Loading...
01-11-11KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 11, 2011 CALL TO ORDER AND The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and ROLL CALL Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were: John Hinchey, Chad Graham, Bryan Schutt, C.M. (Butch) Clark, Richard Griffin and new board member Phillip Guiffrida. Troy Mendius was absent. Sean Conrad, P.J. Sorensen and Tom Jentz represented the Kalispell Planning Department. There were 5 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Clark moved and Schutt seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the November 9, 2010 meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a vote by acclamation. PUBLIC COMMENT No one wished to speak. PRELIMINARY PLAT — A request by CTA representing Goldberg Properties, Inc., for SPRING PRAIRIE CENTER, preliminary plat approval of Spring Prairie Center Phase III. Phase PHASE III III includes 21.9 acres and is proposed to be subdivided into 10 lots ranging in size from 0.82 of an acre to 4.5 acres. In addition to the 10 lots, three tracts of land for storm water drainage collection are also proposed. The subdivision is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of US Highway 93 North and Treeline Road. The property is zoned B-5/PUD (Industrial -Business Planned Unit Development) and is part of the Spring Prairie Planned Unit Development Mixed Commercial POD. Anticipated development on the proposed lots includes but is not limited to, retail commercial businesses, restaurants, professional offices and financial institutions. STAFF REPORTS KPP-10-02 Sean Conrad representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed staff report KPP-10-02. Conrad said the subject property is approximately 22 acres in size and is zoned B-5 (Business Industrial) zoning district with Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay zoning. The PUD is known as Spring Prairie Center which was approved in 2003. The preliminary plat of phase III would create 10 commercial lots and the plat - - - - -substantially reflects an existing plat that the city council approved in 2003. Phases I and II are already developed and include Lowe's and Costco and several other commercial sites along Highway 93 North. The developers had submitted a final plat for Phase III but it was never approved because financing wasn't available to cover the bond for the subdivision improvements agreement and the preliminary plat expired. Now they have resubmitted the preliminary Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 11, 2011 Page 1 of 10 plat which will give them four more years to work out development on this site. Conrad reviewed an aerial map and provided the location of the site and surrounding commercial uses. Conrad noted the Spring Prairie PUD was approved in 2003 and conditions 10 & 11 in the staff report reflect the 2003 approved site plan. The current site plan substantially complies with the 2003 approval with some minor modifications and therefore staff is recommending the planning board amend conditions 10 & 11 to reflect the December 29, 2010 conceptual plan. Conrad reviewed the preliminary plat map and utilities currently in place including utility easements with existing water, sewer and storm lines which were installed by the developer several years ago. There are also hydrants on site. The BPA easement cuts through the site and there are also two BPA towers on the east side of the site. BPA submitted comments and requested the following conditions: Condition 13 would require permitting for work that is done within the BPA easement; and Condition 14 would require that language be placed on the face of the final plat notifying developers of the BPA easement. However, staff received an email from BPA dated January 5h and BPA is now requesting that Condition #14 be removed because it is no longer needed. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KPP-10-02 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary p a e approved su ject to the 18 conditions listed in the staff report along with the minor amendments to Conditions 10 & 11 and removal of Condition 14. BOARD QUESTIONS Graham said under #2 of the General Conditions it states that a city Stormwater Management Permit shall be approved and issued through the public works department and the system has to be approved by the city. Graham questioned why that would be required if the stonnwater system is private. Conrad said Condition #2 is referring to any excavation or earthwork that would be in conjunction with any additional improvements or modifications of their existing system. The stormwater-permit-would-let-the-applicant- --- know that they have to do reseeding and dust abatement which is typically a problem during construction season. APPLICANT/TECHNICAL Jeff Dillon, Vice President of Goldberg Properties, 195 West 12t SUPPORT Avenue, Denver; Colorado said he is accompanied by Wayne Freeman of CTA. He appreciates the board's consideration of the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 11, 2011 Page 2 of 10 preliminary plat application and would ask that the board approve the application based on the staff report. They would be happy to answer any questions the board may have. PUBLIC HEARING No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Clark moved and Schutt seconded a motion to adopt staff report KPP-10-02 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat be approved subject to the 18 conditions listed in the staff report including the amendments to conditions 10 & 11 and the removal of condition 14 as noted above. BOARD DISCUSSION Clark said it appears this is just housekeeping and Schutt agreed. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously by a roll call vote. KELLY ROAD CELLULAR A request by Digital Skylines, Inc., representing Verizon Wireless, TOWER - CONDITIONAL for a conditional use permit to install an 80 foot self-supporting USE PERMIT cellular tower and a 12 foot by 26 foot prefab equipment building inside a 50 foot by 60 foot fenced lease area. The cellular tower and accompanying lease site is proposed at 139 Kelly Road. The property is one acre in size and is located on the north side of Kelly Road, approximately 900 feet east of the intersection of Kelly Road and Highway 93. The property is zoned B-5 (Industrial -Business) which requires a conditional use permit for cellular towers within the district. STAFF REPORTS KCU-10-07 Sean Conrad representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed staff report KCU-10-07. Conrad said before the board is a conditional use permit request from Digital Skylines, Inc., representing Verizon Wireless for a cellular communication tower on a property located on the north side of Kelly Road approximately one acre in size. The site is zoned B-5 (Business -Industrial) which requires a conditional use permit prior to erecting any type of cellular tower. Conrad reviewed the vicinity map, site plan, aerial photographs and the current and expected coverage along Highway 93 South with the installation of the cellular tower. Conrad continued the cellular tower would be erected in the northeast corner of the property on a leased site 42' X 70'. There is commercial and light industrial development on 3 sides of this site with single-family residential development on the north side. The tower is proposed at 80 feet tall and the lease site would include the tower with an equipment shelter that is approximately 300 square feet in size. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 11, 2011 Page 3 of 10 Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KCU-10-07 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the 8 conditions listed in the staff report. Conrad noted to -date no comments have been received either for or against the conditional use permit. BOARD QUESTIONS Griffin asked if in the future there was a decision made to extent the height of the tower would they have to come back to the board and council for approval and Conrad said yes. Guffrida asked why they chose a lattice structure over a monopole and Conrad deferred to the applicant for an answer to that question. Graham asked how the reception will be affected for the collocation sites that are lower on the pole and Conrad also deferred this question to the applicant but added part of the ordinance code requires the ability to collocate other antenna on towers and he believes that the lower the antenna the more interference they would get from buildings and trees. APPLICANT/TECHNICAL Kevin Howell, Digital Skylines, Inc., 11340 North 105 Place, SUPPORT Scottsdale, AZ said in response to the self-support v. monopole question, the ordinance is very clear about being able to hold multiple antennas and the 3-legged self-support structure that they have proposed has the ability to handle more antennas than a monopole. Howell noted the ordinance also calls for four additional carriers and the carriers like having 10 feet from the tip of each antenna to avoid interference but at the proposed 80 foot height it would not be possible to have 5 antennas on the proposed structure. Howell added if the board wants them to use a monopole they would have no problem complying with that request. Howell continued we are all used to carrying cell phones for making phone calls but now with droids and blackberries we are actually carrying mini -computers. Each tower can hold approximately 200 simultaneous calls and just as you notice your internet slows in periods of high use the number of calls is reduced and will continue to be reduced with the introduction of iphones and ipads which is driving the need for more towers. Howell added Verizon Wireless is currently working on 10 different wireless sites in the Flathead Valley. Howell said 15 years ago when wireless cost $1.00 per minute it was a rich person's toy. Now 25% of homes do not have any home service but wireless. Towers are public infrastructure just like Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 11, 2011 Page 4 of 10 telephone cables and power but unfortunately it is seen because it is in the line of sight. Guffrida said regarding the collocation of other carriers on this tower would the height prohibit interest in collocation because of trees in the vicinity that could disrupt service or do you think clients would use the lower points on the tower? Howell said higher isn't always better and he explained the current tower on Highway 93 and 2 would not need to see as far with the addition of this tower which is approximately 3 miles as the crow flies. Therefore the installation of additional towers reduces the height needed. Howell said although he cannot answer for specific carriers when another carrier comes in who is not in town today they will want to be high on the pole as they gather customers but when a current carrier expands lower collocation will work. Griffin asked if the 2 antennas are part of the "backhaul system" and Howell said they are. The goal for Verizon nationwide is to get fiber optics to every site. They would rather portray the dishes in a zoning hearing up front rather than come back and ask for them 6 months later because all of sudden there wasn't fiber available. Howell explained the backhaul system which is when you make a call to a tower it doesn't process the call all it does is send it to a central office, which for Kalispell is in Helena, and the office sends it to the tower the caller is served from and then to their phone and they have to get into the public telephone network to do that. Hinchey asked about plans for future towers in the valley which Howell provided. uiarK saia ne is navmg promems witn the iooxs or the tower especially right next to a residential area. Clark thought a monopole would look better but a fake tree would be preferred. Howell said if the tower were totally surrounded by residential they would recommend a fake tree tower, no question. However this site is surrounded on 3 sides by industrial uses and the ordinance requires loading the tower up with as many carriers as possible and that is why they went with the self-supporting tower. Clark said he will not support building the tower as proposed in that location. Howell said if the board says the only way this proposal will work is with a fake tree that would be fine but he would add that may limit some of the collocation opportunities. Guiffrida said back to the lattice/monopole/fake tree type design he went around the valley and looked at some of the poles and most seem to be monopoles. He did find a lattice pole on Whitefish State Road and he noticed on that Dole was conduit