Olszewski, Student Body President of Flathead High School residing at 377 Orchard Lane said he wants to give the students a voice. Safety is a huge concern for them, especially at night and during the winter and also considering there were some student attacks last year. He has gotten home from events in 2:00 a.m. and some students get back even later. They have worked really hard to encourage their students to be the best that they can be, to be good neighbors and to be respectful. The current proposal doesn't solve the problem and there is only so much parking that can be created on campus so there needs to be other alternatives around the neighborhood. He is in favor of the school district's proposal as it is a step towards a permanent solution. Gavin Pirrie, 115 Rainbow Drive said the streets proposed for the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 14, 2014 Page 7 of 17 parking district are public streets and paid for by the taxpayers, who are both the residents and the parents of the students. They encourage the students to park in the school lots and the community garden teaches the value of community service. The garden also provides local produce for the school. Safety of the students is a concern. Pirrie noted in Missoula every third Wednesday or Thursday of the month they are asked to not park on the street during the night so the streets can be cleaned. He is in favor of the school district's plan. Isabelle Dunn, 1828 Airport Road added it costs the students $30.00 to park in the school lots and some students are not able to afford the parking pass. She suggested the students could pay a higher fee than the residents in the parking district. Cynthia (no last name or address provided) said she is a parent of a Flathead High School student and she is troubled that the proposed parking district seems to be rushed and that the students seem to have been painted in a very negative light. Most of the students work very hard to be successful in their academics, sports and extra -curricular activities. She provided information on the formation of the parking districts at MSU and U of M and noted the planning process was about 3 years for both districts and noted they both have transit systems. Please don't make it any more difficult to get our kids to school and take time to make sure that if there is a parking district created it is done with thought and with a process similar to Bozeman and Missoula. Pauline Sjordahl, 234 3rd Avenue West said she has lived near Elrod for 17 years and nobody parking on the south side of 3rd Street West has anything to do with Elrod and there has never been an issue. Sjordahl added there is a couple at lst Avenue and 3rd Street who keep the sidewalk from Elrod School up 4fh Avenue clean, salted and clear, and they keep the drain clear so any child going to and from school will not have a safety issue. Joe Matulevich, 442 West Spring Creek Road said there have been a very significant number of stakeholders that have been left out of the discussion — 400 students and 130 staff members at Flathead High School who have parking permits. A study is not needed as the problem is they are short around 200 parking spaces and the solution is they need to come up with roughly 200 parking spaces. Anything else is not going to solve the core problem. The city and/or district 5 needs to realize the lack of parking and start acquiring properties so they can expand the parking capabilities and the high school if necessary in the future. Matulevich continued the city planning staff and School District 5 Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 14, 2014 Page 8 of 17 need to get together and determine how to go about having a right of first refusal for every home sale that occurs within 1/2 block of Flathead High School and the district should come up with a plan for land acquisition. Matulevich said the single space per parcel was a good suggestion. It doesn't require bureaucracy to manage it and only requires someone to put green paint on the curb. He also suggested that the City of Kalispell could waive the stormwater treatment requirements so that the district could maximize the amount of parking that they could put on any piece of land that they acquired. When students are classified as a sub -standard class of citizens and are excluded from the ability to park on public property that is bad government. He strongly urged the board to recommend to the city council that they do not institute a parking district. The problem needs to be solved in other ways. Grace Cady, 911 8fh Avenue West said one issue that hasn't been properly addressed is the "Graduation Matters" effort. It is important to get the kids to school and if you want the kids in school, getting a diploma and at Flathead High School then you have to make that easy for them. Casey Petek (no address provided) said she just came back from a volleyball game in Missoula and was picked up by her mother because if she had ridden the bus she would have arrived between 11:45 and midnight. She read from a letter that was provided to the board prior to the hearing dealing with the safety issues that are faced by the athletes having to walk to their vehicles in the dark and with the sex offenders in the neighborhood. Please keep the students safe. BOARD DISCUSSION President Graham noted they have received a lot more information on this issue that needs to be considered by the board. He asked for a motion to table this item to the October 28, 2014 work session. MOTION Lorch moved and Regier seconded a motion to table the discussion of a parking district near Flathead High School to a work session to be held on October 28, 2014. