12/11/07 Planning Board MinutesKALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 2007
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and
CALL Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Board
members present were: Bryan Schutt, Robyn Balcom, Kari
Gabriel, Rick Hull, John Hinchey, Jim Williamson and C.M.
(Butch) Clark. Kari Gabriel was absent. Tom Jentz, Nicole
Johnson and Sean Conrad represented the Kalispell
Planning Department. There were approximately 35
people in the audience.
Mayre 1.
like to
board ass('
copies of a
Better Flathead said she would
Fab ut the board's ability to
ons that come before the
se issues. Flowers distributed
,py Attached)
4Smit Executive Director, Flathead Business &o t' n noted that she represents over 250
er mith was asked to hand deliver a letter of
Wolford Development project on behalf of
Jon Sonju. (Copy Attached)
Smi ntinued she requested that the board put their trust
in t experts at MDT. They are trained engineers and their
udgment can and should be trusted. Smith said regarding
I roper notification for this project, she was in Boise when
the information was released and she had plenty of time to
review it before the public hearing. In an effort to keep her
comments to a minimum she asked for a show of hands in
support of the Wolford project, however the board president
would not allow the straw vote.
B. J. Carlson, read a statement for the board. (Copy
Attached)
Debbie Street, 1400 Rose Crossing stated that she is
representing both the Aspen Group and her family, who are
the biggest local landowners in the proposed mall area.
Street said Mr. Wolford has spent years in bringing this plan
before the board tonight and they urge the board to allow the
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 1 of 29
project to progress through the process. As both a local
landowner and developer, they consider the mall to be a
welcome addition to their neighborhood and the area.
Chad Wolford, Wolford Development thanked the board for
their time in reviewing this project. Wolford said their team
has worked with staff over the past several months to
address the issues and concerns outlined in the various
conditions in the staff report. They have tried to be flexible
with staff while maintaining a project that will work for their
tenants and be feasible for their company. Wolford continued
they appreciate the professionali m of the planning staff and
their efforts to work with them ' aspects of this project.
Staff, along with the planni oard s input, has made this a
better project. They have ted their positions and they
understand the board st m a recommendation to the
Kalispell City Counc' a the b can support. They look
forward to the b s positive r mendation and are
present as a to o answer questions. A
Pat Arnone, 595 d, KalispeIVsaid although she
likes the outdoor st f the project now better than the
origin lan, her biggncern is to be sure the highway
depart d the City alis ell make careful decisions
about th that will enerated, not only by this
project, b the devel ment along Highway 93 that
has been a ro ks it is very dangerous and she
%Wto
king th eople in ower to make sure it is done right
not ru into something that will end up killing a lot
MOTION TO TAKE THE Clark moved and Balcom seconded a motion to take the
PROJECT OFF THE TABLE Glacier Town Center PUD and preliminary plat off the table
from the meeting of November 27, 2007.
BOARD DISCUSSION Hull noted he was not at the meeting of November 27th but
he has read the minutes and has been involved in the work
sessions on this project. He feels he is prepared to participate
in the discussion.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 2 of 29
ROLL CALL I The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
MOTION - GLACIER TOWN Clark moved and Balcom seconded a motion to adopt staff
CENTER PLANNED UNIT report KPUD-07-06 as findings of fact and recommend the
DEVELOPMENT Kalispell City Council approve the planned unit development
for Glacier Town Center subject to the 24 conditions listed in
the staff report and the 10 comments regarding amendments
to the conditions as found in the memo to the Kalispell
Planning Board from Sean Conrad dated December 6, 2007.
BOARD DISCUSSION
ensure new aevei
needed transpo tion i frastructure, d ncouraged the
city and plan and support the d for a city and
state plan to iden tr rtation s tions and options
before developmen plications are considered for
subdiv ' n review.
Is the boar a few minutes to review the
ents cei .ch t did.
noted at ther were comments made during the
the Pu 'c" portion that the process was not legal or
>riate an e added staff checks with the City Attorney
process o make sure it is followed legally. The
e in September loth and has been available
pu through our website, the application materials
)een available at various locations for the public to
t, and a proper public hearing was held. Jentz
cont ed, the staff report is prepared for the benefit of the
planning board and has also been available to the public
since it was completed. Jentz added the Kalispell City
Council will be holding another public hearing on this project
which will allow another opportunity for the community to be
involved.
Conra
comm
moves
27, 2007 public hearing
anning department has
on this project. Copies of
board. Conrad noted the
long Highway 93 between
%ds be put in place to
d concurrently with
Jentz continued staff receives comments from MDT on
projects but it is up to MDT to make the decisions on access
and issue the permits to ultimately access the highway. He
said the information presented to this board regarding
transportation should more appropriately be directed to MDT
and the Transportation Commission to administer as we go
through this process.
Balcom said concerns were raised about the process and she
added open meetings should work both ways. Balcom said it
is also frustrating for the board when groups or the public
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 3 of 29
present information at the last minute without the board
having the time to digest the new information.
Williamson said he wanted to address the comments
regarding limited access control. He did some research and
spoke with Greg Pazini, of the Transportation Commission
who indicated there is limited access control on Highway 93
from Kalispell to Whitefish but it does not limit the type of
access but the number of accesses. Pazini's said there are
probably 4 four parcels within this subject property and
typically there would be 1 access allowed per parcel. In
addition the Transportation Co fission could upgrade 2 of
those accesses to public appro
Schutt asked staff to re a response to CTA's letter
dated December 4th. Co d s is response is in the form
of a memo to the p 1 boar ted December 6th. The
following discussio as el d on th omments.
