Loading...
H3. Woodland Apartments Site Review AppealCity of Kalispell Charles A. Harball Office of City Attorney City Attorney 201 First Avenue East P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903-1997 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM Doug Russell, City Manager Charles Harball, City Attorney Tel 406.758.7709 Fax 406.758.7758 charball@kalispell.com Woodlands Apartments LLC Appeal of Site Review Committee Determination December 7, 2020 DISCUSSION: Pursuant to KMC §27.20.120(4) Woodlands Apartments LLC has appealed a specific determination of the Kalispell City Site Review Committee to the City Council. The City Council shall hear from the appellant as well as the response from the City staff, and shall further review the record and then make its ruling which shall be put in the form of a resolution to be acted upon by the City Council at its next meeting. The specific determination of the Site Review Committee that is being appealed is as follows: 4) Update recreational amenity calculation to remove reference to condemnation prior to issuing a building permit. This is the sole issue that is before the City Council on appeal. Development Services Department 201 1s` Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalisnell.com/plannine SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPEAL APPLICATION Any applicant may file an appeal when aggrieved by a decision or interpretation made by the Site Development Review Committee. 1. A written appeal and payment of fee as prescribed by the City Council must be received in the office of the City Manager within 30 days from the time the officer(s) charged with the enforcement of Section 27.20.120 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance have made a written interpretation or determination on the site plan application. 2. The City Manager shall review the appeal and transmit the appeal and associated material to the City Council. 3. The City Council shall act on the appeal within 30 days following receipt of the appeal by the City Manager. 4. Decisions by the City Council shall be made my Resolution. The basis for the decision on each appeal and a detailed summary of the facts and basis support such determination shall be recorded on the decision and shall constitute a part of the record thereof. Contact Person: Owner & Mailing Address: Name: Paul Bardos Woodland Apartments, LLC Address: P.O. Box 7485 Same Kalispell, MT 59904 Phone No.: (406) 309-8080 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Refer to Property Records): Street: Sec. Town- Range Address: 517 Shady Glen Dr, Kalispell, MT No._08 ship_28 No. 21 Subdivision Name:Woodland Apartment Current Zoning: B-1 Specify the decision or interpretation appealed: Item 44 of the attached Site Review conditional approval. Tract Lot Block No(s). No(s). No. 1 State why you believe the decision or interpretation is erroneous (attach additional page if necessary): CAUSE FOR APPEAL In the case of Woodland's submittal, Public Works Department has broadly interpreted the Council's approvals to include an authority for a taking of private lands for the purpose of widening Woodland Park Drive and Shady Glen without Just Compensation. This is despite findings of facts by decision makers at public hearings beforehand to the contrary. Their authority for the taking was articulated in a letter prepared by the city attorney's office dated August 18, 2020 a copy of which is attached to this appeal. The closing sentence in paragraph 3 on page 1 of that letter summarizes the authority for the taking as arising from "one of the conditional uses of the property, a multifamily use, that increases the density of use within the neighborhood and to the transportation system. " This controversy has culminated in item 94 of Site Review's conditions of approval a copy of which is also attached to this appeal and it is only item #4 of Site Review's conditional approval that is before the Council in this appeal. In addition to the taking of private property Public Works has added additional requirements to gain permit approvals that will be discussed in greater detail at the Council meeting. CUP APPROVALS AND HEARING TESTIMONY During hearings Staff gave expert testimony together with hearing local residents' comments regarding traffic impacts on the adjacent streets. A copy of the Planning Commission's minutes of approval summarizing testimony and their approvals are attached to this application. At the Planning Commission meeting on July 9, 2019 Commissioners heard several resident's concerns about additional traffic from the project. Staff responded to neighbor's comments by providing evidence that the trip counts contained in their report supported minimal traffic impacts. Staff also countered that the driveway of the parking lot would encourage traffic onto Woodland Park because of its proximity and because traffic was unlikely to travel east on Shady Glen. A copy of staffs report is included with this appeal. Despite neighbors voicing concerns, and scrutiny by Staff no increased traffic impacts were found to exist during the hearings and Staff s conclusion contained in their report was that "The width and quality of Shady Glen Drive and Woodland Park Drive are more than adequate to handle the additional traffic load. " [Emphasis Added] Accordingly Staff s report was included as a finding of facts in Woodland's approvals by the Planning Commission including the negative traffic impacts from the project. Both Planning Commission and City Council went on to unanimously approve the project. The testimony at hearing clearly demonstrated that a finding was made that no additional impacts beyond the existing traffic carrying capacity of the streets was found that warranted a taking to widen city streets. WOODLAND'S RELIANCE ON EXPERT TESTIMONY AND FINAL APPROVALS Applicant Woodland Apartments, LLC ("Woodland") has an Investment Backed Expectation in the purchase and development of its property based upon public testimony given and findings made during public hearings. At the time of those hearings Woodland could have exercised its option in its purchase agreement to abandon the purchase should it have found reason to do so. However, and based upon the findings unanimously granting CUP approvals that traffic impacts did not necessitate a taking, Woodland proceeded and purchased the property. Had Woodland known its property would have been diminished and partially taken for the benefit of the public without compensation it would have acted differently in the purchase. That option is foreclosed upon on Woodland and it is no longer available to it as a business decision. ION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION It is important to note the following factors when considering the issues involved in this appeal: (1) the authority for the right-of-way taking from Woodland is proposed through government regulation. The 5t" Amendment to the US Constitution does not mention regulatory takings.' However more importantly the ROW taking is concurrently being proposed without Just Compensation. While it is true governments may take property through eminent domain, inverse condemnation proceedings or by regulation, such takings require government to justly compensate according to principles set out in the 5t' Amendment to the US Constitution; (2) the taking for right-of-way in this instance is a physical taking that "eviscerates the owner's right to exclude others from entering and using the property perhaps the most fundamental of all property interests."Z; (3) moreover, the property is an aggregation of less than 5 parcels and therefore exempt from subdivision requirements that would typically include the creation and granting of public right-of-ways; (4) no subdivision request has been applied for in the development of the parcel that might otherwise warrant a voluntary taking; (5) a portion of the land being taken falls outside city limits and is under the jurisdiction of Flathead County and where City powers could only infer hegemony without statutory jurisdiction; and (6) the property is an existing and legally created parcel through prior governmental applications and public reviews through to their subsequent approvals establishing the parcels. No review or modification of the current subdivision map is at issue here. COMMENTARY While the taking of private land is a significant issue in Woodland's appeal, it is the consequences of the taking adversely affecting the community as a whole that Woodland also protests. Small infill lots suffer the greatest harm from rigid or excessively applied standards because the ratio of cost to develop to capacity to absorb or spread those costs is disproportionately burdensome on the infill builder. This imbalance of cost to develop on small parcels discourages private investment into the community, favors large tract builders over small infill development projects, and unfairly penalizes small businesses who are attempting to succeed and grow their businesses as has been the pattern and practice of the community over the past 125 years. Particularly during these times of