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. BOARD MEMBER Board Member Osorio-Khor returned to her seat. RESEATED OLD BUSINESS: CAPTAIN'S MARINE A request from APEC Engineering, on behalf of Captain's Marine Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 14, 2014 Page 9 of 17 PLANNED UNIT (Somers Bay Trading Co. LLC), for a Planned Unit Development DEVELOPMENT for the development of a boat and trailer sales and service facility consisting of 14,900 square feet of sales, offices, and service areas on the main floor and 1,800 square feet of offices on the second level. The PUD proposal also includes associated parking, landscaping, and public utility connections and extensions as needed or required. The property is located at 3215 Highway 93 South. STAFF REPORT KPUD-14-01 Kevin LeClair, representing the Kalispell Planning Office recapped the revised staff report sent to the board. At the last meeting the proposal submitted was a single-phase of the development on the western half of the property. The owner/ applicant wanted to have the full PUD reviewed so they provided additional materials for the staff s review. This PUD application consists of three phases of development on the property: Phase 1 is the boat and trailer sales facility, associated parking lot, landscaping and access to some of the other buildings that exist on the property; phase 2 is the addition of boat and storage facilities and wood -framed metal sided buildings that would be available for dry storage. Also included in phase 2 is the removal of the three residential structures; and phase 3 is an additional boat storage facility on the far eastern part of the property. LeClair described the dimensions and building uses currently on the property. He noted there is a slough area on the eastern portion and geotechnical information will have to be obtained in order to determine how close to the steep slopes the owner will be able to build. He also reviewed the elevation drawings and a site plan of the PUD. LeClair reviewed the PUD placeholder that was put on this property by the Gardners' which was set up to provide access to city services and when the property was developed a full PUD application would have to be submitted. LeClair noted since then full PUD applications were submitted and approved for Fred's Appliances and the Volkswagen dealership that was to be located on the northeast corner of the PUD. Both projects included development of not only how the applicant would use the property but also how it would integrate with the overall mixed -use industrial business park that was planned when the PUD was fully developed. The same is true for Captains Marine. Not only will they have to look at how this property will be developed for the owner but also look at how it will integrate with the overall PUD even though the balance has not been developed. LeClair noted the Growth Policy always intended for an internal Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 14, 2014 Page 10 of 17 routing system in this area that would create additional access points for the properties as it was built out. Condition 41 is the placement of a no -build area that would extend the 60 foot R/W of United Drive south across the property. The city would require that this area be reserved so that in the future when development occurs that warrants access, it will be available. LeClair added with the information submitted by the developer it appears there are other building placement options that would still provide adequate access to the buildings and other areas of the property and therefore condition 41 can still be met and allow them to use the property as they proposed. LeClair referenced an email from the city's Public Works Department, copies of which have been given to the board, which raised concerns with condition 41 and how the condition was meeting the policies in the City of Kalispell's Extension of Services Plan. LeClair reviewed the memo and indicated that the Public Works Department has requested that additional language be added to condition #1 to state: "A no protest to a special improvement district for roadways is required to be constructed as a result of future development shall be signed and submitted by the owner." LeClair said that would add a level of protection to ensure the R/W would be available if and when a roadway would be required in that area. Staff recommends that the Kalispell Planning Board adopt the staff report KPUD-14-01 as findings of fact and recommend that the Kalispell City Council approved the planned unit development subject to the 22 conditions of approval as amended. BOARD DISCUSSION Osorio-Khor said when she was first appointed to the board they were working on the growth policy and it was pointed out to her that planning was flexible and we didn't need to fixate on the specific wording. She said condition 41 bothers her because this is one lot, one business and the idea of bisecting it, basically turning it into two lots, seemed odd and not what the owner was proposing in the first place. In addition it is a safety issue with employees or customers having to cross a city street to get to the other portion of the business. The road would not connect to anything and if we insist that a portion of his property be condemned so that a road can be put in she asked if the city would compensate this property owner for the loss of his property. LeClair said no, that is not proposed at this time. Young said staff is trying to highlight the need to take a step back and look at the Gardner Investment PUD that was put into place. As a condition of that PUD and for the privilege of being annexed Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 14, 2014 Page 11 of 17 into the city the Gardner's PUD was allowed a placeholder status. Part of that status is that you have to provide a long-term plan that shows roads, sewer and water and he added there was always a suggestion that a road would be there. Young said this is an issue between the owner/developer and the person that he purchased the property from. The property was allowed to be annexed into the city on the condition that the whole property would be considered and because they only bought one chunk is unfair to say they are no longer a part of the overall PUD. Graham noted there is an island of the PUD further to the south and if the road was not required through the Marine property the island would not be connected to the rest of the PUD in the future. There was lengthy discussion regarding the PUD placeholder, the properties included, a lack of an infrastructure plan for the entire PUD, and the ability to do a full PUD for a single parcel or an assemblage of parcels in order to develop an overall development plan for an area. In relation to the roadway no -build area the city is not requiring a roadway easement at this time because there are no other development plans to the south and it is not warranted. No public access will be allowed and the owner can still use their property with the exception of the 100 foot no -build area. Further discussion was held. Young asked for an explanation of how the waiver of protest