running down Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 11, 2011 Page 5 of 10 the lattice. Howell said yes there are 15 to 18 runs of cable and what they will typically do is put it in the corners of the support structure and you really don't see the cable. Clark said he noticed there is a lightning rod on top and is there a red light for the airport and Howell said the FAA gave clearance at these heights and the staff report indicates that the Airport Manager was also satisfied with the FAA's report. Howell said they asked the airport if they wanted the tower and they declined the request. PUBLIC HEARING Charles Lapp, 3230 Columbia Falls Stage Road said he owns property across Kelly Road from this site. Lapp said the service varies on either side of Kelly Road between getting service to roaming and calls going directly to voice mail. Lapp said they certainly could use better service in that area and he is in favor of the proposed cell tower. Lapp said about 10 — 12 years ago he was approached about a cell tower on his property and they submitted the same type of application but at that time questions came up about the close proximity of the airport and ultimately they didn't get approval. Lapp said he had never heard of a fake tree tower but the trees are tall enough that he feels the tower will blend in nicely. MOTION Schutt moved and Griffin seconded a motion to adopt staff report KCU-10-07 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the 8 conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Graham said he went out to the site to gage the height of the tower and was anticipating a lot of public comment from the surrounding neighborhood. Conrad said the planning department has not received any comments by phone, letter or email. Graham said he now feels comfortable approving this request. Guiffrida said in the staff report it describes using vegetation or trees to cover the antenna and he asked wouldn't that be counter- productive if it would interfere with the signal? Conrad said it may be that planting poplar trees along the north property boundary could block the signal depending on proximity to the tower and then they could discuss whether the proposed location would be the only option for that particular property. Conrad said staff did not receive any public comment by the time the staff report was written. He added in working with cell .towers in California the primary concern was usually aesthetics. Clark said he thinks the board should keep in mind the aesthetics because there is no question there will be a lot more towers scattered around town. Clark suggested the tower be moved to the front of the lot which would move it away from the residential area. Jentz said the closer the tower gets to Kelly Road the more Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 11, 2011 Page 6 of 10 visible the tower will be from both Kelly Road and the Highway 93 corridor. There was further discussion regarding using a fake tree pole and Griffin said he has seen several examples and they look a lot worse than the proposed tower. Griffin said it is an industrial site and if he was living in one of the houses he would appreciate the service. Guiffrida agreed and he added the only fake tree he has seen that works is a palm tree in Florida. Guiffrida said he visited the site and the tower would have to be at the back of the lot because the contractor is utilizing the front section of the lot and trying to maneuver around a cell tower would be difficult. Guiffrida also agreed that keeping the tower away from the highway corridor is important. He added a tower as proposed in an industrial area and being non -reflective is more important to him. Clark recommended a monopole instead of the proposed design. Hinchey asked if there was a motion to amend and no motion was made. Schutt said it is not that the board isn't concerned about what it looks like but he doesn't think a fake tree is a huge improvement. Schutt said if the residents were really concerned about the tower in their back yard there would have been people at the hearing or at least writing letters or emails to the board. Hinchey agreed and said he is more concerned with the location of the tower relative to the entrance corridor and the aesthetics which they strive to improve. Schutt agree that moving the tower forward on the lot would make it much more obvious from Highway 93. Griffin said whatever we can do to help the traveling public as well as the community is a good thing and he has no issues with the tower as proposed. Guiffrida added technology is extremely important especially for the City of Kalispell because it helps drive job growth and from a business perspective it is important to keep things as high-tech as possible. ROLL CALL The original motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. GROWTH POLICY A proposal by the City of Kalispell to amend the Kalispell Growth AMENDMENT TO ADD A Policy 2020 by adding a specific policy to address annexation of SPECIFIC POLICY TO land to the city. The purpose of the policy would be to help provide ADDRESS ANNEXATION OF predictability, guidance and tuning when addressing annexation LAND TO THE CITY OF requests to the city. The policy is intended to encourage an efficient KALISPELL patter of growth and the efficient extension of municipal services to land in and near the city. The proposed annexation policy would Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 11, 2011 Page 7 of 10 contain both a map and policies. The map graphically portrays those areas adjacent to the city where requests for annexation would be routinely embraced and conversely those areas further out where requests for annexation or municipal service may be provided using alternative measures. The associated policy text provides further guidance in interpreting the map and providing suggested procedures to follow. STAFF REPORT KGPA-10-01 Tom Jentz, presenting the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed staff report KGPA-10-01 for the board. Jentz said one year ago the city council asked the planning board to address and develop an annexation policy for the City of Kalispell. Jentz reviewed the city's growth from 1990 — 2010 and outlined the review process and the proposed annexation policy and map. Jentz noted the city would welcome