Covid the burden on small businesses grows only greater. Moreover, since the time of Charles Conrad, homes and businesses in Kalispell have been built by small builders one at a time. It is clear that the beneficial growth over the past 125 years by those same small builders demonstrates environmentally sound practices were employed — compare that we have some of the cleanest water in the nation — and these successful practices have led to future demand on the area to develop into currently the 2nd fastest growing city in the state. These successes of past small builders has created a charming town center, interest in the area, and demand for housing for thousands of new residents and visitors to the community. The simple truth is that application of these new standards is simultaneously deterring that historic pattern while altering the character of the community driving small businesses from their past successes in favor of larger more financially affluent entities proposing ever bigger projects. Not only is the small builder overly impacted in this process, but all of the other synergistic businesses that depend on them suffer too. These would include engineers, surveyors, glass companies, home furnishing enterprises, building material suppliers just to name a few. As we all are aware land and housing costs are escalating at a pace that many in the community cannot keep up with. One nearby city has met these cost increases by imposing restrictions and additional costs to make housing more affordable. Engineering standards clearly play a key role in development costs for new housing and businesses and therefore their application or misapplication can alter the community's 1 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1028 n.15 (1992). z Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., 544 U.S. 528, 539 (2005); See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 384 (1994); Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 831-832 (1987); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419,433 (1982); Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176 (1979) 3 growth patterns and past building precedents. As an example, Woodland will give up approximately 30% of its income revenues to support the governmental standards being imposed to permit the project. Woodland has reached out to others in the engineering community who have expressed an interest in developing other viable engineering solutions to even the playing field and lessen the financial load on the community. Such alternative could include pilot programs to examine the feasibility of pervious surfaces in lieu of more expensive underground drainage structures to mitigate storm water requirements. Pervious paving is a known alternative recognized throughout the state of Montana and elsewhere. How vegetated areas are calculated prior to and after development can also drastically influence costs to name another area where one size fits all standards create an uneven playing field. In summary I would ask the Council to direct Staff to open discussion with local stakeholders to explore pilot programs, how standards may be applied in a way that preserves the inherent hard work and determination of small businesses that have provided the community's needs and that we all enjoy today. Additional comments will be provided at the Council meeting. Submittal requirements are as follows (an appeal application is not considered complete unless the following information is provided): (a) If the appeal involves a specific piece of property, please attach a dimensioned site plan, drawn to scale, showing all existing and/or proposed improvements (buildings, utilities, driveways and parking areas, trees, landscaping, etc.) on both the subject property and adjacent parcels. The site plan must also include adjacent right-of-ways and any easements. (b) If the appeal involves a sign or signs, that site plan must include the location of all existing and proposed signs, as well as the size (in square feet) of each such sign. Complete dimensioned drawings, drawn to scale, of the sign(s) must be submitted including height, type of sign (e.g. freestanding, wall, etc.), color, material structural supports, and electrical/lighting components. (c) Additional information may be necessary based on the specific issue presented. (d) An application fee of $250.00, made payable to the Kalispell Planning Department must accompany a complete application submittal. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted. s/ Paul Bardos November 10, 2020 Applicant Signature Date 0 From: PJ Sorensen To: Paul Cc: Doug Russell; Charlie Harball; Rachel Ezell; Jarod Nvaren Subject: Woodland Apartments Date: Thursday, October 22, 2020 2:35:58 PM Attachments: imaae002.wa Paul - Thanks for coming to the Site Review meeting earlier today. As you are aware, the Site Review Committee conditionally approved the project today. All of the conditions would need to be addressed prior to issuing a building permit. Looking at our permit program, it also looks like you need to obtain your driveway and construction stormwater (how you will handle runoff during construction) permits from Public Works. You will need to get those prior to the building permit as well. The conditions of the site review approval were as follows: 1. Aggregate the parcels, with the aggregation to be recorded prior to issuing a building permit. The survey needs to be corrected to show an accurate street address (571 Shady Glen rather than 23, which would be the Woodland Park side). 2. Deed dedicating right-of-way to be recorded prior to issuing a building permit. You need to correct the legal description in the first paragraph to the new amended plat (As a note, the block number in the current version is incorrect, but the new legal would remedy that). 3. Record Waiver of Protest of Stormwater SID prior to issuing a building permit. Waiver must be the current version used by the City. Please send a scan of the signed document you intend to record to Public Works prior to recording so that they can review it. 4. Update recreational amenity calculation to remove reference to condemnation prior to issuing a building permit. 5. Prior to issuing a building permit, submit a detailed layout of the recreational area including pergola dimensions, setbacks from buildings and property lines, concrete area, and details on types and specific location of other improvements, including, but not limited to, the barbeque. 6. Landscaping in the clear vision triangles shall match the adjacent landscaping. In terms of providing our sign -off on the aggregation and the deed, we need to have items (4) and (5) addressed prior to providing our approval letter for the Clerk and Recorder. If you wish to appeal the conditional approval from Site Review, I believe that the City Manager outlined the process for you to follow in his email of October 19. You have 30 days from today to file the appeal if you choose to do so. Please let us know if you have any questions. KALISPELL PJ Sorensen, Esq. Senior Planner Development Services Department 201 1"Ave East Kal ispel I. MT S9901 (406) 7SS-7940 psoren senokal isoell _corn Messages and attachments sent to or from this e-mail account pertaining to City of Kalispell business may be considered public or private records depending on the message content. The City is required by law to protect private, confidential information. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may therefore be protected from disclosure under law. However, these communications are also subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana's Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a "public record" pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City's record retention policies. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution of this e-mail or its attachment(s) is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, immediately contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. City of Kalispell Charles A. HarbalE Office of City Attorney City Attorney 312 First Avenue East P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903-1997 August 18, 2020 Paul Bardos 595 Daley Lane Kalispell, MT 59901 Re: Response to Request ofAuthority Dear Mr. Bardos: Tel 406.758.7708 Fax 406.758.7771 charbali@kalispell.com kalispell.com You have requested to know the authority of the City of Kalispell, in response to your request for a conditional use permit, to require that you convey some ownership interests in a small amount of your property to the City of Kalispell in order to widen the public roadway abutting your property that will serve the occupants of the apartments you wish to construct and their guests as well as the neighboring properties and the traveling public in general. The City of Kalispell, as a duly formed municipality of the State of Montana, derives its powers from the laws of this state. The City has the general powers provided to all municipalities as outlined in MCA §7-1-4123. More specifically to your question, it has the authority to regulate the land uses within the City "for the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community." MCA §76-2-301. These zoning regulations must be designed to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements. MCA §76-2-302. The property that you own and on which you have petitioned for a conditional use received its zoning designation based upon the overall growth policy, the existing uses of the neighboring properties, and the character of the public facilities that serve it. The primary permitted residential use of your property could therefore be developed accordingly without necessary upgrades to the transportation system that serves your neighborhood and your specific property. You have requested one of the conditional uses of the property, a multifamily use, that increases the density of use within the neighborhood and to the transportation system. The approval of a conditional use is a discretionary determination by the City, but it must not abuse its discretion. Flathead Citizens for Quality Growth, Inc. v. Flathead County Bd. of Adjustment, 2008 MT 1, 341 Mont. 1, 175 P.3d 282. The City must be able to determine that the proposed conditional use would not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the zoning district. Botz v. Bridger Canyon Planning & Zoning Commn, 2012 MT 262, 367 Mont. 47, 289 P.3d 180 It must therefore consider whether there are facts sufficient to support the conditional Paul Bardos August 18, 2020 Page - 2 use and what conditions may be appropriate to ensure that adequate provisions are made to offset any negative impacts of the conditional use. This necessitates an evaluation of the existing public infrastructure and whether it is sufficient to serve the neighborhood. The City has therefore evaluated the zoning district your property is in as well as the surrounding neighborhood and determined that an improvement of the roadway to urban standards will be required if the density is increased with a conditional use you requested. The Conditional Use Permit that was granted for this property on August 5, 2019 therefore carried the following conditions: 3. To ensure the traffic flow and access with Kalispell Design and Construction Standards, the development shall receive Site Review Committee approval prior to issuance of the building permit. 7. Shady Glen Drive and Woodland Park Drive shall be upgraded to an urban standard in accordance with the City of Kalispell Construction and Design Standards the length of the property. Upgrades include sidewalks, curb and gutter, street trees and boulevard adjacent to the applicant's property. The City is not requiring you to increase the density of use for your property, but rather this is your request. It is therefore not a "taking" for the City to agree to your request only upon the condition that you provide the necessary property to the City in order to comply with the urban standard roadway in accordance with the Construction and Design Standards of the City. cc: Jarod Nygren PJ Sorenson Sincerely, Charles A. Harball City Attorney Office of City Attomey i == City of Kalispell—�l'—F RECREATIONAL LAND VALUE CALCULATION 23 WOODLAND PARK DR LAND AREA ALLEYWAY NET LAND AREA CITY INVERSE CONEMNATION SHADY GLEN WIDENING 14,880 612 15,492 -500 NET LAND AREA AFTER TAKING 14,992 LAND PRICE/SQ FT $ 4.20 4500 SQ FT X $4.20/SQ FT = $ 18,900.00 PLAY AREA LAND @ 1080 SQ FT $ 4,536.00 BAR-B-QUE & PERGOLA (14'X14') $ 14,500.00 TOTAL VALUE IMPROVEMENTS $ 19,036.00 $19,036 > $18,900 ok SCARIFY VEGITATION 1080 SQ FT & DISPOSE $ 975.00 IMPORT 100 CU YARD CLEAN FILL $ 1,050.00 COMPACTAND FINE GRADE 1080 SQ FT 90% $ 1,125.00 PCC PAVING @ 244 SQ FT $ 1,830.00 LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION 1080 SQ FT $ 1,600.00 LANDSCAPE GRASS 1080 SQ FT $ 850.00 ROUGH AND FINISH ELECTRICAL $ 1,150.00 ROUGH AND FINISH PLUMBING (GAS SUPPLY) $ 1,320.00 PERGOLA SHADE STRUCTURE 196 SQ FT $ 3,850.00 BAR-B-QUE GRILLE $ 750.00 TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COST $ 14,500.00 WOODLAND APARTMENTS REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERNHT KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT #KCU-19-03 June 28, 2019 This is a report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and Kalispell City Council regarding a request for a conditional use permit for the construction of a 9-unit apartment building located at 23 Woodland Drive. A public hearing on this matter has been scheduled before the Planning Board for July 9, 2019, beginning at 6:00 PM, in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The Planning Board will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action. Approval of the conditional use permit only authorizes the proposed land use and does not waive the requirement to obtain the required permits from applicable City of Kalispell departments. BACKGROUND INFORNIATION: A request from Woodland Apartments, LLC for a conditional use permit for multi -family housing within the B-1 Zoning District. Multi -family housing is permitted within the B-1 Zoning District provided a conditional use permit is obtained per Section 27.12.030 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The multi -family project would include one 9-unit building, parking, walkways, trash disposal area, landscaping, BBQ/Pergola area and bike racks. The proposed building is 2-story (30 feet tall) with five units on the first floor and four units on the second floor. The units will consist of two efficiency units approximately 580 square feet, and seven two -bedroom units approximately 1,060 square feet. Applicant: Woodland Apartments, LLC P.O. Box 7584 Kalispell, MT 59901 Location and Legal Description of Property: The subject property is located at 23 Woodland Drive. The property can be legally described as the southern 25 feet of Lot 8 and Lot 9, Block 1 of the Plat of Phillips Addition to Kalispell in Section 8, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. Size: The subject property is .34 acres (14,964 SF) Existing Land Use and Zoning: The property is undeveloped grasslands with a number of large mature trees. The property is located within the B-1 (Neighborhood Business) Zoning District. The Kalispell Zoning Ordinance describes the intent of this district: "A business district intended to provide certain commercial and professional office uses where such uses are compatible with adjacent residential areas. The district would typically serve as a buffer between residential areas and other commercial districts. Development scale and pedestrian orientation are important elements of this district. This district is also intended to provide goods and services at a neighborhood level. The district is not intended for those businesses that require the outdoor display, sale, and/or storage of merchandise, outdoor services or operations to accommodate large-scale commercial operations. This zoning district would typically be found in areas designated as neighborhood commercial or urban mixed use on the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map". Adjacent Zoning: The zoning surrounding the subject property is as follows: West: City P-1 North: County B-1 East: County R-5 and City R-3 South: County B-1 Adjacent Land Uses: The land uses surrounding the subject property are as follows: West: Woodland Park North: One single-family residence and Conrad Complex East: Single-family residences South: Storage facility Relation to the Growth Policy: The subject property is within the Commercial land use category, which provides the basis for the B-1, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning. The growth policy would anticipate a variety of uses under that designation, including, but not limited to, apartments, offices, retail, and other commercial uses. The requested conditional use permit is an appropriate land use for the property. Utilities/Services: Sewer service: City of Kalispell Water service: City of Kalispell Solid Waste: Private Disposal Electric: Flathead Electric Cooperative Gas: Northwest Energy Phone: CenturyLink Police: City of Kalispell Fire: City of Kalispell Schools: School District 95, Hedges Elementary A. EVALUATION OF THE REOUEST This application has been reviewed in accordance with the conditional use review criteria in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. A conditional use permit may be granted only if the proposal, as submitted, conforms to all of the following general conditional use permit criteria, as well as to all other applicable criteria that may be requested: 1. Site Suitability: a. Adequate Useable Space: The property is .34 acres and is adequate in size in order to accommodate the proposed buildings, parking, trash, recreation area, and stormwater facilities. A majority of the subject property is flat with a small rise at the northern property boundary making the majority of the site developable. There are a number of large trees that will have to be removed in order to allow for the development of the site. b. Height, bulk and location of the building The structure is proposed to be 2-story with a building footprint of 4,500 square feet. The proposed building height of 30 feet is well below