to a special improvement district would be set up and LeClair explained. APPLICANT/TECHNICAL Kim Larson, APEC Engineering said they don't have a problem SUPPORT with most of the findings in the staff report with the exception of condition 41 and they request that the condition and associated references in conditions 4 & 5 be deleted. The 60 foot access easement (approximately 1 acre of the property) would bisect the property contrary to the best interests of the owner. The intent of purchasing the 10 acre property was to have one consolidated sales/service/boat storage facility and the easement would severely limit the owner's flexibility in further development of the property. The issue is complicated by the existence of a wetland area on the east portion of the property with a 100 foot setback further reducing the area remaining for development on the eastern portion of the site. The required storm water retention area west of the wetland will also cut into the area left. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 14, 2014 Page 12 of 17 By providing a phased development plan with adequate traffic circulation to serve the area in the rear of the property they can responsibly develop the property without the north -south roadway. Larson indicated the roadway only shows up on the Growth Policy Future Lane Use Map as two small arrows on Lower Valley Road and Snowline Drive and nowhere else. Larson concluded by saying there are frequent references in the staff report referring to the growth policy and please keep in mind that the growth policy is only a guideline and does not necessarily constitute law. They need to do what makes sense and it is not sensible to take that road through at this time, or at all. Randall Seifert, Somers Trading Company and owner of Captain's Marine quoted from an article from the Daily Inter Lake that states: "While the growth policy is an official public document it doesn't create law or regulate development. It is rather a community guide for making land use decisions." Seifert said he feels the city is regulating that he has to have an easement and although it has been referred to as a no -build zone it still prevents him from using his property the way he wants. Seifert said he keeps hearing the discussion that these lots are deep and narrow and he can't develop the back half. He said his plan clearly shows that you can develop a piece of property well. In fact there is such a small percentage of land that is actually usable in the back the argument to develop a road to further develop the back of the lot doesn't really make a lot of sense. The maps he has seen, including the city maps, have always shown United Drive turning to the north of his property and to suggest that he would have known or had any belief that there was a road that was supposed to go through the middle of his property is just a bit off The bottom two properties of the PUD already have good access through Highway 93 South and Snowline Drive so those properties shouldn't even be in the discussions. Seifert continued that although it is currently called a no -build zone it is an easement because the city is saying he can't do what he needs to with his property and he isn't getting any compensation for it. Seifert pointed out that he is also requesting approval to use crushed asphalt in some of the parking areas. He noted the area is for boat storage and there won't be cars driving over it all the time. MOTION Young moved and Pesola seconded a motion to adopt revised staff report KPUD-14-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the planned unit development for Captain's Marine be approved subject to the 22 conditions listed in Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 14, 2014 Page 13 of 17 the staff report. MOTION TO AMEND Lorch moved and Pesola seconded a motion to adopt the CONDITION #1 AS amendment to Condition 41 recommended by the Public Works RECOMMENDED BY THE Department to add the following statement: "A no protest to a PUBLIC WORKS special improvement district for roadways is required to be DEPARTMENT constructed as a result of future development shall be signed and submitted by the owner." BOARD DISCUSSION Regier asked if the applicant would be opposed to a jog in the road and moving it more towards the back of the property and Siefert noted that would actually take up more of the land. Jentz said the road needs to connect at the north and south ends but it could wind through the property. Pesola said he supports the amendment because should there be a need for a road in the future there would be a means to have it built. He added there is no requirement to build the road at this time. Osorio-Khor clarified is the motion that condition 41 as it presently is written will be amended to add the language recommended by the Public Works Department and Graham said yes. Osorio-Khor added then the next step would be to determine whether condition 41 remains as a condition and Graham said yes. ROLL CALL — AMENDMENT The motion passed on a roll call vote of 6 in favor and 1 opposed. TO CONDITION # 1 BOARD DISCUSSION Lorch asked where the crushed asphalt is proposed to be placed and Seifert said for exterior areas used for boat and trailer storage. Osorio-Khor stated she has a great deal of difficulty with condition 41. She thinks it is unnecessary, doesn't make sense and isn't good planning. She was assured by the board that the growth policy was flexible and she agrees we need to be flexible otherwise it is almost as if we are making it punitive to do business. She understands the concept but on this particular property with this configuration, with the wetlands and the fact that it is one business, and whether this roadway gets built now or 40 years from now she will not be voting in favor of the PUD with condition 41. Graham said he understands Osorio-Khor but there was a lot of work done on the original Gardner PUD overlay in 2008 and it had a designed purpose and Graham has a hard time moving away from that purpose. Street connectivity was planned and without that it would disconnect the lower portion of this PUD from the intended PUD overlay as a whole stopping city growth south. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 14, 2014 Page 14 of 17 Further discussion was held regarding location of the utilities, extension of services, and the need to secure R/W for future road extensions, should development warrant those extensions. MOTION TO STRIKE Osorio-Khor moved to strike condition 41. The motion failed due CONDITION #1 to a lack of a second. BOARD DISCUSSION Young asked if Public Works had any comments regarding the developer's request for a variance on surfacing materials and LeClair said it was not discussed with Public Works as the city didn't have enough information from the developer. In other projects in the city there are often requests to use a soft surface for any kind of storage areas which is generally not allowed. Graham said this came up with Kalispell Toyota's expansion of their lot and when it comes to deviations we have to apply equal application of the design standards. LeClair said in order to have parity on projects the idea is that you pave the areas that you are planning to use for parking and circulation. Parking of motor vehicles also includes trailers. The fact that it might be incidental or slow moving is not really a consideration. There are also air and storm water quality issues and without any justification the city would deny the request. Lorch said that is why he asked for clarification on the variance request because he couldn't see where on the plan this material would be used. It would be hard to respond without specifics. Lorch added he would probably have more sympathy toward that request in the 100 foot no -build area which could also reduce the area required for storm water and could enable the back portion of the property to be more usable. LeClair noted the board could make a motion to add a condition that a crushed asphalt surface could be used in areas of the no -build area, outside of parking and circulation for incidental storage or something along those lines. Anyone who has dealt with development within the city knows that a hard line is drawn on this issue. When you talk about paving your parking and access circulations areas and having the rest of the area landscaped with something that is desirable it makes the quality of the development look better in the long run v. having rough parking fields. Osorio-Khor said the board is supposed to serve as a balance. Everything is a guideline and we are trying to do what we think is best. She doesn't see any problem with them using the crushed asphalt and also allowing this material in the 100 foot no -build area as suggested. LeClair noted that the paving standard is not a Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 14, 2014 Page 15 of 17 guideline it is a regulation that is applied to every project that comes in to the city. Osorio-Khor said just because something is a rule doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions to a rule. Young said he has used recycled asphalt and it can turn out great but as an advisory board we would be ill-advised to tamper with city standards that are probably incorporated by ordinance from the city council. LeClair said it might be entirely appropriate to ask for a deviation of this standard but it needs to be done in a very limited and confined way because when you approve a deviation for one developer it cascades to the next project and then the next. LeClair said he doesn't think it is necessarily a bad idea for storage around the outbuildings on the back part of the property. The city would need to have additional information on what areas the crushed asphalt would be placed. Lorch clarified that his suggestion was for areas of non -circulation and recognizes the fact that the owner of the property isn't going to be able to invest a lot in the no -build area without it being at risk when further development occurs. MOTION — REQUEST FOR Lorch moved and Regier seconded a motion to add condition 423 PAVING SURFACE that states as follows: "A variance is granted to allow the use of MATERIALS VARIATION recycled asphalt for parking and boat storage and on the non - circulation areas in the 100 foot no -build area." BOARD DISCUSSION Jentz noted that this variance would not be a substitute for the landscaping requirements within the development. Osorio-Khor asked if the city often allows PUD's that have islands of county land in between the city properties and LeClair said yes. Osorio-Khor asked if there have been road requirements like this and LeClair said there have been discussions on how the properties will be integrated in the future and Jentz added with Glacier Town Center there were 4-6 roads that went straight north out of that property, so yes it is a normal condition. The difference is they would have been using those roads after the property was developed. LeClair added in an ideal situation you might bring United Drive into this property and actually have a cul-de-sac that would terminate at the southern boundary so there would be a turnaround. Right now there would be a dead end road which is an undesirable condition for people who are driving south on United Drive as they have to turn west and drive across an easement that may be other people's private property. Osorio-Khor asked if the areas of the recycled asphalt would be Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 14, 2014 Page 16 of 17 determined by the applicant and if so if that wording is part of the condition and LeClair said not as part of the motion but anytime a structure comes in for development it would go through Site Review and the conditions of the PUD would be reviewed at that time. Osorio-Khor thought the wording should be included in the motion and LeClair noted the applicant can propose anything they would like but added final engineering rarely matches the original conceptual designs. ROLL CALL - VARIANCE The motion was approved on a roll call vote of 5 in favor and 2 opposed. BOARD DISCUSSION Osorio-Khor said she does not like condition 41 and she will be voting against it. ROLL CALL — ORIGINAL The motion was approved, as amended, on a roll call vote of 5 in MOTION favor and 2 opposed. NEW BUSINESS: None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:40 p.m. NEXT MEETING The next regular planning board meeting is scheduled for November 12, 2014 (Wednesday due the Veteran's Day Holiday) beginning at 7:00 p.m. and located in the Kalispell City Council Chambers, 201 lst Avenue East, Kalispell . /s/Chad Graham Chad Graham President APPROVED as submitted: 12/9/14 /s/Michelle Anderson Michelle Anderson Recording Secretary Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of October 14, 2014 Page 17 of 17