Loading...
Planning Board Minutes - May 12, 2009KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING MAY 12, 2009 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board CALL and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7.00 p.m. Board members present were: Bryan Schutt, Rick Hull, C.M. (Butch) Clark, Chad Graham., Richard Griffin and Troy Mendius. John Hinchey was absent. Tom Jentz, Sean Conrad and P.J. Sorensen represented the Kalispell Planning Department. There were approximately 30 people in the audience. INTRODUCTION OF NEW President Schutt introduced Chad Graham and welcomed PLANNING BOARD MEMBER him to the board. PUBLIC COBEMENT No one wished to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Clark moved and Griffin seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the April 14, 2009 meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. ACCESSIBLE SPACE, INC. A request from Accessible Space, Inc. to secure a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT conditional use permit to construct a 23 unit assisted living apartment building on approximately 1.9 acres of land zoned RA-1 (Low Density Residential Apartment) . The property is located at the eastern end of Indian Trail Road between Indian Trail Road and Grandview Drive. STAFF REPORT KCU-09-06 Sean Conrad, representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed staff report KCU-09-06. Conrad stated this is a request for a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a 23-unit senior apartment building in the RA-1 (low density residential apartment) zone. Conrad reviewed the site and the surrounding land uses for the board. The complex would be administered by Accessible Space, Inc. (ASI) through a Housing 8s Urban. Development (HUD) grant. The housing would be available to very low income seniors aged 62 or older. Conrad noted as part of the conditions of approval staff is recommending both sidewalk and street trees along Grandview Drive; a pedestrian path from Indian Trail through this property to connect to the path along Grandview Drive; and a water main extension from Indian Trail to Grandview Drive. In addition 4-sided architecture will be required on the building. MEMBER WAS SEATED Rick Hull took his seat at 7.05 p.m. Kalispell City Planning .Board Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2009 Page 1 of 20 Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KCU-09-06 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the 17 conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD QUESTIONS Clark asked where the bike path would be located through the property which Conrad said the path would most likely follow the water main extension from Indian Trail and dip down to the south side of the property line and connecting with the trail along Grandview Drive. Schutt asked if the water main extension, once it reaches Grandview Drive, would continue north or south along Grandview and Conrad said no, just stubbed out to the R/W. Conrad added Public Works would construct any further extension of the water main north or south along Grandview Drive. Clark asked if there was a sewer line along Grandview Drive and Conrad said yes along the east side of the street. Hull asked why Indian Trail Road wasn't extended to Grandview Drive and Conrad didn't know the history but perhaps it was stubbed there for future development and would be extended if there was a subdivision to be constructed on this property. Conrad added staff is not recommending extension of Indian Trail Road based on this conditional use permit because the overall impacts to traffic with this facility are minimal but felt that a bike/pedestrian connection was important. Hull said he has concerns that if the board approves this CUP the connection will never be constructed and added connectivity has always been a priority for the board. Clark thought the hill was too steep to make a connection. APPLICANT/CONSULTANTS Harold Thompson, Architect for this project, 112 North Roberts Street, Ste 300, Fargo, North Dakota. Thompson noted the representative of ASI Dan Billmark was unable to make the meeting, however he is joining the meeting via teleconference. Thompson continued a copy of the staff report and conditions was delivered to him, Mr. Bilhnark and Greg Lukasik of Morrison-Maierle. Thompson added they are on board with all of the 17 conditions except two. HUD is providing a grant to ASI for the construction of this facility who was awarded this contract through a competitive process. ASI will then own the property and manage the facility under a 40 year lease. Thompson noted this facility and the parking areas will not be added to in the future so what is proposed is all that will be on this site. HUD grant monies comewith rules that govam what the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2009 Page 2 of 20 funds can and cannot be used for and HUD cannot participate in the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) requirement, He added that is a condition that could cancel the project. Thompson continued the other item that HUD has indicated would not qualify for the grant funds is the pedestrian/bike path. Although they see the benefits of the path for the residents and neighbors, HUD cannot accept liability for a public improvement. Thompson added he is not used to a public entity requiring a public trail on private property. He said they are in a position to help build the trail by granting the city an easement to get it built but HUD is very specific about the language in terms of the liability and public use of the trail. Thompson reviewed the construction schedule and noted it will. be 2 years before they would take occupancy. They are very interested in moving this project forward and expect they can find some common ground to get to the next step. Schutt clarified that their only objections are Condition #7 regarding the bike/pedestrian path and Condition #10 regarding the Payment in Lieu of Taxes and Thompson said yes. Clark said the board is sensitive to connectivity including trails and this is not unusual for the city to request a trail to be connected through the property. Thompson said they will do what they can to participate in providing the trail. Hull asked who will own the property and Thompson said ASI will own the property however they do not own it yet. HUD requires that a non-profit, tax exempt corporation be set up and ASI is in the process of setting up the corporation to fulfill the HUD requirements. Dan Billmark, Director of Development for ASI said they are a national non-profit corporation headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. They provide accessible, affordable, independent living opportunities for adults with physical disabilities and seniors. This project is financed through the HUD Section 202 program and they began working with the City of Kalispell years ago and this is the first time they have been able to find