the 35 feet 2 maximum height permitted. The B-1 Zone and design standard requirements give due consideration to the height, bulk and location of the proposed apartment building. C. Adequate Access: The apartment building will be gaining its access via a private driveway that connect to Shady Glen Drive, an improved public roadway. The private driveway is required to meet the minimum 24 feet width requirement for ingress and egress. d. Environmental Constraints: There are no known environmental constraints, such as steep slopes, streams, floodplains, or wetlands, on the property, which could affect the proposed use. 2. Appropriate Design: a. Parking Scheme/Loading: The development shall comply with the Off -Street Parking and Design Standards as set forth in Chapter 27.24 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The project consists of two efficiency units, which require 1 parking space each and seven units with more than 1 bedroom, which require 1.5 parking spaces each. As configured, the 9-unit building requires 12.5 parking spaces. The parking standards also allow for a parking reduction of one parking space for every bicycle rack (minimum space for five bicycles) provided. The applicant is providing one bike rack, reducing their parking requirement to 12 spaces. The project site plan shows 12 parking spaces, therefore, meeting the minimum parking requirement for the number of units proposed. b. Lighting: Chapter 27.26 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance sets standards for all outdoor lighting on commercial or residential structures. Exterior lighting installed in conjunction with the development will be reviewed for compliance with the zoning ordinance during site development review. Traffic Circulation: The apartment will gain their access via a private driveway that connects to Shady Glen Drive. Shady Glen Drive connects to a network of streets in the vicinity, providing adequate traffic circulation. d. Open Space: The proposed apartment is required to meet the setbacks required by the B-1 Zone, which provides for open spaces around the units. There is also additional open space between the proposed units and Shady Glen Drive that totals about 1,200 square feet and landscaping to the east of the building that equals about 1,000 square feet. e. Fencin Screenin Landscaping: To ensure the property is fully landscaped and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, a landscape plan for the entire site shall be submitted along with the building permit. The landscape plan shall be approved by the Parks and Recreation Department prior to issuance of the building permit. Fencing for the units will have to comply with Section 27.20.040 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. Signage: The development shall comply with all of the sign standards as set forth in Chapter 27.22 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. At this point no signs are being proposed. 3 3. Availability of Public Services/Facilities: a. Police: Police protection will be provided by the Kalispell Police Department. No unusual impacts or needs are anticipated from the proposed multi -family use. b. Fire Protection: Fire protection will be provided by the Kalispell Fire Department. There is adequate access to the property from the public road system and the buildings will be constructed to meet current building and fire code standards. Station 61 is 1 mile from the site and response time will be good. C. Water: City of Kalispell water infrastructure is located within the west side of Woodland Park Drive to the southwest. The developer will be required to pay the cost for service line connections for the proposed units. The developer is also required to pay the cost for the water main extension from the existing main to the east property line of the subject property. d. Sewer: City of Kalispell sewer infrastructure is located within Shady Glen Drive to the south. The developer will be required to pay the cost for service line connections for the proposed units. e. Storm Water Drainage: Storm water runoff from the site shall be managed and constructed per the City of Kalispell Construction and Design Standards. Prior to receiving a building permit the developer will need to submit a construction stormwater management plan to the Public Works Department. The applicant has not clearly shown the location of the required stormwater system, however, underground stormwater facilities are a possibility provided the city water quality and detention requirements are also provided. Storm water installed in conjunction with the development will be reviewed for compliance with the city standards during site development review. Solid Waste: Solid waste pick-up will be provided by a private company. There is sufficient capacity within the landfill to accommodate the additional solid waste generated from the subdivision. g. Streets: The proposed apartment fronts Shady Glen Drive on the south and Woodland Park Drive on the west. Both Shady Glen Drive and Woodland Park Drive need to be improved to city standards including curb, gutter, boulevard, sidewalk, and trees along the property frontages of those streets. h. Sidewalks: Sidewalks are not currently available, however, as part of the building permit process the developer will be required to improve the adjacent right-of-ways to city standards, which will include sidewalks. Sidewalks will also be required to connect from the building to the sidewalk system being constructed with the public right-of-ways. Schools: This site is within the boundaries of School District #5. A very minor impact to the district may be anticipated from the proposed apartments depending on the demographics of the residents. On average four students K-12 would be anticipated from nine dwelling units. Parks and Recreation: Section 27.34.060 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance requires 4,500 square feet of recreational land or a combination of equivalent recreational amenities based on 4 500 square feet of land per residential unit based. The site plan indicates 2,200 square feet landscaped recreational area, pergola, and BBQ area. The recreational value will be determined by the Parks and Recreation Director at time of building permit. 4. Neighborhood impacts: a. Traffic: The apartments will not have a significant impact on the traffic generated in the area. It is anticipated that each unit will produce approximately 9.57 trip ends/day (Per TTE trip generation model). The nine units would generate approximately 86 trips per day cumulatively. The width and quality of Shady Glen Drive and Woodland Park Drive are more than adequate to handle the additional traffic load. b. Noise and Vibration: Other than during construction, the apartments will not create any objectionable noise and vibration beyond what would normally be associated with residential housing. C. Dust, Glare, and Heat: Other than during construction, the apartments will not create any objectionable dust, glare, and heat beyond what would normally be associated with residential housing. d. Smoke, Fumes, Gas, or Odors: Other than during construction, the apartments will not create any objectionable smoke, fumes, gas, or odors beyond what would normally be associated with residential housing. e. Hours of Operation: Hours of operation does not apply to this project since it is for residential purposes. If a home based occupation were to occur the residents would have to comply with the home based occupation section of the zoning ordinance, outlined in Section 27.20.060 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. 5. Consideration of historical use patterns and recent changes: All of the properties located along Woodland Park Drive are commercial, as they provided a buffer between the arterial roadway and the lower density residential development further to the east. The proposed multi -family housing is an appropriate use within the commercial zone and will function as a transition from the arterial roadway into the single-family residential development to the east. A market study conducted by Property Dynamics — Mill Creek, Washington, indicated that in the summer of 2017 indicated there was a 0% vacancy of multi -family units within the Kalispell area, indicating a strong need for additional housing options. Although the study is nearing two years old, there has been no indication that the vacancy rate within Kalispell has improved. 6. Effects on property values: No significant negative impacts on property values are anticipated as a result of the requested conditional use of the property. It can be assumed that property values will increase since city services to the property are being added and the property is currently undeveloped. B. RECOMIVVIENDATION The staff recommends that the Planning Board adopt staff report #KCU-19-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the conditions 5 listed below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL That commencement of the approved activity must begin within 18 months from the date of authorization or that a continuous good faith effort is made to bring the project to completion. 