Loading...
07. Ordinance 1406 - Text Amendment - Building Height Limits - 1st ReadingREPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: Tri-City Planning Office 17 Second Street East — Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901. Phone: (406) 758-1850 Fax: (406) 751-1858 tricity@centurytel.net Kalispell Mayor and City Council Narda A. Wilson, Senior Planner Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments - Amendment to Building Height Limits in Various Districts November 5, 2001 BACKGROUND: This is a proposal initiated by the City of Kalispell at the direction of the city council to amend various sections of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance dealing with building heights. The proposed amendments establish a height limit in all of the residential districts that is generally consistent by increasing the height limit to 35 feet. This was recommended in part because all the other zoning jurisdictions in Flathead County have a 35 foot building height limit and to provide consistency in the residential zones. In the commercial, industrial and public zones the height limits are recommended to be amended to a maximum of 40 feet and to allow up to a maximum 60 feet with a conditional use permit. It has been recommended that the 60 foot building height limit would only be allowed by conditional use permit and would be subject to performance standards. A summary of the proposed amendments to the height limits is outlined on attached Exhibit A. The intent of these amendments is to provide greater consistency, ease in administration and flexibility in building design. The conditional use permit process to allow building height limits up to 60 feet is intended to notice those property owners most affected by the tall builidng and to provide an opportunity for input. The Kalispell City -County Planning Board held a public hearing at their regular meeting of October 9, 2001 regarding the proposed amendments and discussed the various options. A motion was made to recommend approval of the proposed changes to the height limits which passed on a vote of six in favor and one opposed. RECOMMENDATION: A motion to adopt the ordinance on first reading to amend the height limits in the various zoning districts would be in order. FISCAL EFFECTS: Potentially minor positive effects. Providing Community Planning Assistance To: • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish • City of Columbia Falls Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment October 19, 2001 Page 2 ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the city council. 00 Narda A. Wilson Chris A. Kukulski Senior Planner City Manager Report compiled: October 19, 2001 c: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk Attachments: Exhibit A Transmittal letter Staff report KZTA-01-7 and application materials Draft minutes from 10/9/01 planning board meeting H: \FRD0\TRANSMIT\KALISPEL\2001 \KZCO 1-7MEMO.DOC ORDINANCE NO. 1406 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE, (ORDINANCE NO. 1175), BY AMENDING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT OF VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "A" AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell has submitted a written request to amend the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, by amending the maximum height limits of various zoning districts, and WHEREAS, the request was forwarded to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission by the Tri-City Planning Office after having been evaluated under 27.14.030, Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission recommended that the text of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow those maximum heights as shown on Exhibit "A", and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the TCPO Report and the transmittal from the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission and hereby adopts the findings made in Report #KZTA-01-8 as the Findings of Fact applicable to this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 1175, is hereby amended as follows: See Exhibit "A" SECTION II. All parts and portions of Ordinance No. 1175 not amended hereby remain unchanged. SECTION III. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL THIS _ DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2001. Wm E. Boharski Mayor ATTEST: Theresa White City Clerk EXHIBIT A PS TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS THE VARIOUS SECTIONS ZONE PRESENT HEIGHT PROPOSED HEIGHT R-1 Suburban Residential 30 feet 35 feet R-2 Single Family Residential 30 feet 35 feet R-3 Urban Single Family Residential 30 feet 35 feet R-4 Two -Family Residential 30 feet 35 feet R-5 Residential/Professional Office 35 feet 35 feet RA-1 Low -Density Residential Apartment 35 feet 35 feet RA-2 High -Density Residential Apartment 40 feet 40 feet RA-3 Residential Apartment/Office 35 feet 40 feet H-1 Health Care 35 feet 40 ft (60 ft w/ CUP) (Hospitals) 60 feet B-1 Neighborhood Buffer District 30 feet 35 feet B-2 General Business 40 feet 40 ft (60 ft w/CUP) B-3 Community Business 40 feet 40 ft (60 ft w/CUP) B-4 Central Business 72 feet 40ft(unlimited CUP) B-5 Industrial/Commercial 50 feet 40 ft (60 ft w/ CUP) 1-1 Light Industrial 40 feet 40 ft (60 ft w/ CUP) 1-2 Heavy Industrial 60 feet 40 ft (60 ft w/ CUP) P-1 Public 50 feet 40 ft (60 ft w/ CUP) For any situation requiring a conditional use permit, performance standards would be included in Chapter 27.35 °Additional Requirements for Specific Conditional Uses." Both the Site Development Review Committee and the Architectural Review Committee were consulted in the development of these performance standards. Those standards are as follows: Additional Building Height. Structures requiring a conditional use permit due to additional height shall, in addition to any other applicable standards, be subject to the following standards: 1. No additional height shall be allowed within 150 feet of any R or RA zone. Any right-of-way adjacent to the subject property shall be excluded from the measurement. 