a site that would be approvable. Billmark reviewed the HUD Section 202 program for the board. He added once the application is approved, HUD requires that a separate sole -purpose 501C3 non-profit organization be set up specifically for the project which as Mr. Thompson noted they are currently in the process of doing. Billmark continued as far as the PILT, their tax Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2009 Page 3 of 20 status is determined by each state and in this case the State of Montana. He added in half of the states where they have facilities the Section 202 projects aren't tax exempt. PILT is in opposition to what the state has set up for the tax exemption requirement however Billmark personally wishes the city could get the property taxes but he doesn't know how to get around it. Billmark said regarding the bike/pedestrian trail he can see it is a really important element for the City of Kalispell and important for the residents of the facility. However, HUD has to make sure that their dollars are not used for the development of the city infrastructure. Billmark added he thinks there may be ways to get around it as far as the development of the path but in the end it will still be a public use path that runs through private property and there are concerns about liability and ongoing maintenance of the path. Billmark said he is willing to discuss this further with HUD to conclude that this is a benefit to the seniors in the building. Schutt asked the status of the State of Montana's determination and Billmark said they have already been through that process and this project is considered tax exempt. Schutt said Billmark stated HUD had an issue with its monies being spent on public infrastructure for the path and asked if HUD has an objection to the water main extension. Billmark said yes but he knows the cost of materials is only the cost for an 8 inch line which is the size requirement for a fire hydrant which will be necessary to protect the building so he is willing to discuss the water main costs with HUD. Mr. Billmark thanked the board and the teleconference ended. Greg Lukasik of Morrison-Maierle Engineering, 125 Schoolhouse Loop stated he is the Project Engineering Manager for this project. Lukasik noted there has been some discussion regarding the bike path and the water main extension and the best way to accomplish both would be to put the water main and the bike path in the same easement. Schutt asked about the discussions of an 8" vs. 12" water main. Lukasik said as far as the city's future plans they would like to see a 12" water main installed however to serve this particular project only an 8" main is required. Therefore the developer is responsible for an 8" main and the city will make up the difference in material costs to install a 12" main. Clark asked where the fire hydrants are located and Lukasik said the locations have not been decided but they will probably have one in an easement near the fire truck Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2009 Page 4 of 20 turnaround and the other close to Grandview Drive in the R/W. PUBLIC HEARING Ken Armstrong - 309 Commons Way stated his house is on the southern border of the project. Armstrong thanked Mr. 8' Mrs. Ekblad who have been providing the neighbors with 9 years of unobstructed view and maintenance of the vacant land. Armstrong said they are here for the same reasons they were here 9 years ago. Nothing has changed and he added several of the property owners who spoke in opposition 9 years ago are still there and still hate the idea of losing their view and the patch of grass. Armstrong said his main concern is not one of beauty but traffic on Commons Way which is narrow. Another concern is at the intersection of Commons Way and Highway 93 North and when trying to get onto 93 during rush hour the traffic is backed up sometimes passed the intersection of Commons Loop and will get worse with the additional traffic from this facility. Armstrong also noted that a left turn signal doesn't exist on Grandview Drive either. Armstrong's other concerns included. the height of the structure; a low rent, subsidized housing complex doesn't belong in his neighborhood of upscale townhouses; and with the $3,000 a year PILT payment they will be paying less taxes for this facility than he does. Armstrong asked the board to consider these issues when making their decision. Dave Dorsett - 367 Ponderosa Street provided an email to the board members prior to the meeting (copy attached) and showed numerous pictures of the area. He had the following comments: If the facility is approved it needs to be developed in such a way that it is a positive addition to the neighborhood; the bike path is a prescriptive use because it has been in use for several years and there will be trespass issues if the trail is not continued to Grandview Drive; if the trail is built it should be located along the south side of the property; increased traffic, speeding, and safety of walkers/runners along Grandview Drive which is narrow and hazardous; height of building will block the sun & view of the Buffalo Head townhouses if built in the east/west alignment; it is just a matter of time before they split the property creating even more multi -family housing on the parcel; and noise from air conditioning and central heating units from the apartment facility should be located in areas away from existing homes. Dorsett said he doesn't believe this project should be shut down but if this was to be approved there are ways that it could be developed in a manner that would better fit into the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2009 Page 5 of 20 Carol Thomas - 314 Ponderosa Street stated she is living in the building that will be directly looking at the apartment facility. She has no western or eastern exposure and out of 4 windows in her home 3 of them face south. She is very concerned about not just the loss of her view but the loss of sunlight which is a matter of physical and well being to be able to appreciate as much natural light as possible. Thomas continued she is also concerned about the noise of the air conditioner(s) as she always keeps her windows open; about parking lot illumination and whether she would have bright lights shining into her window; and there is not enough parking for residents and guests. Thomas said she agrees with those who spoke already in that this facility will have a significant negative impact on her personal lifestyle and her sole asset and she feels the property values will go down:. Mike Conner, 221 Commons Way stated his is representing the Buffalo Commons Multi -Family HOA. He read a statement that is attached to the minutes. In addition Conner said they looked at the RA-1 designation and the options and felt this would be a desirable type of facility for the area. After listening to the comments from Dave Dorsett and not having the information, on the size of the