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