05-08-01KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF MEETING
MAY 8, 2001
CALL TO ORDER AND Greg Stevens called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00
ROLL CALL p.m. Members present were: Don Mann, Don Garberg, Dale
Pierce, Ron Van Natta, Rob Heinecke, Bill Rice, Brian Sipe, and
Greg Stevens. Don Hines had an excused absence. Narda
Wilson represented the Flathead Regional Development Office.
There were approximately 2 people in the audience.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by Heinecke and seconded by Sipe the minutes of
the meeting of February 13, 2001 were unanimously approved
as submitted.
GREAT BASIN An amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance proposed by
ENGINEERING/SMITH'S Great Basin Engineering on behalf of Smith's Food and Drug to
FOOD AND DRUG TEXT amend parking requirements for supermarkets and grocery
AMENDMENT stores.
STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, of the Flathead Regional Development Office,
gave a presentation of staff report KZTA-01-2, an amendment
to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance proposed by the applicants
would amend Section 27.26.050(21), Off Street Parking for
Grocery and Supermarkets. This section would be amended as
follows, one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area for the
first 5,000 square feet plus one space for each 300 square feet
in excess of 5,000 square feet. Wilson reviewed the findings of
fact and statutory criteria, thus recommending that the
proposed amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance be
approved.
Mann asked and Wilson answered that the Smith store was
approximately 50,000 square feet. The parking ratios for
Whitefish and Columbia Falls were compared to Kalispell.
PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak
on the proposal.
PROPONENTS No one wished to speak.
OPPONENTS No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
MOTION Rice moved and Van Natta seconded to adopt staff report KZTA-
01-2 as findings of fact and, based on those findings,
recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed
amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance be approved.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 8, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 7
0
MOTION (AMENDMENT) Mann moved and Rice seconded to amend the motion to read,
"1 parking space per 300 square feet".
BOARD DISCUSSION Garberg asked and Wilson answered that she did not see a
downside to the amendment, that there was a lot of unused
parking at most supermarkets. She added that Home Depot
was told they could reduce their parking but they opted to keep
it. Garberg added that if a supermarket wanted to go to the
higher standard they could.
Garberg was in agreement with the amendment. He said he'd
seen a lot of empty spaces at Smith's and Rosauer's and he
thought they might be requiring too much parking.
There was a brief discussion about extra parking spaces for
smaller businesses and other retailers.
ROLL CALL The motion passed with 7 in favor and 1, Van Natta, opposed.
MOTION (AMENDMENT) Heinecke moved and Mann seconded to amend the motion to
include #47, "shopping centers", and #35, "other retail".
BOARD DISCUSSION Heinecke wondered if Kalispell wasn't being too restrictive if
other municipalities were 1 to 300.
Garberg thought they might be opening a can of worms, that
some developments would not accommodate parking.
Stevens agreed and said they were not experts and they had no
research to go on. Wilson said the general standards for retail
were 1 to 300.
P.J. Sorenson stated that, from a legal standpoint, the
amendment to include shopping centers and other retail was
not advertised for a public hearing. He advised the board direct
staff to look at the sections and recommend an action. He
added that shopping centers would require different parking
ratios. The board concluded that there should be public notice.
Van Natta said he saw at least 2 new gas stations, one at
Smith's and one at Rosauer's. He added that businesses in
Whitefish had pretty tight parking with the 1 to 300 ratios. He
preferred they stay with 1 to 300 for supermarkets only.
Wilson suggested she do some general research for parking and
bring it up under new business at the next meeting. They
could make a recommendation to the council to initiate
changes to the text.
Heinecke explained that people should not have to pay for the
change, that text should be changed so a customer would not
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 8, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 7
have to request it.
ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion failed with 6 opposed and 2,
(AMENDMENT) Stevens and Heinecke, in favor.
ROLL CALL (MAIN On a roll call vote the motion passed with 7 in favor and 1, Van
MOTION) Natta, opposed.
TRISTAR An amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance proposed by
COMMUNICATIONS TriStar Communications that would amend the B-5, I-1, and I -
TEXT AMENDMENT 2 zoning districts to allow cellular communication towers as a
permitted use and establish performance standards.
STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, of the Flathead Regional Development Office,
gave a presentation on staff report KZTA-01-03, a proposed text
amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance that would allow
for the installation of cellular towers to be allowed in the B-5,
Commercial/Industrial, I-1, Light Industrial, and I-2, Heavy
Industrial, as permitted uses, and subject to performance
standards. In addition to the current standards in the Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance dealing with transmission towers, the
applicant is proposing additional standards for the towers. An
amendment is proposed which would require a one mile
separation between cellular communication towers unless co -
location opportunities do not exist and to require that the
cellular communication tower has co -location and tower
strength to provide for four separate communication providers.