2. No structure (subject to Section 27.22.070 regarding exceptions to height regulations) shall extend above a 1:1 slope established with a beginning point at the applicable setback line at an elevation equal to the elevation at natural grade at the nearest point on the property line plus the maximum height allowed in the zoning district. The Architectural Review Committee shall submit a recommendation which shall be considered as a material factor in the consideration of the application. Tri-City Planning Office 17 Second Street East — Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 758-1850 Fax: (406) 751-1858 tricitygcentu rytel.n et October 19, 2001 Chris Kukulski, City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments- City of Kalispell Amendment to Building Height Limits in Various Districts Dear Chris: The Kalispell City -County Planning Board met on October 9, 2001, and held a public hearing to consider a request by the City of Kalispell to address building height limits in various districts in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. Narda Wilson, of the Tri-City Planning Office, presented staff report KZTA-01-8, evaluating the proposed text amendments. She noted this was an issue identified by the planning board and the city council that needed some work. The recommended changes were intended to provide greater consistency and flexibility. At the public hearing P.J. Sorensen represented the City, and explained the proposed changes. He noted that the higher buildings would be subject to a higher level of review, performance standards and notice to the adjoining property owners. After the public hearing the board discussed the proposed amendments. A motion was made and passed on a vote of six in favor and one opposed to recommend to the Kalispell City Council the proposed amendments with regard to building heights be approved. Please schedule this matter for the November 5, 2001 regular city council meeting. You may contact this board or Narda Wilson at the Tri-City Planning Office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely Kalispell City -County Planning Board jens ent GS/NW/ Providing Community Planning Assistance To: • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments - City of Kalispell October 19, 2001 Page 2 Attachments: Staff report KZTA-01-8 and application materials Draft minutes 10/9/01 planning board meeting c w/ Att: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk c w/o Att: P.J. Sorensen, Z.A.; City of Kalispell, Box 1997, Kalispell, MT 59903 H:\FRDO\TRANSMIT\KALISPEL\2001 \KZTA-01-8.DOC Sipe said he didn't like the way this had been done, he didn't want to see it happen again, and he would vote for it only because it provides affordable housing. DRAFT Wilson asked what he meant. Stevens said the normal procedure would have been for Mr. Watti to have applied for a zone change, rather than ask for a text amendment that affected everybody. Stevens said there was merit in this request, because it could provide the means of keeping a business going and also provide affordable housing. Rice said over the past few years the board had reviewed similar requests by applicants for a text amendment who wanted to do something in particular, and this request was no different. Van Natta said if they weren't in favor of smart growth then they are apparently in favor of dumb growth. He noted that Citizens for a Better Flathead at least took the time to review and comment on proposals before the board and city council. Stevens questioned the value of the lobbying the group did before the various boards and judges. MOTION (AMENDMENT) Hines moved that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board adopt staff report #KZTA-01-7 as findings of fact and recommend that the Kalispell City Council approve the proposal to allow multi -family dwellings as a permitted use in the B-2, General Business District and to delete accessory apartments from a conditionally permitted use and add it as a permitted use. Sipe seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE On a roll call vote Stevens, Pierce, Rice, Hines and Sipe voted aye and Garberg and Van Natta voted no. The motion passed with five in favor and two in opposition. ROLL CALL VOTE (MAIN On a roll call vote Pierce, Stevens, Rice, Hines, and Sipe voted aye MOTION) and Garberg and Van Natta voted no. The motion passed with five in favor and two in opposition. CITY OF KALISPELL An amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance proposed by the ZONING TEXT City of Kalispell that would amend the building height limits in AMENDMENT several of the zoning use districts that are intended to provide greater consistency among the regulations. STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson of the Tri-City Planning Office gave a presentation of staff report #KZTA-01-8 saying building height limits in the B-2 zone began a broader review of the building height limits in the city. This was a proposal to amend various sections of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance that would generally bring all of the residential districts