Comment 1
Provide the sidewal ension as recommended above. A
largeJe map will resented at the planning board
meetining the sid extension in question for the
board o that th d can determine which are
are not.
board adWd with tNF staff recommendations.
L a -
Cen-
the revised streetscape plan showing improved
and pedestrian access within the lifestyle center
-nds deleting staff condition Ed above.
taff recommends removing references to condition E.ii.a and
concerning sidewalks in the interior of the parking lots in
exchange for an increase in landscaping in the landscaping
provision of the lifestyle center and power center as follows:
a. Linear row of landscaping material on average every
200-225 feet (typically every 3-4 rows).
b. The landscaping feature will include a combination of
trees, bushes and flowers shall extend the length of
the parking lot and shall be a minimum of 10 feet
wide.
C. 1-3 inch round river rock is not an approved
landscape material.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 4 of 29
d. The exterior row of parking lot islands shall be
landscaped islands, not just flat concrete slabs.
e. Pedestrian connections shall also be made to
surrounding streets and the bike path located along
Highway 93 North. A minimum of three connections
shall be made from the bike path along Highway 93
North to the lifestyle center. A minimum of two
connections shall be made from the sidewalk along
Rose Crossing to the lifestyle center. Where sidewalks
cross traffic lanes, either at public or private streets or
within the parking lot, th sidewalk may be at grade
but shall be constru of colored or textured
concrete, stone or er contrasting material to
visually denote a p way. Simply painting the
walk area is not qua
f. The plansh e viewed anroved by the city's
site revie ommittee.
With regards to i ' ii.f requir' g the plan to be
reviewed by the city review committee, this is how city
staff w ld recommen review
such a plan in lieu of the
develop ally providi e to staff as part of the project
The board e aff recommendations.
t 3 -'Connectivity to Adiacent Parcels
°commen amending condition 4.A and require 6
sing 2 per quarter section along the 3
ly ter sections of the project site allowing an
spacing of a street every 560-660 feet. Sections 4.B
elow would be unchanged.
A minimum of one 60-foot local road right-of-way
along the residential block adjacent to tracts 1 and 2
of Certificate of Survey 15221 to provide access to
these properties western boundary.
C. Two 60-foot local road right-of-ways for assessor's
tract 2BA. One road right-of-way shall be located on
the western boundary and the other along the
northern boundary for access onto the future Lake
McDonald Road.
Conrad said staff originally recommended 7 connections
along the northern property boundary and the developer is
proposing 4. Conrad said staff is now recommending that
the planning board recommend 6 road connections and
asked for guidance from the board.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 5 of 29
Hull stated this is an important issue for him and he feels 6
connections would be the minimum he would accept. Hull
suggested trucks could be banned and traffic calming
devices could be used to lessen the impact on the
neighborhoods. Hull noted if no alternate routes are provided
the arterial roads will become too congested.
Hinchey said he agrees. Every additional roadway decreases
the traffic on other roads and it should be dispersed.
Williamson said he agrees
this is a compromise issue
system but it is sheltered
Personally he thinks it is
some sheltered portions
connections but will agr
staff.
Clark said he thiAks 6
Conrad continued
recommending 1 ad
the tr where East
the nro to the
properties
north are fine.
said t e does think that additional connection is
ssary be use they can access those properties from
efish Sta oad. Hinchey disagreed because the
se of the posed access is to minimize the access on
ge. The church currently has an access onto
efish age Road that Hinchey thinks should be
Wated in the future. Jentz said the question at hand is
ere be an access from the Glacier Town Center
to these 2 properties without accessing Whitefish
e Road. Jentz added it is an issue of neighborhood
Conrad reviewed the 2 remaining road connections to 2BA, 1
along the western property boundary the other along the
northern boundary for future access onto the future Lake
McDonald Road.
After further discussion the board agreed with all of the staff
recommendations regarding connectivity to adjacent
properties.
Comment 4 - Open Space and Parkland
Staff Recommendation:
Planning staff would recommend the planning board
consider amending condition 5 as follows:
5. A minimum of 72.3 acres of developed open space and
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 6 of 29
parkland shall be provided within the Glacier Town
Center subdivision less any additional required
right-of-ways for local roads and Highway 93
created by the conditions.
The board agreed with the staff recommendations.
Comment 5 - Irrigation
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the planning board consider the following
amendment to condition 11:
11. The landscaping and i on plans for the buffer
J.
areas along Highway North and Whitefish Stage
follows:
3 North buffer shall include an
rag corridor with undulating
ve a mix of tree plantings
ier predominately of lawn.
Whitefish Stage Road shall include an
it a ed landscaping corridor with undulating
to aphy with landscaped berms a minimum
feet in height from grade and have a mix of
ree plantings with a ground cover
predominately of lawn.
C. The perimeter buffer shall include an
irrigated landseaping a landscaped corridor
with a minimum width of 20 feet and have a
mix of tree plantings with a ground cover
predominately of lawn. Buildings shall be
located a minimum of 20 feet from the edge of
the bike/pedestrian trail.
The approved irrigation and landscaping plans shall be
installed prior to final plat of the respective phase where the
buffer is located. Round river rock 1"-3" in diameter is not
an appropriate landscape material. Note: Due to seasonal
changes bonding is permitted for the approved
landscaping/irrigation plans.
The board agreed with the staff recommendations.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 7 of 29
Staff Recommendation:
Staff does not recommend any changes to this condition.