structure they may have had more comments. He asked the board to consider the impacts to the Buffalo Head Park Homes that was cited earlier. Rob Heinecke, 320 Ponderosa Street stated he is in opposition to this project mostly because of traffic. The sidewalk would not connect to anything and there needs to be a connection to the Buffalo Commons system. He is concerned about the height of the building and the blockage of some of the homes which would be a detriment to property values. Heinecke said it doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood and he asked if the board recommends approval that a condition is added that would require that the lot never be split and no further building occurs on the lot. Norma Ryan, 335 Commons Way stated this building will be her entire view and she asked if they could reduce the height of the building. She added if the path is built along the fence it will be right under her nose and she asked if it had to be built. She also asked that trees be planted so that she doesn't have to look at cars all the time. Ryan agrees with the other concerns stated earlier and added she doesn't like anything about the project. Jerry Kasala - 10 Glacier View Drive stated he owns the 4- plex at the end of Indian. Trail Road. His building is 3 stories so he has no problem with the height of the proposed facility. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2009 Page 6 of 20 Kasala asked if there was a compelling reason the building has to be placed in the proposed location which is the lowest point of the property. He is concerned that there will be problems with the stormwater runoff. He spoke of a fire hydrant being hit by a car this winter near his building and nearby properties were flooded and the driveway of his 4-plex was washed out. The water from the hydrant ran down the hill to the low area where the new building is proposed. He also noted that all his tenants are senior citizens and they all drive cars so he is concerned about the increase in traffic. Jim Singer - 361 Ponderosa Street stated he is the President of the Homeowners Association for the Ponderosa Park Homes. Singer reemphasized the flooding issue that was just mentioned and also noted he is concerned with the increase in traffic. Singer said when the fire hydrant was hit the water came right through their development. They have 80 units - 24 buildings, and it caused major problems. The city had to haul out truck loads of silt, rocks and debris. He said the residents are not very pleased with this project as proposed, especially the height of the building and the fact that the building faces north/south. Mendius asked Mr. Singer if he has ever seen stormwater drainage to be a problem in the area proposed at any other time under normal storm conditions and Singer said no. Singer added they do have a problem in their development because they do not have enough storm drains and they get a lot of standing water. Ed Eberly - 317 Commons Way asked for clarification on what type of project this is, assisted living or a senior citizens apartment. Eberly said assisted living people don't have cars but senior citizens have cars and can drive? He said there are 23 units proposed and 23 parking spaces proposed and asked where are the residents going to park and where will the employees park, on Grandview Drive. He thought that would be a huge problem. Eberly added he thinks it should be the project's responsibility to put in the street improvements because it has been a requirement for other developers around the valley and should be required here. MOTION Clark moved and Mendius seconded a motion to adopt staff report #KCU-09-06 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the 17 conditions listed in the staff report. MOTION TO DELETE Clark moved and Mendius seconded a motion to delete CONDITION # I O Condition # 10. BOARD DISCUSSION Clark said because this project is low income senior housing, which he is a great proponent of, he is recommending Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2009 Page 7 of 20 deleting Condition # 10 to remove the PILT requirement. Clark feels this payment is inappropriate since the board has continually tried to assist with providing low income housing. Schutt asked Conrad how he came up with the $3,000 PILT and what other projects have been approved where a PILT was required. Conrad said he looked at senior housing apartments that are currently in the city and paying taxes including Cherry Orchard on Liberty Avenue and Center Court Manor on 2nd Avenue West. He looked at the 2008 tax rolls and what those properties paid to the Kalispell mill levy. Cherry Orchard, which is a 24 unit, 2-story senior apartment building paid just over $2,800 and Center Court Manor, which is a 40 unit senior apartment complex, paid approximately $2,900. Therefore the $3,000 seemed appropriate. Secondly the only other project where the PILT was a condition of approval was for the pre-release center. Hull asked if this amount would be the city taxes and would not include schools or county taxes and Conrad said yes. Schutt asked what proportion of overall taxes is the city tax and Conrad said 25% of a tax bill. Schutt added then surrounding property owners are paying roughly 4 times that amount in overall property taxes. Clark said he is not against the PILT. However, he thinks it is inappropriate for those who would develop low income, senior housing especially for disabled senior citizens who could also live in this facility. Griffin said he opposes the amendment because currently taxes are being paid on the property so in essence this would be removing a taxpaying piece of property from the tax rolls. Griffin added he is not convinced at this point that there is a state law that says they have to be tax exempt. Griffin said if they do away with PILT they axe saying the city will subsidize this project forever and he doesn't believe that a private non- profit can't allow for paying a minimal amount of taxes, which at $3,000 is extremely low for this size facility. Jentz said the Kalispell City Council is interested in the PILT program and they are in the process of developing that policy. Mr. Clark's motion speaks to the fact that if you look at the priorities we have in our growth policy and community, affordable housing has been number one. Yes this is subsidized housing that is targeted at seniors with 50% median income and have very few options for this type of housing in our community. Jentz feels the developer can pretty well be guaranteed 100% occupancy. Griffin said by his calculations each unit would be paying $132.00 per year in city taxes and he defies anyone to find any single occupancy or multiple occupancy in this community where someoneonly pays $132.00 per year. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2009 Page 8 of 20 Hull said this project will have a budget of over $4 million for the first 3 years of Federal money. There should be some slack for costs such as the PILT. Clark asked if staff could show him any paperwork from the city where a PILT is legal and the city council has codified it. He said it is a capricious and arbitrary ruling because there is nothing on record that says the city can tax them through a PILT. Jentz said the city council was concerned that there are a large number of properties who have declared non-profit status so the council directed to staff to negotiate a PILT where they can. Jentz said if there is a business in town that came in for a building permit they would not be assessed a PILT but through the conditional use process we have been able to show that there would be additional costs for the development for police, fire, etc. Jentz said there is no written policy at this time but he and the City Attorney have been directed to put together a written policy that the council can review as an amendment of our growth policy. In addition we are giving projects coming in notice that it is a condition that they may face for non-profit, tax exempt projects. Clark said he understands applicants will be notified that they could be subject to a PILT but was this developer notified? Conrad said they were notified after the city received the conditional use permit application and it was distributed to other city departments. Comments received included that a PILT should be required as a condition of approval so prior to writing the staff report the developer was made aware the PILT was going to be a recommended conditional of approval. Conrad said he also explained to the applicant why the city was requiring the PILT and he encouraged the applicant to attend the planning board meeting and state his opposition to a PILT condition. Clark said at the time the applicant initiated this process, were they notified that a PILT could be coming forth and Conrad said no. Clark said he finds that very troublesome. Schutt said there are a lot of conditions that are typically put on projects and not all of the dollars and cents can be known at the time the application is submitted such as stormwater studies or water main extensions. Clark said this is a tax the city is putting on these people and the board is not a taxing authority. Hull said the board is an advisory committee and it is the council who makes the decisions. Hull said if they don't pay the taxes for the basic needs and services out there then the shortfall will be made up by other tax payers in the city. Hull said he thinks the PILT is reasonable. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2009 Page 9 of 20 Schutt said the PILT seems appropriate. ROLL CALL - DELETE The motion to delete condition # 10 failed on a roll call vote of CONDITION #10 2 in favor and 4 in opposition. MOTION TO ADD Clark moved and Hull seconded a motion that no further CONDITION # 18 subdivision of this property can occur and buildings and improvements that are not proposed on the current site plan cannot be added to in the future. BOARD DISCUSSION Hull asked if they could construct a second building on the property and Clark said he wants to make sure they can't. Schutt clarified that the intent is not so much a property split but to be sure they can't construct a second building and Clark said both. Schutt asked did Mr. Bili.mark say this project as proposed is all that is planned for this property and Conrad said yes that is what staff has been told. Conrad added if they get the grant and build the facility they will then be on a 40 year lease with HUD to administer and operate this facility as proposed. Schutt asked what happens when the lease expires and Conrad said he would guess they would renew their lease or it may revert to market rental apartments. Schutt asked if there is anything currently in the codes that would preclude them from adding additional structures and Conrad said there is a maximum building coverage which has not been met with this project so another structure could be added. Jentz agreed and added that would trigger another review process. ROLL CALL -- ADD The motion to add condition # 18 passed unanimously on a CONDITION # 18 roll call vote. BOARD DISCUSSION Schutt asked if this project is assisted living or senior citizen housing and Conrad said when he spoke to Dan Billmark his first impression was that it was an assisted living complex however, it is actually low income senior housing. Each apartment will have its own bathroom and kitchen and they will live independently. There will be no common kitchen facilities, no nursing staff, or other staff, other than a property manager. Schutt asked if the parking requirements are being met with this plan and Conrad said yes, with elderly housing it requires 1 parking space per 2 dwelling units which would be 12 spaces however they are providing 23 parking spaces. Based on the information that ASI provided, this facility would be for very low income seniors so the cost for a vehicle may be out of the reach of most of the residents. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2009 Page 10 of 20 Clark asked for the maximum building height for this zone and Conrad said 35 feet. Griffin asked if there is a utility easement for a water main does the city also have an easement for what would go above the water main such as a bike path. Conrad said typically when there is a utility easement it restricts what you can put above the land. But to combine the utility easement with the pedestrian./bike path would win -win situation. Griffin said he would like to see the condition that the path be built left in to accommodate the neighbors. He sees no other access to the area for the Indiana. Trail neighborhood. Schutt asked for further clarification on the surrounding property which Conrad provided. Conrad noted the city has the jurisdiction for most if not all of Grandview Drive and one of the reasons Public Works is not recommending a lot of improvements along this particular section of the project site is this is really the last project to be built along this section of Grandview Drive because there will never be any development along the east side of the road. However it is reasonable to have a pedestrian/bike path along that section to eventually connect south along Commons Way. In addition Conrad said Public Works noted they would try to find funding to make the connection to the existing sidewalk which would be about 120 lineal feet. Schutt said Grandview is built to county standards and what is the status of Commons Way and Conrad said it is a city street built to city standards with a minimum of 32 feet measured from back to curb to back to curb and a minimum driving width of 28 feet. Grandview Drive is approximately 20-21 feet of paved road with fairly steep ditches on the east side. Schutt asked if there were any plans for improvements to Grandview Drive in the city's capital improvement budget in the near future and Conrad said no. Mendius said even with this being