into sync by increasing the height limit to 35 feet. Wilson said all of the residential zones in Columbia Falls, Whitefish and Flathead County have a 35-foot building height limit. Within the commercial, industrial and public zones the height Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of the October 9, 2001 Meeting Page 15 of 16 limits were being recommended to be increased to allow a maximum 60 feet with a conditional use permit and would be subject to performance standards. Stevens asked P J Sorensen how he had arrived at raising the heights in five foot increments. Sorensen said one factor was the surrounding communities are all at 35 feet in residential zones, and during staff review and council workshop meetings there was concern that property would be purchased with the intent to build large structures which would impact the neighboring residences. Stevens asked why the RA-2 wasn't raised but the RA-3 was. Sorensen said the RA-2 was High-Density Residential that anticipates denser development, such as apartments. Stevens asked why the P-l was reduced to 40 feet. Sorensen they had actually increased it to 60 feet with a conditional use permit. APPLICANT/AGENCIES There was no one who wished to speak. "u.....IC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the proposal. PROPONENTS There was no one who wished to speak. OPPONENTS There was no one who wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Pierce moved that the Kalispell City-County Planning Board adopt staff report #KZTA-01-8 as [mdings offact and based on these findings recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed amendments to the building height limits be adopted as proposed. Van Natta seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE On a roll call vote Garberg, Sipe, Rice, Pierce, Hines, and Van Natta voted aye, and Stevens voted no. The motion passed with six in favor and one in opposition. ADJOURNMENT The City portion of the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Greg Stevens, Chairman Sandie Mueller, Recording Secretary APPROVED: As presented / Corrected Date: Kalispell City-County Planning Board Minutes of the October 9, 2001 Meeting Page 16 of 16 CITY OF KALISEPLL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT ON BULIDING HEIGHTS TRI-CITY PLANNING OFFICE STAFF REPORT KZTA-01-8 OCTOBER 2, 2001 A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding a request for an amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. A public hearing has been scheduled before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board for October 9, 2001 beginning at 7:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The planning board will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action. As a result of discussions with the planning board and subsequently the city council, the City is requesting amendments to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to change the maximum height limits in several of the zoning districts. A. Petitioner: P.J. Sorensen, Zoning Administrator City of Kalispell P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903-1007 (406) 758-7732 B. Area Effected by the Proposed Changes: Any of the various zoning districts which are proposed for amendment could be affected by the proposed changes. This would include several of the residential, commercial and industrial zoning districts in the planning jurisdiction C. Proposed Amendments: This is a proposal to amend various sections of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance dealing with building heights. Generally, these amendments bring all of the residential districts into sync by increasing the height limit to 35 feet. All of the residential zones in the other jurisdictions have a 35-foot building height limits. In the commercial, industrial and public zones the height limits have been increased to allow a maximum 60 feet with a conditional use permit. It has been recommended that the 60 foot building height limit would only be allowed by conditional use permit and would be subject to performance standards. The following is a summary of the proposed amendments. R-1 Suburban Residential 30 feet 35 feet R-2 Single Family Residential 30 feet 35 feet R-3 Urban Single Family Residential 30 feet 35 feet R-4 Two -Family Residential 30 feet 35 feet R-5 7QNF Residential/Professional Office 35 feet PRESENT 35 feet RA-1 HF.T= PROPOSED Low -Density Residential Apartment 35 feet H .TGHT 35 feet RA-2 High -Density Residential Apartment 40 feet 40 feet RA-3 Residential Apartment/Office 35 feet 40 feet H-1 Health Care 35 feet 40 ft (60 ft w/ CUP) -(Hospitals) 60 feet B-1 Neighborhood Buffer District 30 feet B-2 General Business 40 feet B-3 Community Business 40 feet B-4 Central Business 72 feet B-5 Industrial/Commercial 50 feet I-1_ Light Industrial 40 feet I-2_ Heavy Industrial 60 feet P-1 Public 50 feet 35 feet 40 ft (60 ft w/CUP) 40 ft (60 ft w/CUP) 40 ft (unlimited w/ CUP) 40 ft (60 ft w/ CUP) 40 ft (60 ft w/ CUP) 40 ft (60 ft w/ CUP) 40 ft (60 ft w/ CUP) For any situation requiring a conditional use permit, performance standards would be included in Chapter 27.35 "Additional Requirements for Specific Conditional Uses." Both the Site Development Review Committee and the Architectural Review Committee were consulted in the development of these performance standards. Those standards are as follows: Additional Building Height. Structures requiring a conditional use permit due to additional height shall, in addition to any other applicable standards, be subject to the following standards: (1) No additional height shall be