The applicants do propose 4 potential roundabout sites on
the attached revised site plan.
The board agreed with the staff recommendations.
Comment 7 - Signage
Staff Recommendation:
Planning staff recommends a
14.B to allow the two free
Crossing the other at the
cemetery and one monu
location restrictions of e si
well as sections Canthis
The board aueedAhth the staff
VViiliilCiiL O - l�Vii�'-,�,...
Staff Recommend:
Staff r mmends the
conditio llows:
22. A of
final submitt
both t water
.ding condition 14.A and
'ng signs, one at Rose
road just north of the
at the center access. The
,should be maintained as
board consider amending the
with the staff recommendations.
Staff commends the planning board consider amending the
2ondition as follows:
3. The first phase shall be filed within three years of
approval of the effective date of this PUD. Each
successive phase shall be filed within two years of
final plat approval of the previous phase. In all
events, each phase shall be freestanding in terms of
public infrastructure, services, parks and open space.
The city council may grant successive one year
extension for each phase of the project. A request for
a one year extension must be made a minimum of 60
days prior to the expiration date of the phase.
The board agreed with the staff recommendations.
Comment 10 - Highway Access
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the planning board consider adding the
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 8 of 29
following conditions to the preliminary plat of phase 1:
• The center access off of Highway 93 shall be reduced
from a 110 foot private road right-of-way to a 50 foot
private road right-of-way. It shall be designed with 2
way - 2 lane design with a right in - right out access.
The road design shall support a 5 foot sidewalk and a
minimum 5 foot landscaped boulevard on both sides.
The purpose of this condition is to create a design that would
only accommodate a right in - right out and not create a
design which in the future may ecessitate the need for an
additional traffic light.
• The applicant
intersection of
period not to
approval f t
undertak in
necessary iancnq
dv concludes
three ars from preliminary plat
id note at the ning board hearing some of the
membe cited the growth policy and its intent to limit
tright pr N the number of signalized intersections
of West R erve Drive. The developer revised the PUD
lustrate what MDT would allow and Conrad
red t Ian for the board.
The opers plan includes a signalized intersection at the
futu extension of Rose Crossing; the secondary access or
ain entrance to the lifestyle center would be a % turn
movement; and just north of the cemetery would be a
signalized intersection.
Conrad said staff is recommending 2 amendments to their
plan regarding access onto Highway 93 which are listed
above.
Clark said with lots 15 and 16 it was his understanding that
Chad Wolford offered that property for a junior interchange if
it was required. Wolford said he did indicate at the last
meeting that he would be willing to consider that but since
then they received the 2nd letter from MDT that states they
would allow a signalized intersection at that location and he
questioned whether the condition was necessary now. (MDT
Letter Attached)
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 9 of 29
Hinchey said he was going to ask the same question and now
he is wondering if those lots are still available. Wolford said
that is up to the planning board at this point. Wolford added
they do not have a design yet and he doesn't know one way
or the other whether it would take lots 15 or 16. Wolford
suggested if the condition was to remain it should be
amended to state a reasonable amount of land instead of
specific lots.
Hinchey asked if it is acceptable t
set aside the land for a periodf
Clark noted t
current conditions
decide they absolu
board ' trvinR to
comes ntz added
up to 2 complet
achieve w to e pr
aside the d r g
ether or n eland
amson sai he thinks the preservation study is a great
r
is
Wolford Development to
3 years to see what the
Wolford asked is it a deal
what the planning board
o
prerogative. Wolford added
WoDT stated they don't
w why they would be
their ents based on
'the study is ompleted they may
the interchange. That is why the
and in abeyance until the study
has said the study could take
what staff was trying to
to move forward yet setting
erchan e until it is determined
needed.
id d asked e cost of the study. Jentz said since the
pdate cost $ 150,000 they feel it would be
ifican ess than that amount. Williamson referred to
h .scussions with the Transportation Commission who
sai a isn't an Access Management Plan for Highway 93
Nort and MDT doesn't have the money for one or for the
Preservation study being discussed tonight. Jentz added this
community needs that plan based on the growth policy and
the city would work with MDT on funding. Jentz also noted
that the condition has a sunset clause that if the city and
MDT can't get the study off the ground by 3 years the
restriction will be lifted.
Hull said he is heart sick about this whole thing. It was a
fight to finally get the highway to 4 lanes between Kalispell
and Whitefish and now it appears there will still be one light
on the highway if the junior interchange is constructed. Hull
said the city has boxed itself into this situation because of
the growth policy and the fact that Valley Ranch was
approved with their only access to turn south on the highway
being negotiated through the Glacier Town Center project.
Hull said there needs to be serious discussions about access
onto the highway. He added it is the one issue that he and
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 10 of 29
the public are most concerned about. If the board approves
this project they can expect that other areas like the landfill
and Happy Valley will be coming in with their plans to access
the highway and he is convinced it will turn into a death
trap.
Schutt reminded the planning board that there are other
issues on the agenda and he suggested that this project be
tabled. Jentz suggested that it be tabled to new business on
tonight's agenda.
MOTION TO TABLE Schutt moved and Hinchey conded a motion to table this
GLACIER TOWN CENTER discussion on the Glacier enter to New Business.
TO NEW BUSINESS
ROLL CALL The motion pass on roll call of 4 in favor and 2
opposed.