2. The building permit application site plan and elevations shall substantially comply with the approved site plan. 3. To ensure the traffic flow and access comply with Kalispell Design and Construction Standards, the development shall receive Site Review Committee approval prior to issuance of the building permit. 4. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department for review and approval a stormwater report and an engineered drainage plan that meets the requirements of the City of Kalispell Construction and Design Standards. 5. The developer shall submit water and sanitary sewer plans, applicable specifications, and design reports to the Kalispell Public Works Department with approval prior to construction. 6. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department prior to construction an erosion/sediment control plan for review and approval and a copy of all documents submitted to Montana Department of Environmental Quality for the General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Construction Activities. 7. Shady Glen Drive and Woodland Park Drive shall be upgraded to an urban standard in accordance with the City of Kalispell Construction and Design Standards the length of the property. Upgrades include sidewalks, curb and gutter, street trees and boulevard adjacent the applicant's property. 8. To ensure the property is fully landscaped and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, a landscape plan shall be submitted along with the building permit. The landscape plan shall be in substantial compliance with the submitted renderings and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director prior to issuance of the building permit. 9. A minimum of 500 square feet of land per unit which has recreational value as determined by the Kalispell Parks and Recreation Director, or recreational amenities equivalent to the fair market value of 500 square feet of land shall be provided on -site. 10. A letter from the Public Works Department shall be submitted to the Building Department stating that all new public infrastructure has been accepted by the City of Kalispell. 11. The bike rack shall provide a minimum area for five bicycles. 12. The two lots shall be consolidated into one lot prior to building permit issuance. 2 KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING July 09, 2019 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Board members present were Chad Graham, Doug Kauffman, Kurt Vomfell, Joshua Borgardt, Rory Young, George Giavasis & Ronalee Skees. Tom Jentz represented the Kalispell Planning Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Kauffman moved and Skees seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the May 141h & May 22"d, 2019 meetings of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission. VOTE BY ACCLAMATION The motion passed unanimously on a vote of acclamation. PUBLIC COMMENT None. KCU-19-03 — WOODLAND File # KCU-19-03 — A request from Woodland Apartments, LLC for a APARTMENTS CONDITIONAL USE conditional use permit for multi -family apartments with the B-I (Neighborhood PERMIT Commercial) Zoning District. STAFF REPORT Jarod Nygren representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KCU-19-03. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KCU-19-03 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. BOARD DISCUSSION Board discussed layout of the site and location of the trash bins, parking, sidewalks and buffers. Young inquired about the partial alley on the east side of the property and whom it belongs to. Staff advised it currently belongs to the county. PUBLIC HEARING Mary McLoy — 525 Shady Glen Dr. — opposed to proposed trash location, feels it is too close to her property and his concerned about the smell. Randy Davis — 529 Shady Glen Dr. — concerned with additional traffic. Chris McLoy — 525 Shady Gen Dr. — opposed to trash location and additional traffic. Shane Komenda — 533 Shady Glen Dr. — concerned with additional traffic in regards to pedestrian safety. Brian Topp — 1496 Whalebone Dr. — family friend of the McLoy's, spends a lot of time at their home, and is concerned with additional traffic. Denise Stone — 529 Shady Glen Dr. — concerned with safety of children with increased traffic. MOTION (ORIGINAL) Vomfell moved and Skees seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KCU-19-03 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. BOARD DISCUSSION Board discussed the possibility of screening or shielding the trash enclosures. Staff advised the board that it is within their purview to add a condition to require that the trash enclosures be enclosed to screen from the neighbor directly to the east. Borgardt inquired about the partial alley that is owned by the county and if it would help with the trash location if it was annexed into the city. Staff advised that the owners could petition to have it abandoned if they so choose. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of July 9, 2019 Page ll MOTION (ADD COND. #13) Skees moved and Graham seconded a motion to add condition #13 to require that the applicant completely enclose the trash containers to include walls, doors and a roof. BOARD DISCUSSION None. ROLL CALL (ADD COND. #13) The motion passed 6-1 on a roll call vote. Rory Young is opposed to adding the condition. ROLL CALL (ORIGINAL) The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS Jentz updated the board on the August 13 agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:25pm. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Kalispell Planning Board will be on Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. and is located in the Kalispell City Council Chambers, 201 151 Ave East. � �16' -"� Lk:q-o w Chad Gra am President APPROVED as submitted/amended Kari Hernandez Recording Secretary Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of July 9, 2019 Page 12 City of Kalispell Charles A. Harball Office of City Attorney City Attorney 201 First Avenue East P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903-1997 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: RESPONSE TO APPEAL BY WOODLAND APARTMENT LLC TO SITE REVIEW DETERM[NATION Doug Russell, City Manager Charles Harball, City Attorney Tel 406.758.7709 Fax 406.758.7758 charball@kalispell.com Woodland Apartments LLC Appeal of Site Review Determination December 3, 2020 Basis of Appeal: In June 2019, Woodland Apartments LLC, the applicant, applied for a conditional use permit to construct a nine -unit apartment complex at 23 Woodland Park Drive/517 Shady Glen which is in a city B-1 (Neighborhood Business) zone. On August 5, 2019 after considering the materials provided by staff as well as the recommendations of the planning board, and considering the oral testimony offered, the City Council adopted the staff report as its findings of fact and issued a conditional use permit subject to 13 conditions. Among the conditions are compliance with Kalispell Design and Construction Standards which includes upgrading sidewalks, curb and gutter, street trees and boulevard adjacent to the applicant's property. The standard oversight by the Site Review Committee was also included in the conditions. Because of the layout of the applicant's property, in order to fit the necessary public infrastructure improvement upgrades called out by the Kalispell Design and Construction Standards within the right- of-way, approximately 2.5 feet along Shady Glen and a triangle containing approximately 135 square feet in the northwest corner of the property along Woodland Park Drive owned by the applicant were required to be dedicated to the City. Dedication requirements for public infrastructure along and serving a private development are not unusual. The applicant responded to this dedication requirement by deducting it as a government taking of this portion of his property without just compensation in the Recreational Land Value Calculation used for parkland requirements. He was notified by the Site Review Committee that, among other requirements, he must, "4. Update recreational amenity calculation to remove reference to condemnation prior to issuing a building permit." It is from this requirement that the applicant now appeals. Issues of the Appeal: 1) Are the findings made by the Council, incorporating the staff report, consistent with the evidence provided in the report and by oral testimony? 2) Are the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit consistent with the Council's findings? 