a senior citizen living center he has concerns about parking and people parking on Grandview Drive. Jentz said on a street that is less than 28 feet wide the city has the ability to mark the street as no parking on either or both sides. Schutt said the parking requirement seems on the light side although parking could be addressed with the amount of property on site. Jentz: noted the parking standard doesn't refer to elderly housing but elderly federally subsidized housing. Jentz added age alone doesn't limit the number of vehicles a person has but age and income can. Schutt said another issue that was brought up during the public hearing was improvements onto Highway 93 both at the Grandview intersection and at Commons Way and asked Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2009 Page 11 of 20 if the Transportation Plan addresses those 2 intersections. Conrad said it is a state highway and when it meets their thresholds for a left turn signal MDT will install one, as they did at Four Mile and are planning to install at the Northridge/Highway 93/Commons Way intersection. The plan does site the need to monitor Highway 93 and Indian Trail and possibly adding traffic lights in the fixture. Schutt asked if there will be individual heating and air conditioning units for each apartment and Thompson said there is not a central air conditioning system and the heating will be a gas -fired boiler for hot water baseboard with individual thermostats for each unit. Thompson added there will not be any outside equipment that would be noise generating. Hull asked for clarification on the path and said the issue seems to be that they would allow an easement for the path but they can't put asphalt or gravel on it and Conrad said yes and added they are not opposed to having the pedestrian/bike path through the property however, the construction of the site is based on a grant from HUD and HUD would not pay for an improvement like the path if it doesn't directly benefit the residents. Schutt said there is a similar issue with the water main extension and Conrad said yes but with the water main the engineers agree the water needs to be on site for fire safety. Schutt mentioned the 8" main vs. the 12" main and Conrad said the city is saying any main line has to be a minimum of 8" but the city would pay to upsize the line to 12". Thompson said to clarify the pedestrian/bike path what he understood Mr. Billmark to say is that the issue of liability needs to be worked out with the city. Thompson doesn't believe that ASI would jeopardize the project for the cost of the asphalt for the path. Thompson continued it is becoming obvious that they will need a hydrant on either end of the building and that way they can work on getting the main paid for through the grant. Hull said he assumes this project was developed with the aid of the city but at the same time there is a lot of low income housing in the community. Hull said he is questioning the location. If the board were to turn this project down it probably won't go away but just be located somewhere else. Hull said it is a very large building among a bunch of townhouses and the scale is inappropriate for this neighborhood. Hull said a redesign may resolve some of the issues. Schutt said he would like to suggest a design change to change 185 feet of lineal frontage on the north and south sides of the building. Schutt said there have been Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2009 Page 12 of 20 discussions regarding 4-sided architecture on other projects and he has dealt with other subdivisions where they were required to break up roof ridgelines when a building exceeds so many feet. Conrad said that is not addressed in the city's Architectural. Design Standards but the staff report provides some examples for 4-sided architecture. MOTION - DESIGN Schutt moved and Hull seconded a motion that the building .AMENDMENT design be amended so that any single wall cannot be longer than 130 feet without a 4 foot relief. BOARD DISCUSSION Schutt said the motion is an attempt to respond to the scale of neighboring buildings and to minimize the impact to the neighbors especially those to the north. Clark said he thinks they are getting into an area that is after the fact since the city doesn't have any architectural standards that address this. Clark added it is beyond the board's purview. Hull disagreed and added the board's purview with a conditional use permit is to put conditions on the project that would make it compatible with the neighborhood and minimize its impact. Graham suggested the budget for this project is already set and changing the design would have an impact on the overall budget. Schutt said he is aware this won't make the construction of the building cheaper but he believes the difference would be nominal. Hull said the board is not here to represent the builder but here to represent what is best for the city and the neighbors. Thompson asked for clarification on the amendment. Schutt noted he appreciates the 25 foot setback from the north property line when it could have been 10 feet according to the city's zoning ordinance and he thinks that will reduce the impact on the neighbors to the north. Schutt added however, the amendment would further reduce the impacts to the neighbors to the north. Thompson said they can work with limiting any one wall to 130 feet and breaking up the roof line. Thompson said they want to be sure that this amendment would be something that the Architectural Review Committee would sign off on so that they only have to go through this process once. Thompson also noted the building is 34 feet high because they have a 6/ 12 pitch, which he thinks is better architecturally, but if they changed it to a 4/ 12 pitch it would bring the building height down to 28 feet. Schutt asked if this amendment would increase the cost of the building and Thompson said yes but it would be manageable. Clark said the amendment is vague and Schutt Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2009 Page 13 of 20 single wall may be 130 feet and after that it needs a 4-foot relief. Thompson said they only have a preliminary design completed and they will take a look at the recommended design. ROLL CALL - DESIGN The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. AMENDMENT BOARD DISCUSSION Hull asked if the board is going to recommend the pedestrian/bike path be constructed and Schutt said he is in favor of recommending the path to city council. Conrad added staff will speak to the City Attorney regarding the liability issues and notify ASI. Conrad said when this project was reviewed by the Site Review Committee the Parks & Recreation Department stated they would be willing to maintain the path. Hull said he realizes this meeting has been long but the city council depends on the planning board to thoroughly discuss these issues so it isn't wasted time. ROLL CALL - ORIGINAL The original motion, as amended, passed