KALISPELL AREA A proposal to aNepell Area ransportation Plan
TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2006 Update asthe Kalispell Growth Policy
2006 UPDATE PUBLIC to se as a r transportation decisions.
HEARING This pl 1 and replace the existing
Kalispell updated in 1993.
1\ •[=
PUBLIC HEARING Lex Blood, 844 3rd Avenue East stated the residents of 3rd
and 4th Avenues East are very interested and concerned
about the Transportation Plan particularly as it applies to
their neighborhood. Blood continued the board may or may
not be aware of the fact that on December 2, 2002 the city
council approved Resolution #4759 which requested that
those 2 avenues be removed from the state highway system
and be placed under the jurisdiction of the City of Kalispell.
Mayre Flowers, Citizens for a Better Flathead distributed a
letter addressing their comments in relation to the
Transportation Concurrency and Collaborative
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 11 of 29
Transportation Review Process. (Copy Attached)
Seeing no one else wishing to speak the board president
indicated that this hearing will be continued to the next
regular meeting of the board on January 8, 2008.
JEFF & KAREN THIESEN A request from Jeff and Karen Thiesen for a zone change from
ZONE CHANGE City R-4 (Two Family Residential) to City B-1 (Neighborhood
Buffer District) for two lots in the Sinopah Subdivision. The
land encompasses one acre and is located along North
Meridian Road approximately one-fourth mile south of the
intersection with US Highway 9 The property is located at
1288 and 1270 North Meridi
The gr h policy desi es this area as an urban mixed -
use are the intent e -1 zoning is to provide a
buffer be more int commercial uses and traffic
along Me ian the ss intense R-4 zoning and
residential b ' sio e west.
ad cont* ed based on the growth policy and its
d ation of d-use, the neighborhood character along
t tretch of ridian that is primarily commercial, and
e eridian with its upgrades can handle any
eased fic that B-1 zoning on this property and its
a ated uses could generate, staff recommends that the
Kali City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt
staff port KZC-07-03 as findings of fact and recommend to
he Kalispell City Council that the zoning for this property be
changed to B-1, Neighborhood Buffer District.
BOARD DISCUSSION NMkff I None.
APPLICANT/TECHNICAL None.
STAFF
PUBLIC HEARING I No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
MOTION Hinchey moved and Balcom seconded a motion to adopt staff
report KZC-07-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the
Kalispell City Council that the zoning for this property be
changed to B-1, Neighborhood Buffer District.
BOARD DISCUSSION I None.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 12 of 29
ROLL CALL I The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
LONNIE & KIM A request by Lonnie and Kim Buchholtz for annexation and
BUCHHOLTZ ANNEXATION initial zoning of R-4 (Two -Family Residential) of one lot in the
& INITIAL ZONING Western Acres residential subdivision located on the west
side of 7th Avenue West - approximately 150 feet south of
11th Street West. The address for the property 1312 7th
Avenue West, Kalispell.
STAFF REPORT KA-07-19
BOARD DISCUSSION
APPLICANT/
STAFF
PUBLIC HEARING
Nicole Johnson, representing the Kalispell Planning
Department presented Staff Rep9Kt KA-07-19 to the board.
Johnson stated Mr. Buc
order to have access to
subdivide the property
on the property.
board adopt Staff Report KA-
mmend to the Kalispell City
ng for this property upon
Residential.
tt asked w many lots could be created by subdivision
Is propert Johnson said the planning department
taining aiver of preliminary plat for 2 lots however,
e board, they are only considering the initial
g of t or
upon annexation tonight.
Hul ed if all access to this property will be from 7th
Ave e West and Johnson said yes. She added there is a city
park located on the west side of the lot and access to the
park from this property will be provided.
Lonnie Buchholtz, 1079 Patrick Creek Road said his
intentions for this property are exactly as staff reported.
No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
MOTION Hinchey moved and Balcom seconded a motion to adopt Staff
Report KA-07-19 as findings of fact and recommend to the
Kalispell City Council that the initial zoning for this property
upon annexation be R-4, Two Family Residential.
BOARD DISCUSSION Hull mentioned since the city initiated a block community
grant to extend water and sewer into this area there has
been dramatic improvements to the neighborhood.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 13 of 29
ROLL CALL I The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
BAY RIDGE ESTATES - A request by Bay Ridge Development LLC for annexation and
ANNEXATION & INITIAL initial zoning of R-3 (Single Family Residential) for 18.88
ZONING & PRELIMINARY acres of tract land. There are four existing houses located
PLAT on the project site addressed 537, 541, 543 and 545 Three
Mile Drive. Although the houses are addressed off of Three
Mile Drive the properties are located at the northern end of
Meadows Lane, which connects to Three Mile Drive
approximately one-fourth mile west of the intersection of
Three Mile Drive and Stillwater Road. The project site is
south of Quarter Horse Estate Spring Creek defines the
western boundary. The o is also requesting preliminary
plat approval for Bay Rid tes, a subdivision that plats
40 lots ranging in size f 7,0 30,000 square feet.
STAFF REPORTS KA-07-08 Nicole Johnson, e nting Kalispell Planning
& KPP-07-13 Department prese d f Report -07-08 8s KPP-07-13
for the board.