3) Is the required dedication of applicant's land related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development? RESPONSE TO APPEAL BY WOODLAND APARTMENT LLC TO SITE REVIEW DETERMINATION December 3, 2020 Page - 2 Argument: 1. Are the findings made by the Council, incorporated in the staff report, consistent with the evidence provided in the report and by oral testimony? In considering this application for a conditional use permit the City Council had before it the complete staff report of the project with a recommendation for approval under a set of conditions, as well as the transmittal letter and minutes from Kalispell Planning Board with a recommendation for approval under the same set of conditions recommended by the city staff (other than the addition of shielding trash containers). Oral testimony was also given by staff to augment the staff report. The minutes of the Planning Board contained the testimony of several neighbors concerned about the increase in traffic that would be produced by the intensity of the development as well as for the safety of the pedestrians. The conditions recommended by the city staff were to require compliance with the City's approved Design and Construction Standards which includes upgrading sidewalks, curb and gutter, street trees and boulevard adjacent the applicant's property. The City has adopted a Transportation Plan through a public process that included the full consideration and action of the City Council. This Plan also addresses improvements to those streets adjacent to the applicant's property that would be required upon development of the property. The applicant makes particular note of the fact that a planning staff member testified that the streets adjacent to the applicant's development would be able to handle the increased traffic caused by the increased density of the project. This testimony was a response to the concern expressed by some of the neighbors and was also reflective of the fact that these concerns would be addressed through compliance with the design and construction standards and transportation plan. Prior to approving the conditional use applied for by the applicant and issuing the Conditional Use Permit containing the conditions that required compliance with its previously approved standards, the City Council received no evidence or request from the applicant to deviate from those standards. The City Council's findings were therefore consistent with the evidence it was provided. 2. Are the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit consistent with the Council's findings? The City Council adopted the staff report as its findings of fact. The conditions included in the Conditional Use Permit that it issued were also consistent with the conditions recommended in the staff report, as amended by the Planning Board (added shielding to trash receptacles). The basis for the applicant's appeal to the Site Review Committee's disallowing the reference to the condemnation of his property by the City is his own legal conclusion that the dedication of a portion of his property for public infrastructure is inconsistent with the City Council's findings that the conditional use he was requesting was otherwise appropriate. Such a conclusion ignores the many findings and actions of the City Council in the development and approval of its design and construction standards and transportation plan. As there was no specific evidence ever presented to the City Council that would recommend that its design and construction standards and transportation plan should not be applied to this specific development, the Conditional Use Permit was consistent with the Council's findings. Office of City Attorney City of Kalispell RESPONSE TO APPEAL BY WOODLAND APARTMENT LLC TO SITE REVIEW DETERMINATION December 3, 2020 Page - 3 3. Is the required dedication of applicant's land related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development? Although general design and construction standards and transportation plans are important guidelines to consider when evaluating a specific private development, consideration must also be given whenever a dedication of private land is required for public infrastructure. The rule established by Dolan v. City of Tigard - 512 U.S. 374, 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994) and which applies to the issue of this appeal is that although no precise mathematical calculation is required for a rough proportionality test, a city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development. The nature of the impact in this case is that the existing transportation infrastructure is essentially a rural road cross section and therefore has a lack of proper roadway width and sidewalks to support much additional residential density. These concerns were expressed by the neighbors who opined that nine more residential units on that short stretch of roadway would add the incremental density to compromise the safety of the residents. The transportation plan and design and construction standards of the City would address these concerns requiring the adequate widening of the roadway and add sidewalks to separate the pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The extent of the impact upon the applicants property was limited to the dedication of approximately 2.5 feet along the Shady Glen length of the property and a triangle containing approximately 135 square feet in the northwest corner of the property along Woodland Park Drive. This limited impact was accomplished through the reasonable concessions of the City to only require the applicant to provide enough right-of-way along Woodland Park Drive to provide a minimum of 6 feet of boulevard for snow storage and although the road would be improved by installing curb and gutter and sidewalk, it was not required to be widened beyond its existing width. In order to bring Shady Glen Drive up to minimum city Standards, it would have been necessary to widen it by approximately 5 feet. The applicant, however, was only required to widen his side of the street by 2.5 feet with the additional widening to be provided as some later date, when the property on the other side of the street is further developed. The City further reasonably approved five other deviations on the development, taking into consideration the limitations in lot size. Based upon these actions the City clearly applied a reasonable individualized determination regarding the extent of the impact the required public infrastructure dedication has on the applicant's property. The City Council should therefore find that the required dedication of applicant's land relates both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development. Attachments: Report from PJ Sorenson, Senior Planner, Development Services Department Report from Keith Haskins, City Engineer, Public Works Department Office of City Attorney City of Kalispell CITY OF KALISPELL REPORT TO: Doug Russell, City Manager FROM: PJ Sorensen, Senior Planner Development Services Department 201 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/planning SUBJECT: Site Review Appeal — Woodland Apartments MEETING DATE: December 7, 2020 BACKGROUND: Site Review Process New commercial, industrial, and multi -family developments, as well as additions and remodels with a change of use, go through our city Site Development Review Committee. The purpose of site review is to promote the general health and welfare by encouraging attention to site planning and giving regard to the natural environment, creative project design, and the character of the neighborhood. Site Review consists of representatives from most of the departments in the City and MDOT. Meetings are held every week. It is an effort to coordinate plan reviews by the different departments under existing regulations such as the zoning ordinance, Public Works design and construction standards, fire code and the landscape ordinance. In situations where there is a conditional use permit granted by the City Council, it is an opportunity to ensure that those conditions are met. The process typically begins when an applicant submits a building permit application to the Building Department. It is then placed on the site review agenda while each department conducts their individual review. It remains on the agenda until all of the reviews are completed to ensure that any issues have been addressed and that there are no conflicts between any approvals. Site review needs to be completed prior to issuing the building permit for the project. Section 27.20.120(4) allows an applicant to appeal any decision made by Site Review to the City Council through the City Manager. Woodland Apartments Conditional Use Permit In June 2019, Paul Bardos (Woodland Apartments) submitted an application for a conditional use permit to construct a nine (9) unit apartment complex at 23 Woodland Park Drive/517 Shady Glen. The conditional use permit is required due to its location in a B-1 (Neighborhood Business) zone. The matter was considered by the Planning Board at its July 9, 2019 meeting and was granted by the City Council at is August 5, 2019 meeting subject to 13 conditions. Conditional use permits are discretionary, as opposed to permitted uses, which are allowed as a matter of right. They are subject to review criteria contained in Section 27.33.080 of the zoning ordinance which are intended to ensure that the proposed use has no more impact on the neighborhood than generally permitted uses in the zoning district. Under Section 27.33.090, the burden of proof for satisfying review criteria rests "with the applicant and not the City Council. The granting of the Conditional Use Permit is a matter of grace, resting in the discretion