annexation for any properties within the proposed annexation boundary and they would have to go through the process of planning board review and city council approval. Outside of the boundary staff would meet with the owner/developer but it probably would be a waiver of annexation where the development would be built to city standards but not annexed until the time when the city finally grew out to those areas. Jentz added in September letters were sent out to local governments, rural fire departments, school districts, Evergreen Water and Sewer District, Citizens for a Better Flathead and other agencies who would be affected by development on the fringes of the city. Jentz continued the board also met with the Flathead County Planning Board in October who supported the proposed policy. Staff recommends the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission take public comment at the public hearing. Based on that comment and additional board discussion, the board should make changes as they feel appropriate. Staff recommends at that point the planning board should by resolution resolve to recommend to the city council that the Kalispell Annexation Policy be adopted as an amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020. BOARD QUESTIONS Griffin said he likes what has been done so far. Griffin asked when the north end of the Highway 93 Alternate Route is built with sewer running down the route's R/W won't that push potential development north and west because of the access to city utilities? Griffin added that will open more territory to the west and he wondered if the western boundary shouldn't be moved further west. Jentz said this policy is probably a 10 year policy and in 5 years it should be reviewed to determine if it is adequate or needs to be updated. Jentz explained further. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 11, 2011 Page 8of10 Schutt said we talk about the boundary line and indicate properties inside the boundary would potentially be annexed but what do we do with properties that straddle this line? Jentz said when a developer comes in we would show them this policy and if their property is within in boundary they would have some degree of assurance that they can seek annexation and then would have to go through the process. If the property straddles the line annexation would not be guaranteed and approval would depend on the strength of their application including the location of current services, how well they would be served by emergency services, and all the other factors that would make annexation appropriate. Griffin said there is a lot of county property within the boundary that is already built out and it would be nice to be able to define those developments on the map. Jentz showed him a map that has those areas shown which he reviewed. Griffin asked at some point won't the wholly surrounded areas of county property need to be addressed for annexation and Jentz said the biggest issue with those areas is emergency response because it gets confusing as to whose jurisdiction a property is in and who should get dispatched. Jentz added there is a state law that gives the city council the ability to annex those areas and council recently decided not to move forward on annexing those areas at this time. Guiffrida noted on page 5 of the proposed policy under the annexation district Section 3.c.l.g. it refers to the payment of "all impact fees being collected and placed in an escrow account..." and he asked if that should be reworded due to the new city ordinance that would allow impact fee payments. Jentz said the difference is the ordinance addresses payment of the fees and section cited in the annexation policy addresses at is done wit the money once they are paid and before the property is annexed. PUBLIC HEARING James D. Metcalf, 165 Trailridge Road asked for a copy of the proposed annexation boundary map which was provided. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Schutt moved and Graham seconded a motion to adopt Resolution KGPA-10-01 and recommend to the city council that the Kalispell Annexation Policy be adopted as an amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020. BOARD DISCUSSION Clark said in answer to Griffin's questions on the west side it seems a few years ago we ran into a problem extending that line further west because that area of the county was zoned for 5 acre parcels. Jentz said that area is unique in the county because there Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 11, 2011 Page 9 of 10 still are large farm holdings and they want to continue farming. They also know that if conditions change in the future they will have other options with the city growth to the west. Jentz said he doesn't see anything happening within the next 5 years that would require a change to the annexation boundary in that area. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS: Schutt asked if a letter was sent to the Flathead County Commissioners outlining the concerns of the Kalispell, Whitefish and Flathead County Planning Boards in relation to development of the corridor along Highway 93 North. Jentz said a letter was put together from Whitefish and Kalispell and sent to the Flathead County Planning Board but has not been forwarded to the commissioners. Jentz added one of the main supporters Mike Mower resigned from the county planning board but Jentz did contact Gordon Cross in December who said it is on the back burner at this time. Schutt said being on hold concerns him because a major proposal could pop up at any time and they would be blind -sided and not be able to have their concerns addressed. NEW BUSINESS: None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m. WORK SESSION Immediately following the regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission a work session was held on the following: 1. Update of the Kalispell City Subdivision Regulations. NEXT MEETING The next work session of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission will be held on January 25, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Kalispell City Council Chambers at 201 lst Avenue East, Kalispell. APPROVED as submitted/corrected: 1/ l i/l11 Michelle Anderson Recording Secretary Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 11, 2011 Page 10 of 10