Johnson reported includes tracts of land and
they have requested -3 Single Family Residential zoning
design ' n and a prop 40 lot subdivision. The 18.8 acre
site is on the n si e of Three Mile Drive and
starts at us of ws Road, which is a county
road that 'll be ed t ity standards and dedicated to
the city.
son said a proposed 40 lot subdivision and R-3 single
y reside zone complies with the suburban
N
Ian se designation from the growth policy
p to 4 units per acre. The proposed
ivision density would be approximately 2.1 units per
Mea4bWs Lane, while not part of the subdivision, will be the
primary access to the subdivision. Meadows Lane will be
extended north and west and the southern portion of Bowser
Creek Loop has a stub -out to provide for a future connection
to the south if needed. The lots range in size from 7,000 -
30,000 square feet and there is a large common area on the
western end of the subdivision. A significant portion of the
common area is in the floodplain and stormwater will be
managed in that lower southwest corner. Johnson provided
additional information which includes the size of the area
that would be utilized for stormwater.
Johnson continued there is a 20 foot wide easement where a
bike path will be located. It will provide access to the park
which will also connect with a larger park proposed for
Cottage Gardens to the south and Mountain Vista Estates to
the east. Comments from the Parks Department indicated
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 14 of 29
the park areas located together will provide a larger
neighborhood park and preserve the Spring Creek area.
Johnson reviewed the following conditions for the board.
Condition #4 is related to the flag lot configuration in the
southeast corner of the subdivision. The subdivision
regulations state that flag lots are only allowed in in -fill
situations, such as in older parts of the city, and not allowed
in areas of new development. Staff is recommending that Lot
40 be eliminated.
#7 requires the upgrades to Meadow Lane. The
ment clarifies the county road shall be dedicated to
city. Johnson noted the deed information was provided to
board in the supplemental packet.
Johnson stated this project is unique since there are 4
existing houses on this site. Since there is no water supply
on the property and the fire department does not have a
water tender and has limited water capacity in their fire
trucks to suppress any fire that may occur, staff is
recommending the following amendment to Condition #23:
"An all-weather water storage tank shall be provided in a
central location on the property (vicinity of Lot 36) holding a
minimum of 5,000 gallons of water prior to annexation of the
property being recorded. The water tank shall comply with
the International Fire Code (2006) and the design and
installation shall be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell
Fire Department. (Findings of Fact, Section A - Fire, Access,
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 15 of 29
BOARD DISCUSSION
On -site Improvements, Section D - Fire Protection."
Hinchey asked if the tank would be temporary until the
infrastructure is put in and Johnson said yes. Johnson
added the developer has provided preliminary information on
a tank that would provide 6,900 gallons of water and they
plan to install it prior to council's filing of the annexation.
Johnson continued the final amendment would be Condition
#26 which relates to the parkland dedication. The original
condition requires 1.21 acres of land and that lots 9 8s 10
would be provided as part of that dedication. Since the
writing of the staff report veloper and the Parks
Department met and came with another solution to the
park area requirement efore staff is recommending
that Condition #26 be nde ead:
"Dedicate par
parkland incl
southwest c
boundaries,
[dal -to one-nin the area in lots. The
the dedication b located in the
outs e of the ted floodplain
facilities and shall
northe corner of t
Mount a Estates
by the P Recn
offer a re ed 4,
land paym t a
dinizs of t, Sectic
e storm ater management
itiguous with the parks in the
Atage Gardens subdivision and
west. Note: Based on approval
artment the applicant may
and provide a cash -in -lieu of
'development of the park area.
- Parks and Open Space)"
ecomme s hat the planning board adopt staff report
-08 and r mmend to the Kalispell City Council that
g of the site be R-3 (Urban Single Family
!nti on annexation.
St er recommends that the planning board adopt staff
repo PI
as findings of fact and recommend to the
alispell City Council that the proposed subdivision, Bay
idge Estates be approved subject to the 43 conditions as
amended.
Clark questioned whether both lots 9 8v 10 would be
necessary for parkland and Johnson said the Parks
Department didn't have sufficient information from the
developer and it was difficult for them to determine how
much land would be required.
Schutt noted this is a typical scenario that a maximum
number of lots would be recommended for approval and then
as the issues are worked out it is quite possible that a lot or
2 might be lost.
Clark noted they could also lose another lot for connectivity
to the north and he suggested that lot 16 could be made
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 16 of 29
smaller and there would still be enough room for a road.
Johnson agreed and noted the condition did not specify the
exact location of the connection road to the north but
identifies the general vicinity.
Williamson asked if several lots had been analyzed for depth
v. width and Johnson said they just make it. Williamson
continued, on the 40 foot road and utility easement does that
meet the minimum intersection separation requirements as
shown. Johnson said as shown, no it does not. It has to be
135 feet from center line to center line and that is why staff
is recommending that it be shifted.
Clark asked if one conn on to the north would be
sufficient and Johnson s
Williamson asked w t requ setback from the river
was for Mountain a tates an ld it be the same for
this project. Jo on s 'd yes it is a as Mountain
Vista Estates he se ack is 100 with a 50 foot
buffer area where v ent may o ur.
Clark ed for the de on of the thread of the creek and
Olaf E e applicant' nical staff said the thread of a
creek is term whi if a stream were to dry up it
would be las 'on w e the water would run.
chey ask or furth explanation on the easement issue
the east portion of the site. Johnson said now
M ows Lane o es to a point then a private 40 foot road
tility ease nt extends north and then curves to the
pers are proposing eliminating a portion of
t ease m and constructing a full city road to the south.
operty owner in the northeast corner is not part of the
sub on and still requires use of the private easement
beca e his property does not extend to the county road,
Meadows Lane. The easement therefore must remain and to
meet the city requirements the road and utility easement had
to be adjusted. Hinchey said the relocation of that easement
would then take care of the problem with lot 27 where it is
surrounded on 3 sides by roads and Johnson said yes. The
remaining areas will be maintained as a buffer area.