of the City Council and a refusal is not the denial of a right, conditional or otherwise." Based on the record, the Council can approve, conditionally approve, or deny a conditional use permit request under Section 27.33.030(3), provided that it does not abuse its discretion. In other words, a conditionally permitted use is typically a higher intensity use than what is normally found in a given zone, and has a review process which allows an applicant to show that any impacts on the neighborhood are appropriately mitigated through the specific design of the project and any conditions that might be attached. Based on the application, the record, the Kalispell Planning Department staff report, and its due consideration, the Council granted the conditional use permit subject to 13 conditions without objection from the applicant. Included within those conditions were the following: 3. To ensure the traffic flow and access comply with Kalispell Design and Construction Standards, the development shall receive Site Review Committee approval prior to issuance of the building permit; and 7. Shady Glen Drive and Woodland Park Drive shall be upgraded to an urban standard in accordance with the City of Kalispell Construction and Design Standards the length of the property. Upgrades include sidewalks, curb and gutter, street trees and boulevard adjacent the applicant's property. The basis for the upgrade for the two streets begins with the Kalispell Transportation Plan, which is a document previously adopted by the City Council. It shows Woodland Park Drive as a Minor Arterial and Shady Glen as a local street: Shady Glen PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL MINORAMERIAL COLLECTOR ---- TRANSPORTATION PLAN BOUNDARY - FUTURE HWY 939YPASB The minimum right-of-way width is 80 feet for an arterial and 60 feet for a local street. Each includes a standard profile with a sidewalk, boulevard, curb/gutter, and other improvements. Besides handling vehicular traffic, those improvements address other impacts such as pedestrians and storm run-off. Under the City of Kalispell Design and Construction Standards, previously adopted by the City Council, all developments need to comply with these standards (Section 4.1.1.A) and extend necessary improvements to the far property line of the development (Section 4.1.1.C). Except for single-family and duplex building permits, any subdivision or other development would need to make these upgrades to comply with the Transportation Plan and the Design and Construction Standards. In order to fit the necessary improvements within the right-of-way, approximately 2.5 feet along Shady Glen and a triangle containing approximately 135 square feet in the northwest corner of the property along Woodland Park Drive need to be dedicated to the City. Woodland Apartments Site Review The applicant submitted partial plans in March 2020 and staff began to review the project. There were a number of review comments and resubmittals culminating in a conditional approval on October 22. The site review approval had six conditions which needed to be satisfied prior to issuing a permit. Condition number 4 is the specific condition appealed by the applicant, and per the appeal application "it is only item 94 of Site Review's conditional approval that is before the Council in this appeal." Condition number 4 stated: Update recreational amenity calculation to remove reference to condemnation prior to issuing a building permit. The recreational amenity is a code requirement reflected in condition 9 of the CUP which requires a minimum of 500 square feet of land per unit with recreational value, or recreational amenities equivalent to the fair market value, to be provided on -site. The recreational amenity calculation submitted by the applicant noted a "city inverse condemnation Shady Glen widening" and "net land area after taking." The reason for requiring the removal of the language is to prevent any explicit or implicit inference that the City would agree with that interpretation, which the City clearly does not. During the course of the review, staff worked with the applicant to make deviations from other standards where allowable under the city regulations to fit improvements on the property with the new boundaries. Public Works granted 5 deviations relating to the location of the storm drainage facilities, including the setback from the right-of-way. The Planning Department granted an administrative adjustment to reduce a required buffer between the parking and right- of-way line. These deviations minimized any potential impact on the site design which may have occurred with the right-of-way dedication. The other site review conditions include three documents to be recorded (lot aggregation, right-of-way deed, and a waiver of protest to an SID). They are ready to be recorded once condition 4 is addressed. The other remaining condition relates to a final design of the recreational amenity. The sixth condition was a landscaping detail which has been satisfied. Otherwise, the permit has been ready to be issued for some time. Conclusion The Woodland Apartments project was appropriately considered by the City Council when it issued the conditional use permit for the apartments. The permit included conditions related to upgrades to the adjacent streets. Site Review reviewed the submitted plans under existing regulations as well as the conditions placed on the project by the Council. Site Review's conditional approval of the project was reasonable, appropriate, and consistent with city regulations and the Council conditions. RECOMMENDATION: The appeal of condition 4, which requires the removal of the condemnation reference from the recreational amenity calculation, should be denied. ALTERNATIVES: Grant the appeal and allow the permit to be issued with the assertion of the condemnation claim. Report compiled: November 17, 2020 Aimee Brunckhorst, Kalispell City Clerk Public Works Justification for Right -of -Way at Woodland Apartments Applicable Provisions from Planning Documents, Standards, Ordinances, and Resolutions: 1. Per the Kalispell Transportation Plan (current at the time of review): • Woodland Park Drive is classified as a Minor Arterial • Shady Glen is classified as a local street PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL MINORARTERIAL COLLECTOR •••• TRANSPQRT-;TIQHPLAN 9QLJNOARY � FUTURE H'A"' M BYPASS 2. Per the City of Kalispell Design and Construction Standards: • All subdivisions and developments shall comply with the CK Subdivision Regulations and these Standards. §4.1.1.A • Roadways and utilities shall be constructed from the existing facilities to the far property line of the development or such other point within the development that may be specified by the City Engineer.§4.1.1.B • Obtain and provide the City with all easements and right-of-ways necessary to extend roadways and utilities to the far property line of the development. §4.1.1.0 • Roadway systems, including private roadways, shall be designed in accordance with the current edition of the Standards, the current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the current Kalispell Area Transportation Plan, and the CK Subdivision Regulations. Any conflicts or differences in these documents shall be resolved in favor of the Standards. §8.1.1.A • All roads within a proposed subdivision shall be designed by a professional engineer and approved by the City Engineer. § 8.1.1.B • Minimum right of way: Arterial = 80 ft; Collector = 60 ft; Local = 60 ft (Table 7, pg 94) 10' 60' RICAT OF WAY 10' 5' fi' 17' 17' —6.15 10' �•+•77 77.•+•� Ln L , x E,1SEKIENt . • x ' , , • x y a - ADA SI WALK � r RASAP, TYP. —PAVEMENT MARKINbs AS :REQUIRED, $" WHIT CRC$$IYA4r -PAVEMENT MARKING$ AS REQuiREI], 24" WHITE FLOP kR — — STREET hNg SrOP $IGN, rrP. w w w wOE �, w $70P6A5 Arn GAH 4 s 6G' RIGHT OF WAY PROPEM LINE FILLET, •I 5' x 5' 80' x EV CLEAR MIS ON TRWICLE *I 10' SIDEWALK CURB AND GUTTER BDULEVARD 17' 17' 2 2° T4" ASPHALT 6 CRUSHER SASE VY, svD-eaSE 40' (DSEE ROAD CONSTRK7I0N GENERA- NOTES FOR WTERIAL SPECIFICATIO.'IS UTILITY NOTE' ALL NEW UTILI-IE5. SHALL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND. EXCEPT FOR SEWER AND WATER, UNDERGROUftD UTILITIES, IF PLACED IN RICITI- OF WAY OR E:A5EMENT SHALL BE LOCATED BETWEEN THE dALCK OF SIDEWALK AND EASEMENT LINE. NO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE PLACED IN 7HE BOULEVARD BETWEEN T-1E E�XCK OF CURa AND 510F.WALK. j + /� `{shy + {gyp 1T_1 URBAN COLLECTO'C Figure 1- Standard Detail for an Urban Collector 10' 60' RIGHT OF WAY 14' 5' 9' 14 14' 9 5' 10' I t EASEMENT I SIDEWALK EASEMENT �5—L t� ADA SI DEWW1{ 4;L0'- ir1" RIGHT OF 'NAY SIDEWALK CURB AND GLMER BOULEVARD Ih'Jib- 2% 29 14" ASPHALT� ' CRUSIIED DOSE SUS —SASE 34' (*)SEE ROAD CDNSTR::CT1ON GENER+V- NOTES FOR MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS ZILfTY NQTE: ALt NEW UTUDES $HALL BE PLACED U"DER ROUND. EXCEPT FOR SEWER AND WATER, UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, IF PLACED IN WHT OF WAY OR EASEMENT SHALL BE LOCATED BETWEEN THE BACK 4F $Ip ml-K AFAR EASEMENT UNE, NO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE PLACED IH THE 80UlEV RD BETWEEN THE BACK OF CURB AVID SIDEWALK. ST,3 URBAN LOCAL Figure 2 - Standard Detail for a Local Street 3. Per the City of Kalispell Extension of Services Plan (Resolution 4937 — 2004) • It is the responsibility of the developer or property owner to design, construct and finance all new public or private infrastructure. This would include but not be limited to the water and sewer systems mains, reservoirs, pump stations, culverts, storm water drainage systems, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, landscaping, street lighting and necessary right-of-way extensions. These would be designed and constructed in accordance with the Kalispell Extension of Services Plan and Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction. Infrastructure improvements shall be of adequate size and design to accommodate the needs of the proposed development. In the even that a development creates impacts requiring off -site improvements, the Kalispell City Council will determine whether the developer shall wholly or partially bear the costs of such improvements. (Chapter 6 — General Policies — Item 1— pg 22) 4. Per the Zoning Ordinance: • Major Site Plan Approval — Commercial, Industrial, and multi -family developments and remodeling of existing structures when a change in use or structural expansion would result ... § 27.20.120.3 • Review Authority for Major Site Plan Approval. A "Site Development Review Committee" has the authority to review and require revisions to any major site plan. Said committee shall consist of the head of each department in the city or his/her designee and any other staff members so designated by the city manager. §27.20.120.(3)(c) • Power to Amend Plans. When approving an application for a site design and use, the Site Development Review Committee will include any or all of the following conditions, if they find it necessary to meet the intent and purpose and the criteria for approval of this ordinance: §27.20.120(3)(d) • Require new developments to provide limited controlled access onto a public street by means of traffic signals, traffic controls and turning islands, landscaping, or any other means necessary to insure the viability, safety, and integrity of the public street as a true corridor. In some cases, the city may require the developer to provide off -site improvements and right-of-way consideration, including but not limited to water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, street improvements, pedestrian ways, lighting and signalization. The city may require the developer to also furnish the city with appropriate engineering studies regarding the various impacts that the development might have on the city's public facilities as per the City's standards for design and construction.§27.20.120(3)(d)7 5. Per the Subdivision Regulations (although this is not a subdivision, developments are referenced in the Design and Construction Standards as previously listed in Item 2 above) • When a subdivision abuts an existing local, collector or arterial street, this street shall be upgraded as follows: If the required R/W for the abutting street is deficient, the subdivider shall provide at a minimum one-half of the required R/W to bring the road up to a minimum standard for the design classification of the street. ii. The subdivider shall at a minimum bring the abutting road profile up to city standards including sidewalk, boulevard, street trees, curb and gutter on the subdivision side of the street. iii. The subdivider shall upgrade the travel surface to the centerline of the street but in no event shall the overall street travel surface be less than the minimum required travel surface for a full street. §28.3.141 Findings: 1. Woodland Park Drive is classified in the Transportation Plan as a Minor Arterial, requiring a minimum of 80' of right-of-way and minimum pavement width as approved by the City Engineer (Collector Street = 34' TOC to TOC) per the Design and Construction Standards. • Current right-of-way varies along the length of the property frontage. • Current width is approximately 26' (EOP to EOP) 2. Woodland Park Drive is not centered in the right-of-way. In order to improve the road to minimum standards on the development's half of the street, the roadway would have to be moved west. This would be necessary to provide a full boulevard for snow storage and room for the sidewalk installation. The road is currently without curb, boulevard, or sidewalk. 3. Shady Glen Drive is classified in the Transportation Plan as a local street, requiring a minimum right-of-way width of 60' and minimum pavement width of 28' (TOC to TOC) per the Design and Construction Standards. • Current right-of-way is 55 feet. Per the Subdivision Regulations adopted by City Standards for development, 2.5' of right-of-way will be required to be dedicated on the development's side of the street. • Current street width is approximately 22' (EOP to EOP) 4. Shady Glen Drive is currently without curb, boulevard, or sidewalk. 5. Per ITE Trip Generator, a Land Use Code:220 — Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise) has the following associated trips: • Weekday:66 RZ=0.96 • Saturday:73 RZ=0.93 • Sunday:57 RZ=0.96 6. Because the number of trips is calculated to be under 300 vehicle trips per day, per City Standards a Traffic Impact Analysis is not required. Discussion: Per the "Applicable Provisions from Planning Documents, Standards, Ordinances, and Resolutions" listed above, the development was found to require upgrades to meet minimum City Standards for both Woodland Park Drive and Shady Glen Drive. Both Streets are currently constructed to a rural cross section lacking curb and gutter, sidewalk, boulevard, street trees, ext. In order to bring Woodland Park Drive up to minimum City Standards, the road needs be widened to a minimum of 34' pavement width and 38' from back of curb to back of curb. Preliminary discussions with the engineer for the project indicated that Woodland Park Drive was offset to the east side of the right- of-way. To bring the street up to minimum standards, the entire street would have to be offset to the west and rebuilt. This upgrade would require offsite construction to make the street match back into the existing road. In lieu of requiring Woodland Park Drive to be rebuilt in the center of the existing right-of-way, Public Works ultimately agreed to only require the development to provide enough right-of-way to provide a minimum of 6 feet of boulevard for snow storage. The road would be improved by installing curb and gutter and sidewalk. However, the road was not required to be widened beyond its existing width. These concessions only required a triangular right-of-way dedication in the northwest corner of the property to as necessary to install curb and gutter, 6' of boulevard, and sidewalk upgrades on the development side of Woodland Park Drive. To bring Shady Glen Drive up to minimum city Standards, the development side of the street (north side) needs to be widened by approximately 5', curb and gutter installed, a 9' boulevard provided, and a 5' sidewalk installed. The current right-of-way width is 55'. To get up to the required minimum width of 60', each side of the street needs to dedicate 2.5' of right-of-way. The 2.5' on the other side of the street would be dedicated with a future project. Other Discussion: Commercial sites in the City of Kalispell often require upgrades and right-of-way dedications. Two recent examples of this are the Glenwood Apartments and the Crossings at Spring Creek which are both adjacent to 2 Mile Drive. Both projects were/are required to upgrade the street to minimum City Standards including curb and gutter and sidewalk. Additionally, the Glenwood Apartments project dedicated a similar amount of right-of-way (about 4'). These improvements not only bring the street up to the standard expected by the public of the City of Kalispell, but also provide the infrastructure necessary to for the City of Kalispell to provide an equitable level of service into the future. The boulevard is critical for snow storage during winter operations and allows placement and access to city infrastructure such as curb stops, meter pits, fire hydrants and street lights. Curb and gutter and storm sewer improvements transmit storm water to catch basins which the city is equipped to maintain. Sidewalk provides necessary pedestrian facilities as the development occurs, keeping pedestrians out of the streets and ditches and providing pedestrian connections. The Public Works Department approved 5 deviations on this project in consideration of the limitations in lot size. 1. Deviation in the required setback of storm water facilities from a building foundation. 2. Deviation in the size of maintenance access ports for the underground infiltration system. 3. Deviation in the required setback from infiltration facilities. 4. Deviation to not require an emergency spillway on the underground infiltration facility. 5. Deviation from the required setback from stormwater facilities to the property line (in this case the street right-of-way).