Staff reviewed the findings of fact, based on statutory criteria,
and recommended the board adopt the changes as outlined in
exhibit A, with two minor changes; that the regulations would
not apply to antennas for hamm radios or for already existing
structures, such as water towers. Also, that they add language
regarding height restrictions to read, "not to exceed the
minimum required for transmission".
Stevens asked how they would screen a 150 foot tower and
Wilson said they would screen the base. She added that they
had ways to stealth towers and/or camouflage them.
APPLICANTS / J.R. Reger, Billings, Montana, said he works for TriStar
AGENCIES Communications, which is a Montana Limited Liability, and
builds wireless infrastructure networks around the state. He
said he builds communication towers capable of co -locating 4
to 6 licensed carriers antennas who lease space from him on
the tower. Reger stated the regulations were acceptable, except
for two things; Item E of Subsection 5, general requirements for
locating a transmission tower and Section J, stating all
transmission and cellular communication towers be located a
minimum of one mile apart. Reger stated there was a problem
U with that language because a 50 foot tower had no value for co -
location. He said height was the main factor because the
technology is line of sight. The problem with Subsection F,
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 8, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 7
where it amends Section 27.22.070, is that the companies do
not know what height they need to be at in order to meet their
objective. Reger said he provided towers that were capable of
meeting any company's coverage requirement. He pointed out
that if the tower was too low they could not co -locate and they
would build their own or multiple towers to fit their coverage
area. Reger stated his towers would range from 160 to 250
feet, the average for Kalispell being 140 to 180 feet. Reger
passed around a drawing of a 160 foot monopole with 6
separate users. He said each of the 6 spots would meet the
coverage requirement for any company. Reger addressed the
positive aspects of wireless digital PCS. He said it was cheaper
and it had the potential to access email and pay credit card
bills, all via the cell phone. The text amendment would place
towers in the areas of town where towers should be placed;
heavily industrial and commercially zoned areas. He added
that the one mile separation would decrease the amount of
towers in town and make co -location better. Reger added that
it had been said that he was creating a monopoly and would
lock competitors out, however, under this proposal there was
no way to do that. If a server thought his prices were
exorbitant they could go to federal court and seek relief with the
1996 Telecommunications Act. He said he gets around that by
charging 15% less than his competitors. He suggested
subsection `J' would be better worded by stating, all
transmission and cellular communication towers be located a
O minimum of one mile apart, "unless co -location facilities do not
exist".
Van Natta asked and Reger answered that for a complete,
seamless network they would require a minimum of 4 and a
maximum of 5 towers. He said Blackfoot has at least 5 towers
in the area.
Pierce asked if Blackfoot would be a user on one of his towers
and Reger said, if they were having a problem meeting their
coverage objectives they could be a potential customer.
Mann asked about screening or camouflaging and Reger said
because it was heavy industrial they wouldn't camouflage a
tower but in the Scenic Corridor or on Political Hill in Lakeside,
those towers could be turned into trees. He said they would try
to camouflage them as best as possible by placing them back
where you wouldn't notice them, hopefully trees are already
there, they could put them on grain elevators, silos, or am radio
towers. He said if there weren't any trees around they couldn't
make them look like a tree, it would make them stand out even
more.
Mann asked and Reger answered that he would like to make it
a requirement as a permitted use that they handle at least 4
separate users, one at 160 feet, the next one at 145 feet, then
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 8, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 7
130 feet and 115 feet. The coverage objective being a lot
smaller for the guy at the bottom.
�) Mann was concerned that, in light of the growth of the
industry, it would not be enough if the tower only handled 4
customers. Reger said he was going to build towers to handle 6
servers. He added that the towers would not create adverse
zoning impacts and co -location would be promoted.
Garberg asked and Reger answered that the locations they were
considering were in the general B-5 area and another south on
Highway 93 in industrial areas. He said the airport had
specific rules. The FAA has the final say, if they said yes, they
could build it, but if they say no, it's an emphatic NO. He said
they were planning to build in a heavily treed area off Highway
2 North, near Evergreen and another one off Reserve. He said
their efforts would be concentrated in five locations to provide
seamless coverage. He said the flip side would be 50 to 120
foot towers built by each company.
Stevens asked and Reger answered that if a customer feels he is
charging too much they could take it to a federal judge and
seek relief. Stevens didn't want to put people in a position
where they had to hire an attorney and he thought that's what
they would be doing when they say "require" co -location.