Clark asked if the property owner who uses that easement
has any issues with the realignment of the easement and
Johnson noted if there is an issue it will probably be
addressed during the public hearing.
Hinchey noted Condition #6 refers to impacts fees and on
lots 5, 13, 24, and 40 but thought it should be lots 5, 13, 24,
and 39 and Johnson agreed that was an error and it will be
corrected.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 17 of 29
Schutt summarized the amendments discussed for the
board.
APPLICANT/TECHNICAL Olaf Ervin, Montana Mapping Associates said he is
STAFF representing the applicants. Ervin said a lot of hard work has
gone into this project and they are able to live with the
conditions. He noted there was some discussion on why the
connectivity to the north wasn't initially shown and he said
they approached the lot owners in Quarter Horse Estates and
did not receive a favorable response so they did not pursue
it. However if the board deems it important they will provide
for the future connection to the north.
Steve Fetveit, 43 Prairie Vi
Drive, which is one of th
stated this whole proc
when this area bey o
owners
Barrett
Sharpe,
ty. He
s and thl
is area.
are very
ay formerly of 545 Three Mile
ties within this subdivision,
st a number of years ago
hang rapidly. He owned a
id began ing into conflicts so
They then is property up for
successful lling it but then
it. Fetve' thanked the board
has been a pleasure working with
9his wife and the other property
siastic about the project.
Mentin his parents Ron and Marcia
hree Mile Drive, said his parents
Steve d Samantha Fetveit to develop this
a lot of time and energy has gone into this
F el it will be one of the nicer developments
harpe thanked the board for their
auer, 76 Prairie View Way, formerly of 541 Three Mile
i d he also has horses and the rural area he used to
ve anged so he moved. Since the change in the area this
velopment makes sense to him. Bauer said he is in favor of
project.
PUBLIC HEARING John Arlint, 555 Three Mile Drive more specifically the
property to the south of the proposed development, noted he
has some concerns, namely the wells on the proposed
property that would be involved in the reconditioning of the
current Meadows Lane. One of those wells would be within
50 feet of the proposed upgrade to the road. They also show
on the preliminary plat some well head easements and one of
those goes on to his property. Arlint added he has not been
contacted by the developers regarding the easement nor does
he know what restrictions would be placed on his property.
Arlint asked the board to address those issues in the
conditions.
Williamson asked if there is an easement to this well and
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 18 of 29
does he have a shared use. Arlint said the well is not on his
property, he has his own well which is approximately 90 feet
back from Meadows Lane. The neighbor to the east, Jan
Kienas has a well but it is closer to 50 feet from the center of
Meadows Lane. Arlint continued, in the staff report they are
recommending that no sewage lines, mains or feeders be
within 50 feet of the wells on the project site. His concern is
with the upgrade to Meadows Lane it would bring the road
within the 50 foot boundary. Williamson noted Arlint
mentioned an easement and Arlint said the staff report refers
to a well head protection easement. Arlint also questioned
the condition that would provi e future connection to his
property since he has absol o plans to develop his
property.
Jan Kienas, 535 Three e D said she has lived on her
property for 37 ye ienas concerned about the
requirement for si walk alo the entire western
boundary of her operty and city up es o the road and
asked who w aintai the sidewal plow the road.
Kienas said her w 50 feet of e road which she
has a water right to is filed with the State of Montana.
She h o intention o er giving up her well or becoming
a part o ity. She ad he would never be able to pay
taxes on the city rty tax rate. If this project is
approved e wri n guarantee that she would
never be f e o ecause she would then be an
d of cou propert surrounded by the city.
M e Flowers, 7 0 Upper Lost Creek Road said this area
h een in agr tural use for many years and noted small
uses are important in this valley. There are
e pohc in the subdivision regulations that would allow
e g agricultural uses be retained and she asked the
bo ook at that with this property.
MOTION - INIVZONINGalcom
moved and Clark seconded a motion to adopt staffeport
KA-07-08 as findings of fact and recommend to the
alispell City Council that the initial zoning of the site be R-3
rban Single Family Residential) upon annexation.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Hinchey said it seems an appropriate zoning for that area.
ROLL CALL
The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
MOTION - BAY RIDGE
Clark moved and Balcom seconded a motion to adopt staff
ESTATES PRELIMINARY
report KPP-07-13 as findings of fact and recommend to the
PLAT
Kalispell City Council that the proposed subdivision, Bay
Ridge Estates be approved subject to the 43 conditions listed
in the staff report.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Williamson asked about the well head isolation buffer and
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 19 of 29
Johnson said according to the Flathead City County Health
Department standards and DEQ the zone is 100 feet and
there is another requirement that septic systems and other
utilities not be placed within 50 feet of a specific well.
Williamson said he knows DEQ calls for separation between
a septic drain field but what about public water sewer and
utilities. Johnson said the sewer mains are considered a
contamination source and a risk therefore, a minimum
separation of 50 feet is required. All they are saying with the
preliminary plat is the isolation zones and easements must
be indicated on the plat. Williamson said that issue will
probably reconfigure a good por ion of the plat. Jentz said
they already exist and staff i requesting that they are
show on the plat for publi areness. Johnson added the
location of the sewer sy at will be extended along
Meadows Lane may nee o be ed within the 60 foot road
and utility easemen void e aching on the 50 foot
buffer.
