09-02-10 Site Review MinutesSITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE SUMMARY
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Lower Level Main Conference Room
201 First Avenue East
ATTENDING:
Paul Burnham, Asst. City Engineer
Jeff Clawson, Building Official
Dwain Elkins, Plans Examiner
Charlie Johnson, Construction Manager
P. J. Sorensen, Chairman
GUESTS: James Freyholtz from MDOT
HEAR THE PUBLIC: None.
Frank Castles, Deputy Public Works Dir.
Dan Diehl, Fire Chief
Tom Jentz, Planning & Building Director
Rebekah Wargo, Asst. Civil Engineer
Kathy Kuhlin, Recording Secretary
PERFORMANCE BOND REMINDERS: None.
OLD BUSINESS: ASI, (Van Ee Apartments) — 420 Grandview Drive —Public Works has
signed off on this project. This is moved through Site Review with the condition that they sign
the Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Agreement.
Smith's — 195-3'd Avenue E.N. remodel and new pharmacy drive-thru — Castles received a reply
from them that they plan to put in a raised pork chop and some signs. Public Works stated this is
still not reasonable but Castles suggested we wait until it's completed and evaluate it then.
Burnham suggested that all comments be sent to the engineer. They will be leaving the canopy in
the same location.
NEW BUSINESS: Dragon's Den — 135 W Idaho; change of use to tattoo parlor— There will
only be internal changes with three new partition walls, two sinks, and an autoclave. This is
passed through Site Review.
Ashley Square — 1325 Hwy 2 W — They are doing an exterior building and some parking lot
changes. We are just reviewing the front area; the rear is marked as future construction. The
committee is very concerned with their proposed entrance and the tree at the intersection will be a
problem, also. The Hwy 2 and Corporate Drive area are all being reconstructed presently so the
plans are not accurate. They will be taking care of the compliant lighting in this phase. They need
to update their survey.
Original Chicken Coop — 914 W Center; change of use to restaurant (fried chicken and ribs).
This is an existing building, formerly Riverside Construction, across from Les Schwab. They will
be using 1,000 sq ft on the east side of the existing building. Their parking area isn't the most
useable. We may have them drop off three parking spaces and relocate their handicapped space
to allow more room for their driveway, which has recently been resealed. They need more than
eight feet for a driving lane. This is passed through Site Review.
PLANNING OFFICE ITEMS: None.
OTHER REPORTS: Landscape Ordinance — Mike Baker is presently out of town. We need to
get our written comments into him by tomorrow.
Bus Shelters — MDT has still not approved these. Atkinson informed Jentz that the shelters on the
highway are not used by the transit system in Kalispell. They are used by the Tri-City Commuter
System - the Whitefish -Columbia Falls -Kalispell commuter bus. These shelters are along Hwy 93.
Scoreboard Pub and Casino — 75 Woodland Park Drive — They have put up a covered patio
addition without a Building Permit. They will be coming in for an Administrative CUP.
Willow Creek — Hubert Turner asked Jentz when he will have to put in the second approach to his
subdivision. Jentz opened discussion regarding how we handle multiple accesses. Our present
standard is a single access when it's up to a 1,500 foot long road, and when it's 20 lots or not to
exceed 40 houses. These are rural standards. This was created when 5, 10, 15, or 20 acre
subdivisions were being created. We are in the process of looking at our Subdivision and Design
Standards. According to Diehl, the Fire Code says the second access does not need to be put in until:
"100 lots or 200 if all the lots are sprinklered or 100 residential units are present." The second
access issue is a Fire/Emergency Services issue, but also a reasonable traffic issue. Hubert has the
option of going for a subdivision variance and more than likely, he has the option of going for an
amendment to the PUD on timing of the second access and when it goes in. Jentz presented a three
tier proposed solution consisting of 1. A single primary access road is appropriate when you have
less than a thousand feet and you have less than 50 units or houses. 2. A single and a secondary
access is appropriate if the road goes up to 1,500 and you're between 50 and 100 housing units. 3.
You need to have two full fledged accesses when you're over a 1,500 foot access road or 100+ lots
or units. If it was R-4, a multi -family zoning, we wouldn't count lots, we would go back to units, as
R-4 is a duplex zone so we would say 50 lots because you could put duplexes on each one of them.
Extensive discussion was held. It was decided to keep #1 as is, but clarify units as 50 residential
dwelling units. One unit is one side of a duplex. Sorensen suggested the "length of the access road"
be addressed. Diehl suggested that "roads over 1,500 feet should provide turn arounds." Jentz said it
is already addressed in the regulations. Burnham suggested we have primary access listed as the
"paved primary access." Jentz stated that all of these issued will be defined, but right now we're
trying to keep it to this little issue right here. Burnham asked that under #2 to include "The
Developer shall submit a maintenance and dust mitigation plan for approval by Public Works Dept.";
"The Developer shall maintain the gravel surface at all times to keep fugitive dust to a minimum and
to keep the surface clear of snow, ice, and vegetation"; and "The Developer shall maintain the gravel
surface until the roadway is constructed to Urban Roadway Standards and is accepted by the Public
Works Dept."; "The secondary access shall be constructed to Urban Roadway Standards when 50
percent of the lots have received building permits ... have been built on ... or prior to two years
2
after that phase receives final plat." At some point that road needs to get paved. Burnham stated that
on #3 maybe when they pave it ... "or prior to two years following the final plat." Address it in one
of those places. Sorensen suggested a date specific Performance Bond. The Developer's can't pave
the secondary road at the beginning because they can't afford it. Clawson pointed out that if the
developer sells all the lots before all the building permits are obtained, the developer could be gone.
#2 step regarding a gravel access doesn't work for the Fire Department. Step #2 will be deleted.
7entz will draft a new proposal and send it out to everyone.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m.
3