on a roll call vote MOTION of 5 in favor and 1 opposed. TEMPORARY OFF -PREMISE A request by the City of Kalispell to amend Section SIGNS - KALISPELL ZONING 27.24.050 of the Kalispell Sign Code to allow the placement ORDINANCE TEXT of up to 2 temporary off -premise signs per lot in any R AMENDMENT (Residential) zone. The amendment would limit the size of the signs, require that the signs be placed on private property, require the underlying property owner's approval, limit the display of the signs to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and establish application procedures. STAFF REPORT KZTA-09-01 P.J. Sorensen, representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed staff report KZTA-09-01. Sorensen reported on the text amendment proposed by the City of Kalispell dealing with off -premise temporary signs (in particular off -premise real estate signs). Concerned individuals asked city council what they could do to allow open house/house for sale signs which are typically placed at the entrances to subdivisions. Sorensen noted the city's current ordinance doesn't allow off -premise signs. The city council had 2 work sessions to discuss this issue and they were comfortable with the idea in general. The council outlined the program as follows: The permit would not be issued for a fixed period of time; the permit fee was suggested at $250.00 per year; the signs could not be in the R/W; the applicant had to have permission from the underlying property owner; the signs had to be removed and replaced daily (display from 8 am to 8 pm only); a sunset clause should be added so they could either extend this Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2009 Page 14 of 20 provision if it works well or just let it sunset if not working well; and 2 off -premise signs per lot was an appropriate number. The staff report reflects the concerns of the council and staff created a new section allowing temporary off -premise signs only in R (residential) zones. Staff set a 6 month permit period, limiting the signs to a maximum of 3 feet in height and 16 square feet per face, and the sunset clause was set as through December 31, 2010. Sorensen reported the city received one comment from Mayre Flowers of Citizens for a Better Flathead who was concerned this amendment had the potential to create sign clutter that is specifically discouraged under the growth policy. They suggested a number of items to try to mitigate the potential of that happening which included: Specifically limiting the sign purpose to off -site home sales; limiting the sign display time from Noon Friday to Noon Monday; establishing that signs could not be closer than 8 feet to the curb or 20 feet from the intersection; reducing the size to 6 square feet; specifically prohibiting balloons, lights and moving parts from being attached to the signs; limiting one sign per intersection for the same home sale and enforcement and fees for violations. Sorensen said they tried to be content neutral with the specific regulation but the board could limit content to real estate signs and staff could check with the City Attorney's Office to see if there would be any issue with that recommendation. As far as the display time, council already weighed in on that and felt throughout the entire week was appropriate and signs should be taken down daily but could be displayed from 8 am to 8 pm. The distance from the curb is already addressed in the code. In terms of the size - council saw examples of a sign that was roughly 10 to 12 feet and they didn't have an issue with that size. Staff picked 16 square feet because there are other types of real estate and construction signs that are allowed at 16 square feet so it seemed to be a logical number to use. An amendment to prohibit balloons, lights, etc. would be appropriate however, blinking lights are not allowed under the ordinance. Sorensen continued with one sign per intersection, the most an intersection could have is 8 signs in any case, and finally because it is part of the zoning ordinance it would fit in with their general enforcement which would provide for a civil citation for sign violations. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KZTA-09-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed amendments to the sign regulations be adopted as provided herein. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2009 Page 15 of 20 BOARD DISCUSSION Graham asked where the amount for the fee come from and Sorensen said city council felt that was an appropriate dollar amount for 1 off -premise sign for a year. Staff changed it to $240.00, $1.20.00 for a 6 month permit. Schutt asked if it was limited to 2 signs per any off -site parcel and Sorensen said yes, not 2 signs per house for sale but 2 signs on a host lot. Schutt asked for further clarification which Sorensen provided. Clark thought the fee was high and Sorensen explained the amount is not part of the ordinance but would be voted on separately by council. It was included in the staff report for informational purposes. Sorensen said the thought with the amount is if the fee was too inexpensive there may become a proliferation of signs but if the amount is higher consideration would be given to the importance of the sign posted. Clark felt no one would pay the permit fee because it is too high and then there will be a policing problem. Jentz said the reason why the change was requested is the illegal signs are being collected and they are being told they can't put them off -premise. Once they are allowed on a legitimate basis it will increase our enforcement workload because other non -permitted signs will start popping up. The city wants to formalize the process but doesn't want to encourage mass proliferation. Clark asked if realtors would have to pay the permit fee and Jentz said yes for off -premise signs. Griffin said permits will be valid for a period of 6 months, January - June and July - December and it notes the $240.00 per year fee. Sorensen said the fee would be prorated and that is why staff is recommending $240.00 because that amount can easily be broken into monthly increments. Schutt said staff mentioned they wanted it to be content neutral and that is why it doesn't specifically state this is for residential sales. Can a home business buy a permit to advertise their home business and Sorensen said yes that is why staff would not be opposed to an amendment that would limit the signs to real estate signs. Schutt said the hours of display will. be S am to S pm and how many of the city's code enforcement staff will be out driving around after 5:00 pm and Sorensen said none, but one of the reasons staff is recommending the signs be brought in every day is so the sign doesn't become tattered and unsightly. Hull asked would the ordinance be enforced by calling the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2009 Page 16 of 20 police or would they have to wait until the next day. Sorensen