Schutt clarifi well oted in Co7wif
on # 15 are the
wells within this di . He ask the wells and
properties to the sou either side of Meadows Lane have
their o associated w ad protection zones and Johnson
said ye they will no indicated on this plat. Schutt
asked if ens ofte n an upgrade of a road 8s
utility eas en encr ch into well zones and Jentz
said he has 't n re but when comments are sent
to publi encies d they respond, the comments are
ded in th lanning process.
S t asked if ` e existing wells in the subdivision will be
Johnson responded at least 2 of the wells are
osed e abandoned. The well in the northeast portion
o subdivision will be retained and used. Ervin added the
wel e Van Allen property, the southeast portion of the
site uld have to be retained because it is a shared well.
Clark said he is concerned about the sidewalk along Ms.
Kienas' property and the city regulations require her to plow
it. Jentz noted that you cannot enforce a city ordinance
against a county resident. Johnson said the sidewalk was a
recommendation from Public Works and the subdivision
regulations require a city road standard for subdivisions that
propose a certain number of lots and also to provide
pedestrian access. Jentz added the board could consider this
as a city street profile going into a rural area and the
sidewalks would be an onerous condition and should be
waived. Jentz continued at the time the property would be
developed and annexed into the city, sidewalks would be
required.
MOTION - AMEND Clark moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to amend
CONDTION #7 Condition #7 to eliminate the requirement of installing a
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 20 of 29
sidewalk from Meadows Lane to Three Mile.
BOARD DISCUSSION Schutt asked how will pedestrians and kids on bikes get
down to Three Mile Drive. He also asked if sidewalks are
eliminated is there any pedestrian connectivity to the major
bike path along Three Mile Drive. Johnson said other than
through planned subdivisions such as Cottage Gardens, no.
MOTION WITHDRAWN
MOTION - AMEND
CONDITON #39
ROLL CALL
Hull suggested that the homeowners association maintain
the sidewalk along Meadows Lane.
Clark withdrew his motion and
Clark moved and Hi
condition #39 to incl
will also maintain the
subdivision to Three
The motion
second concurred.
led a motion to amend
Homeowners Association
Ly Meadows Lane from the
sly on a alb vote.
n is all about interconnectivity but to require
loss of a of for connectivity to Quarter Horse Estates and
h th t connection never go through to him would be
one Johnson said that would ultimately be up to the
boar to decide but the connection has been deemed to be
mportant in numerous other city subdivisions. Johnson said
sometime in her lifetime she could foresee Quarter Horse
Estates being further developed.
Williamson noted since the properties in Quarter Horse
Estates are already developed it would be a lengthy process
to subdivide those 5-10 acre lots. Johnson added the
previous annexation on tonight's agenda is 1/2 acre and it
will be subdivided.
Schutt said if there is a crystal ball that says the City of
Kalispell will never be building on the north side of that
property line the connectivity would not be needed.
Clark asked if the easement to the north would be for a road,
utility and bike path and Jentz said yes. Clark asked Ervin if
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 21 of 29
MOTION - DELETE
CONDITION # 10
BOARD DISCUSSION
ROLL CALL - DI
CONDITION # 10
ROLL CALL -
PRELIMINARY PLAT
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
MOTION TO REMOVE
GLACIER TOWN CENTER
FROM THE TABLE
the connectivity could be reconfigured without losing a lot
and Ervin said they are probably going to lose a lot in that
location because they may run into the width to depth ratio
problem. Ervin said it wasn't the fact that the existing lot
owners in Quarter Horse Estates said no, it was the fact that
Quarter Horse Lane was a private road easement and they
have no right to access it. Jentz said staff is recommending
connectivity should be provided to the north with the concept
that at some point Quarter Horse Estates will come into the
city. The board has to decide that neighborhood has now
changed and connectivity should be provided or this is a
unique 5 acre lot neighborhoo and wouldn't be further
subdivided even if it were to be xed.
Ervin added since there ady existing homes on the
lots in Quarter Horse ates subdivide them could be
problematic. Howeve th are g to comply with the
condition if it stan .
north.
his only rebuttal is this is an area that is
was called.
The motion to delete Condition # 10 passed on a roll call vote
of 4 in favor and 2 opposed.
The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
None.
Continuation of the Glacier Town Center discussion.
Hinchey moved and Balcom seconded a motion to remove
Glacier Town Center from the table.
ROLL CALL I The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 22 of 29
BOARD DISCUSSION Schutt noted that the board finished reviewing the
amendments to the conditions detailed in the December 6th
memo from staff with the exception of Comment # 10 Access
to Highway 93 North.
Comment 10 - Highway Access (Discussion Continued)
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the planning board consider adding the
following conditions to the preliminary plat of phase 1:
• The center access off of
from a 110 foot private
private road right-of-
way - 2 lane desi
The road design 1st
minimum 5 fo sca
The purpose of c
only accomm
design which in t
additional traffic ligh
way 93 shall be reduced
fight -of -way to a 50 foot
It shall be designed with 2
right in - right out access.
La 5 foot sidewalk and a
levard on both sides.
i ion is to cre d ign that would
,h n - right o d not create a
v necessi to the need for an
t re
f Rose
in
,ots 15 and 16 at the
,ing and Highway 93 for a
years from preliminary plat
of allowing the city to
with MDOT a corridor
presery ion study. If a junior interchange is
4friction
It.
the applicant would reserve the
If the study is not pursued or if the
cludes a junior interchange is not feasible,
over lots 15 and 16 would be lifted at
that time or three years from preliminary plat
Mull said he is not comfortable with the recommendation
because although there is potential for an interchange at the
extension of Rose Crossing it would still leave a stoplight
near the cemetery.