allowed within 150 feet of any R or RA zone. Any right-of-way adjacent to the subject property shall be excluded from the measurement. (2) No structure (subject to Section 27.22.070 regarding exceptions to height regulations) shall extend above a 1:1 slope established with a beginning point at the applicable setback line at an elevation equal to the elevation at natural grade at the nearest point on the property line plus the maximum height allowed in the zoning district. (3) The Architectural Review Committee shall submit a recommendation which shall be considered as a material factor in the consideration of the application. D. Staff Discussion: The intent of these amendments is to provide greater flexibility in building design by increasing the height limit. Additionally, the conditional use permit process for the building height limits up to 60 feet is intended to notice those property owners most affected by the changes. The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-205, M.C.A. Findings of Fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the itemized criteria described by 76-2-203, M.C.A. The Kalispell City -County Master Plan does not specifically address building height issues. However, the increase building height would allow areas to be more fully developed and greater density. The master plan encourages compact efficient use of land. This amendment is in substantial compliance with the goals and policies of the master plan to provide for compact and efficient development of the commercial areas of the planning jurisdiction. 2 The proposed amendments would not generally impact the types of uses allowed in a district, but would allow for an increase in the intensity of uses. The changes would not have a substantial impact to increase or lessen congestion. Traffic associated with the various uses would not generally be affected. This amendment may not compromise the security and safety of the community since any building would have to be constructed in accordance with the applicable building and fire codes. The proposed change in the zoning would have no direct relationship to the promotion of the general health and welfare of the public. Health and safety codes would be primary means of securing the health and welfare of the community. Adequate light and air may be affected by this change because the potential height of buildings could block light and air of the surrounding properties. Residential zoning and residentially developed properties adjacent to taller buildings could potentially be most affected. The increase in height limit could potentially block light and air, thereby negatively impacting adjoining properties. Development standards would provide additional flexibility and potential additional density in the various zones zone by increasing the height limit. However, this may not translate into an overcrowding of land, which would only occur if there were inadequate infrastructure to serve the density in the area. ••. ., ... Well IT43rem GIFOYMP9.0, Full public services and facilities would generally be anticipated to be available to all areas, which are zoned and the adequate provision of services could be provided. The proposed changes would not generally impact the facilitation of public services. The increase in the maximum height standards would potentially affect all areas of the city where the amendments are proposed. However, not all of the district would be utilizing this new height limit. Most of the buildings would utilize a more traditional construction method, so the need or desire for taller buildings appears to be somewhat limited in most situations. 3 n The conditional use permit process proposed for the taller buildings as well as the performance standards are intended to insure that reasonable consideration be given to the character of the district that the taller buildings would potentially be located in. �I'Tmlffllmxel am. The proposed text amendment will conserve the value of buildings by allowing for flexibility in the architecture and construction of the new buildings and uses within the districts. These uses are not necessarily anticipated to be more intensive in nature. Allowing an increase in the building height limit allows for a more compact and efficient use of land and encourages greater density in the community. However, there is a relatively limited need for taller buildings. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board adopt staff report #KZTA-01-8 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed amendments to the building height limits be adopted 4 of Post office Box 1997 • Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 • Telephone (406) 758-7700 • FAX (406) 758-7758 September 5, 2001 Narda Wilson Tri-City Planning Office 17 2"d St. E, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Re: Building Height Standards: IRM-MeF1 in The City of Kalispell wishes to initiate a zoning text amendment for building height standards. The table below shows the proposed height for each zone: ZONE PRESENT HEIGHT R-1 Suburban Residential 30 feet R-2 Single Family Residential 30 feet R-3 Urban Single Family Residential 30 feet R-4 Two -Family Residential 30 feet R-5 Residential/Professional Office 35 feet RA-1 Low -Density Residential Apartment 35 feet RA-2 High -Density Residential Apartment 40 feet RA-3 Residential Apartment/Office 35 feet H-1 Health Care 35 feet -(Hospitals) 60 feet PROPOSED HEIGHT 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 ft (60 ft w/ CUP) B-1 Neighborhood Buffer District 30 feet 35 feet B-2 General Business 40 feet 40 ft (60 ft