said they can call the Planning Department the next day because we would be administering the permit process as part of the zoning ordinance. Griffin asked if it would be sensible to request that a permit number be placed on the sign so that if anyone is looking at it there would be a number and they could see it had a permit. Sorensen said staff could issue numbers for these more permanent signs as we do for permanent signs. Graham asked if this was written to help a certain niche of people selling houses in the subdivisions and if you have a realtor and they have their weekend open house would they be required to get a permit for $240.00 and Jentz said that happens now and staff will not be chasing those down but again this is for the perpetual open house to direct people to a model home every day of the week. PUBLIC HEARING Eloise Hill, 467 6th Avenue WN stated she is here to talk about her concerns with the opening of the sign policy to allow temporary off -premise signs. Hill's concerns included: she believes the residential neighborhoods will be unduly impacted by the change; the visual impact; the size of the signs would be too large; the placement and continual renewal of the permits would cause the signs to become perpetual signs; signs flapping in the wind; who will enforce this since the city has no enforcement officer and no penalty was discussed for removing an illegal sign or taking it down after 8 pm; content of signs and advertising for any business or service in town; and the potential for lending, renting, or subletting signs and the changing of content to make a profit. Hill said she disagrees with many of the findings of fact in the staff report which she reviewed for the board. It is her belief that this amendment should not be adopted. MOTION Schutt moved and Hull seconded a motion to adopt staff report ##KZTA-09-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed amendments to the sign regulations be adopted as provided herein. BOARD DISCUSSION I Clark said he thinks this amendment is a travesty and will be selectively enforced. Schutt asked if double facing of the sign has been addressed and Sorensen said the amendment reads a maximum of 16 square feet per sign face. Hull said he would be in favor of an amendment making the maximum size smaller. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2009 Page 17 of 20 Schutt asked if subletting of signs would be an issue. Sorensen said the city's main concern is that there would be proliferation of signs by limiting the amount to no more than 2 signs per property. Jentz said that is why staff suggested an amendment to limit the temporary off -premise signs to real estate signs only. Griffin said this is advertising model homes in a subdivision and is a temporary situation until the subdivision is built out and then they would move somewhere else. Griffin added there is another part of the realty business that have been posting these signs illegally and is not addressed in this amendment so there would still be a problem. Schutt said he sees where this can work for residential sales but the worst case scenario would be for other advertising. Schutt thinks the content should be regulated. MOTION - LIMIT TO Hull moved and Schutt seconded a motion to limit the RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE temporary off -premise signs to sale of residential real estate ONLY only. BOARD DISCUSSION Clark said Ms. Hill is the silent majority, a typical homeowner who doesn't want to see a proliferation of signs of any kind and this is sneaking up on every homeowner in Kalispell. These signs will be everywhere and the only way the Planning Department will be able to police this is selectively. ROLL CALL - LIMIT TO The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE ONLY MOTION - LIMIT SIZE OF Hull moved and Schutt seconded a motion to limit the size SIGN of the signs to 10 square feet per sign face. ROLL CALL - LIMIT SIZE OF The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. SIGN MOTION - SIGNS ALLOWED Mendius moved and Clark seconded a motion to limit the PER LOT signs to 1 per lot. ROLL CALL - SIGNS The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. ALLOWED PER LOT BOARD DISCUSSION Hull said the board has taken away the worst that could happen with the amendments and it is only for 18 months unless the council decides to extend the process. Graham wonders about the 8 am to 8 pm limit and if signs are scattered around the city and in the morning and at night they are constantly driving around putting up and pulling up the signs. Sorensen said that was partially Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2009 Page 18 of 20 addressed by the council and at the work session because these developers have 2-3 spec sites that are in the immediate area of their development and at least one of them take in the signs every night already. Hull thinks the fee and time limit will force them to be serious about this. Griffin said a lot of neighborhoods are self-regulating with HOA and various other watchdog groups who could take this a step further and eliminate signs in their neighborhoods which would handle any proliferation or blight on their neighborhood. Clark expressed his concern that more people are not here to speak on this :issue and he encouraged Ms. Hill to attend the city council meeting. ROLL CALL The motion passed, as amended, on a roll call vote of 4 in favor and 2 opposed. OLD BUSINESS: Sorensen said staff had previously mentioned a possible amendment to allow sandwich boards downtown on the sidewalks on Main Street, however MDT has notified the city that because Main Street is a state R/W they have federal regulations that would prohibit signage within the R/ W so that amendment will be withdrawn. NEW BUSINESS: Schutt asked if staff could consider setting up a joint meeting with the Flathead County Planning Board and Jentz will discuss the possibility with the county's planning director. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:30 p.m. WORK SESSION Due to the late hour the work session was cancelled. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, June 9, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Kalispell City Council Chambers located at 201 First Avenue East in Kalispell. The next work session of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, June 9, 2009, immediately following the regular meeting in the Kalispell City Council Chambers located at 201 First Avenue East in Kalispell. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2009 Page 19 of 20 For Bryan H. Schutt President APPROVED as submitted/corrected: / Michelle Anderson Recording Secretary /09 Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 2009 Page 20 of 20 Sean Conrad From: Dave Dorsett [ddorsett@fvcc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:52 PM To: sconrad@kafispell.com Subject: Accessible Space proposal Sean, Here is the e-mail I sent to planning board members: This note relates to the Accessible Space, Inc. proposal which is on this Tuesday night's agenda. I live in the middle of the Buffalo Head townhouse complex just to the north of the proposed project. I recognize that this is a "conditional use" hearing --since this apartment complex is a permitted use under RA-1 zoning. I recognize that the purpose of such a hearing is to support conditions which will make this a positive addition (or at least not a negative addition) to this corner of the city. A few concerns that I have are as follows: 1) There is no indication on any of the site plans where the sidewalk/bike paths will fit either along Grandview Dr or across the site from Indian Trail Dr as requested in Item #7 on page 10 of the staff report. 2) The orientation of the building in an East-West alignment instead of North -South seems to have several negative impacts: a) The building residents in the north side of the apartment will be looking directly into the existing townhouse units just to the north and vice a versa. b) The apartments along the south face of the apartment building will heat up all day in the summer sun. The north side apartments won't get any sun ... ever! A N-S orientation would give ALL units possible benefits of the sun at some point during each day. c) The view to the Swan Mountains and Stillwater River environ is superb from this parcel. A N-S orientation would give many (half'?) of the residents a nice view. That would be A VERY POSITIVE BENEFIT for the older residents living here. The proposed orientation and location of the building give NO UNITS views to the mountains or river area. d) The sun will be blocked from nearby existing Buffalo Head townhouse units with the apartment building located as proposed. The highest peaks of the townhouses are 26 feet, whereas the apartment has a proposed maximum height of 34 feet. e) I am assuming there will be an air conditioning unit for the new apartment building. The placement of this unit will be critical to the current homeowners. Many (most?) don't have air conditioning and rely on having their windows open for cool air. Noise from an air conditioning unit along the north side of the new building would have a major impact on the nearby owners. The AC unit should be placed in such a location that noise deflects away from nearby existing homes. 3) Many senior complexes are built around the Kalispell area. Most are one-story. This makes sense for the population that is being served. While this would not be as economical for the developer, it would make for a less imposing structure that better fits into this neighborhood. It would also eliminate some of the sun -shading issues I just mentioned. Thanks for your consideration. Dave Dorsett 367 Ponderosa St June 12, 2009 To: Kalispell City Planning Board From: Buffalo Commons Multi -Family Homeowners Association (BCMFHA) ref: Accessible Space, Inc. request to construct a 23-Unit Assisted Living Apartment Building My name is Michael D. Conner, 221 Commons Way, Kalispell, MT. I am representing the Board of Directors for this homeowners association. I must emphasize that we have not had a chance to contact and visit with a majority of the homeowners within our development. Our annual meeting is scheduled for June 16, 2009. The Board of Directors supports the proposed development and request for a conditional use permit to construct this facility. We do have concerns that should be addressed by the planning board. Following is a list of these concerns: Pedestrian safety: A sidewalk needs to built from the sidewalk on Commons Way along Grandview Drive north connecting at least to Ponderosa Street and more preferably to Flathead Valley Community College (FVCC). This should not be at the expense of the developer except for that portion crossing the subject property proposed for development. It would also be beneficial if the developer connects a pathway from Indian Trail Road through the subject property to connect with the proposed sidewalk along Grandview Drive. 2. Grandview Drive: It is our understanding that the City of Kalispell now has Iegal jurisdiction on this road. Increased development north and south of Grandview Drive plus increased enrollment at FVCC has substantially increased traffic. Our concern is that the current road standard is not adequate for the current volume of traffic. This concern should not affect the proposed development for the I.9 acre lot. However, the City of Kalispell needs to address this concern for the safety of the public based on current and future use. 3. Left -tuna. Signals on Hwy. 93: Our board feels this is a major safety issue that needs to be addressed immediately. Again, this should not affect the subject property and proposed development. However, numerous accidents have already occurred at the intersections of Hwy. 93 and Commons Way and Hwy. 93 and Grandview Drive. Left turn signals should be installed in all 4 directions at both of these intersections. The left -turn signals need to be a priority with both the City of Kalispell and the MT State Highway Dept. It may be inappropriate that these concerns be brought forward at this particular hearing. However, these are concerns that continue to surface as more development occurs. Our B.O.D. do not feel the impact of the subject property and proposed development is significant enough to affect this proposal. We do believe the accumulation of traffic relating to our concems listed above needs to be brought forth and addressed as soon as possible. Rest 1 su , hae � ent � B A PO Box 771 •35 4 b Street West 406.756.8991 Kalispell, Montana 59903 www.flatheadcitizem.org May 12, 2009 Kalispell Planning Board City Hall, P.O Box 1997 Kalispell, Montana 59901 T: 406.756.8993 • F: citizens@flatheadcitizens.org We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the City Of Kalispell — Sign Regulations, Kalispell Planning Department, Staff Report #Kzta-09-1. While we recognize that the intend of this sign regulation is to meet a specific need ---that of promotion of single home sales, we are concerned that this opens a Pandora's box of potential sign clutter that is specifically discouraged within the Kalispell Growth Policy. We would suggest that you amend the proposed policy to limit the proliferation of small signs in the city's residential areas to address the following concerns: • Limit sign purpose to off -site home sales. • Limit the sign display time to noon Friday to noon Monday. • Establish that in addition to non placement of signs in :right of ways that they must be more than eight feet from the curb and 20 feet from an intersection • Reduce the size to no more than six feet square. • State that all attachments to signs including balloons, lights, moving parts etc. are not allowed. • Limit of one sign per intersection for the same home sale. • Provide for enforcement and fees for violations Sincerely, Mayre Flowers Citizens for a Better Flathead