Stevens said that essentially they were giving him the first step
of a monopoly. It was noted that most of the locations were not
in the City of Kalispell.
Reger said the one mile separation was current in Billings and
Whitefish and it caused a cut throat business. He said that if
they have the opportunity to build right next to another pole
they would, with no remedy because tower companies were not
protected, whereas wireless service carriers are protected.
Stevens said if they required co -location they were passing a
law, which required someone to use his tower. Reger said if
there were co -location possibilities on his tower they would
want to go on and it would be better for the City not to have a
lot of towers. He added that if a tower were built across the
street from his tower, his tower would be worth half as much.
Van Natta stated that all they were doing was passing an
ordinance and that TriStar was just the resource for adopting
that ordinance. Reger stated that if there was no separation it
was a very real possibility there would be multiple towers very
close to each other and he thought it would make the City look
gaudy. Stevens said the word "require" was his concern.
Garberg said he could
the proposal.
Sipe suggested they
understand the thinking that went into
add language that stated "unless co -
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 8, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 7
location opportunities don't exist".
PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak
on the proposal.
PROPONENTS No one wished to speak.
OPPONENTS No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
MOTION Sipe moved and Pierce seconded to adopt staff report KZTA-01-
03 as findings of fact and, based on those findings, recommend
to the Kalispell City Council that the standards in attached
Exhibit A, adding language to part J, "unless co -location
opportunities do not exist", be made part of the Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance.
MOTION Van Natta moved and Rice seconded to amend the proposal to
(AMENDMENT# 1) require it be a conditionally permitted use in all zones.
BOARD DISCUSSION VanNatta thought the council would be interested in looking at
the proposals for structures and that there was a lot of interest
with 160 to 180 foot structures proposed around town. He
thought they ought to allow for public input before they move
forward.
Rice said he agreed with Van Natta, that it was a good idea to
(� have the public look at where the towers would be placed and
to define the height and screening.
ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed with 6 in favor and 2,
(AMENDMENT #1) Stevens and Sipe, opposed.
BOARD DISCUSSION Mann expressed concern that a conditional use permit would
allow for limitation and said that by including J it would put
them in a box. Wilson pointed out that the idea was to not
have a proliferation of towers. She thought J would make them
consider what was available in the area and ask, are there co -
location opportunities. Wilson said she did not see it as
superfluous, that it would set some evaluation criteria before
them to ask if it was the right spot for that use.
Stevens asked how the one mile figure was determined. Reger
answered, one tower would exceed the coverage objective within
one linear mile, however, topography did play a part.
Stevens wondered why they needed the one mile requirement if
there was a conditional use process.
MOTION Mann moved and Garberg seconded to strike condition J all
(AMENDMENT#2) together.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 8, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 7
�1
BOARD DISCUSSION Mann thought the wording was putting them in a box when,
maybe in the future, they could get by with 50 feet.
Stevens suggested those concerns would be met at the time of
the conditional use process.
Van Natta said that without the one mile requirement a
company could come in and build a lot of 80 foot towers.
Rice pointed out that if there was a spot on the tower, why
would they allow someone another tower.
Garberg said he had a problem with the one mile requirement.
He thought it disallowed flexibility.
ROLL CALL The motion passed on a roll call vote with Stevens, Sipe,
(AMENDMENT #2) Garberg, Pierce and Mann voting aye, and Van Natta, Heinecke,
and Rice voting no.
MOTION Heinecke moved and Rice seconded, to amend condition 6 to
(AMENDMENT#3) add verbiage, "at the expense of the owner", after the words,
structure/tower shall be removed.
ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed with 7 in favor and 1,
(AMENDMENT #3) Stevens, opposed.
ROLL CALL (AMENDED On a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously.
MAIN MOTION)
OLD BUSINESS Stevens read a letter from the City Attorney regarding
Ordinance 725 and the legal authority of the Kalispell City -
County Planning Board. He also mentioned a letter to the City
of Kalispell from the Commissioners' Attorney regarding a news
report of a hired planner and the statute to provide a budget.
It was concluded by the board that they were not going to solve
anything tonight and they would let the Commissioners and
City Council work it out.
NEW BUSINESS Heinecke encouraged staff to do a study and propose parking
for the zoning regulations.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned on a motion by Sipe and seconded
by all at approximately 9:20 p.m. The next regular meeting will
be Tuesday, June 12, 2001 at 7:00 p.m.
Gr g vens, P t Debbie Willis, Recording Sec -
Appr ed as s bmi corrected: _4/01
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 8, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 7