w/CUP) B-3 Community Business 40 feet 40 ft (60 ft w/CUP) B-4 Central Business 72 feet 40 ft (unlimited w/CUP) B-5 Industrial/Commercial 50 feet 40 ft (60 ft w/ CUP) I-1 Light Industrial 40 feet 40 ft (60 ft w/ CUP) I-2 Heavy Industrial 60 feet 40 ft (60 ft w/ CUP) P-1 Public 50 feet 40 ft (60 ft w/ CUP) For any situation requiring a conditional use permit, we propose that performance standards be included in Chapter 27.35 "Additional Requirements for Specific Conditional Uses." Both the Site Development Review Committee and the Architectural Review Committee were consulted in the development of these performance standards. Those standards are as follows: Additional Building Height. Structures requiring a conditional use permit due to additional height shall, in addition to any other applicable standards, be subject to the following standards: (1) No additional height shall be allowed within 150 feet of any R or RA zone. Any right-of-way adjacent to the subject property shall be excluded from the measurement. (2) No structure (subject to Section 27.22.070 regarding exceptions to height regulations) shall extend above a 1:1 slope established with a beginning point at the applicable setback line at an elevation equal to the elevation at natural grade at the nearest point on the property line plus the maximum height allowed in the zoning district. (3) The Architectural Review Committee shall submit a recommendation which shall be considered as a material factor in the consideration of the application. Please let me know if there is any additional information you need in order to process this request. Sincerely, PJ Sorensen Zoning Administrator Tri-City Planning Office 17 Second St East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 751-1850 Fax: (406) 751-1858 PETITION FOR ZONING AMENDMENT CITY OF KALISPELL 1. NAME OF APPLICANT 2. MAIL ADDRESS: U 3. CITY/STATE/ZIP: PHONE: �.SB'773Z 4. INTEREST IN PROPERTY: 5. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT: IF THE REQUEST PERTAINS TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: A. What is the proposed zoning teat amendment? IF THE REQUEST PERTAINS TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: / A. Address of the B. Legal Descript C. D. E. (Lot and Block of Subdivisipd- Tract #) (Section, Township, Range) (Attach sh t for metes and bounds) The present zoning of the above p perty is: The proposed zoning of the a e property is: State the changed or ch g conditions that make the proposed amendment necess 1 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE SUMMARY Thursday, August 30, 2001 Building Department Conference Room ATTENDING: Craig Kerzman, Building Official Darryl Byle, Plans Examiner Narda Wilson, City Planner Dick Amerman, Asst. City Engineer Dick Seddon, Fire Marshall Jim Brown, Assistant Police Chief P. J. Sorensen, Zoning Administrator, Chair Kathy Kuhlm, Recording Secretary OLD BUSINESS: County Health Department Building - The are opting out o€the Zoning Ordinance. Not sure when they will be getting their permit. The project will be going to the Board of Adjustment Meeting on Wednesday, September 5. Hospital Patient Towers - They are working on some revised drawings, and have started the foundation work. The project is moving along. NEW BUSINESS: Building Height Standards - We are working on putting together new height standards. The initial package was reviewed by the Council on Monday. The standard would be 35 feet in a residential area. Commercial areas would be generally be 40 ft and up to 60 feet (unlimited in the B-4) with a Conditional Use Permit. Performance Standards need to be developed We will need to initiate a text amendment. Architectural standards could be part of it. Three options were discussed for setbacks from property lines. The first idea was the sloped approach with a "zone" (similar to the Airport) to build in. The second would have additional setbacks for portions of the building in excess of 40 ft. The third is what they do in Whitefish, which limits the bulk of the building. Discussion was held and a 1:1 idea was favored. (Example: An additional 20 feet up would add an additional 20 foot setback for the portion of the building with added height) Measure from the nearest point on the property line from the natural ground for the slope. Distance from a residential zone - go across the street and then %: block (150 ft) from there. Architectural Standards if over 40 feet with recommendation from ARC to the Council as part of the Conditional Use Permit. Drainage behind Willows Subdivision - Water is not draining. The Corp told the County to fix it, and so they put an apron in. Dick Amerman will call Charlie Johnson to see what the specific problem is. The Russell Drive culvert was initially functioning. The Homeowners need to maintain this. DNRC Annexation - DNRC is proposing annexation of the school section with a PLID overlay. Jay Wentz is moving forward with the lease. Concerns about utility extensions. Development pods. New model for State going into real estate development. Land swap with residential. Could annex Four Mile Drive to make North Haven wholly surrounded. Peak Development Housing Proiect - Jackola will be in next week with plans for an apartment complex on 3"' Ave E. The use is not permitted in that zone, so they will need to address that issue before anything else. It was suggested that an alley be put through to Fourth Avenue East for fire access. Multi family, multistory building. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m. cc: Chris Police Craig Fire 3CPO Parks Pi Public Works Darryl Comm. Dev.