Balcom suggested the recommendation go forward as is to
the city council for further discussions because she doesn't
think the board will be able to resolve it.
Hull said he would like to propose a right -in, right -out only
near the cemetery and only have a stop light at Rose
Crossing again with the potential that the Rose Crossing
intersection will become a junior interchange.
Williamson said the board has to look at what that
amendment would do to traffic flow. He sees problems with
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 23 of 29
Highway 93 as everyone has identified but he also sees
problems with transferring traffic to West Reserve. The traffic
will have a bigger impact on West Reserve than on Highway
93 and to limit traffic to the highway would limit traffic flow.
Hull said the highway corridor has to be preserved. He added
the impacts to West Reserve are unclear with the proposed
road behind Hutton Ranch Plaza and Mountain View Plaza
and the eventual dumping out of all the bypass traffic.
Schutt said the rest of this project is fantastic, however he
keeps running into the issue 'th a growth policy that is
trying to preserve the free -flow fic. In addition, years of
planning has been put into nstruction of the bypass that
would get traffic around then dump that traffic into
a sea of red lights.
Clark concurs, ho er e city coUW mandated the KN-1
BOARD DISCUS I ) 8"qN Schutt said obviously the site was located here to catch
southbound traffic from Whitefish and to catch northbound
traffic exiting out of Kalispell. If the board allowed a signal at
Rose Crossing hopefully it is temporary until an interchange
can be put in. The signal at Rose Crossing would catch the
traffic that is southbound and going into this project but
Schutt doesn't see the need to allow southbound left hand
turns north of the cemetery. Schutt suggested that Access B
become a major right -in, right -out in order to catch
northbound traffic instead of a signalized intersection.
Balcom thinks that would complicate the access mostly for
the people who will live there.
Williamson said he disagrees with Schutt's suggestion and
thinks a signalized intersection at Access B would distribute
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 24 of 29
the traffic better.
Clark thought southbound traffic would miss the first turn at
Rose Crossing and need to have another access where they
can make a left turn into the center. Schutt said there is
large free standing signage proposed and he feels the number
of people who would miss the first turn would be a small
percentage. Clark thought the percentage would be huge.
Question was called and Hull objected.
Hull suggested if the signal wa,§ missed at Rose Crossing
MOTION - ACCESS B S moved � Hinchey seconded a motion to change
-in, right -out only.
ROLL CAL T otion to change Access B to right -in, right -out failed
on a ote.
MOTION -NLAN7Dilliamson moved and Balcom seconded a motion to amend
FOR FUTUREe language from reserving lots 15 8s 16 to reserving an
INTERCHANGEpropriate amount of land as determined by any study that
ould be completed.
BOARD DISCUSSION Jentz said staff's intent was not to take all of lots 15 8s 16
but to reserve the lots for 3 years, not knowing how much
land it would actually take to construct an interchange.
Williamson said his intent here is the developer needs to
know what he is dealing with. If he is going to reserve lots 15
8s 16 that might be too much and he doesn't want the
developer hung up for an interchange that may never be
required.
Clark said the lots would only be hung up for 3 years and it
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 25 of 29
SECOND WITHDRAWN
BOARD DISCUSSION
would be the only chance of getting the land required for a
junior interchange from this developer.
Hinchey added it is not tied up indefinitely only until the
study is completed or 3 years.
Schutt asked if a junior interchange is called for would a
realignment of the last few hundred feet of Rose Crossing
possibly play into that and Jentz said yes.
Balcom said if the developer can live with it, it shouldn't be
an issue.
Balcom withdrew the secondA6 the motion.
th 5.5 acres and calculates
urb ed uses it looks to him
cial pro If he looks at the
use it says that it co patible mix of
Ls inc ding office ell commercial,
AV ential.
Further discussion was held on mixed use.
ROLL CALL The motion to limit use percentages on the site and redefine
mixed use failed on a tie vote.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 26 of 29
BOARD DISCUSSION Hinchey noted he had one last concern regarding the access
to the 5 acre community center site. Hinchey noted the real
estate will be set aside for 5 years but yet in phase 1 the
roadway doesn't go any further than just getting to the
community center parcel. Hinchey said if there is a sunset
clause it would be prudent to at least be able to access the
entire site during phase 1.
MOTION - ACCESS TO THE Hinchey moved and Hull seconded a motion that Lake
5 ACRE COMMUNITY McDonald Road be extended the eastern property line of the
CENTER SITE proposed 5 acre community center site.
BOARD DISCUSSION Clark asked if the board d be involved in the
Memorandum of Understan g (MOU) between Wolford and
the North 93 Neighbors.
Williams said he wo like to se lan from the parties to
really know what t ar consideri
vig said n worki on the MOU they did their best to
nd addre the issues although they didn't have all the
Is worked u for the project yet. Kalvig recalls from
eetings ford wanted to make a contribution of the
unity center and North 93 Neighbors and the
Sste.
K 1 ell would have a say in how that land would be
was proposed to Wolford that he sell the land to the
ty at cost and Bucky said he would donate the land
Kalvig said it is important for the board to know that
olford did go above and beyond on this issue.
Kalvig continued the other thing that he remembers from
those meetings was they talked about the various access
points all around the site and as best they could estimated
which initial roads would be built. However, Kalvig recalls
Wolford made it clear at that time that Lake McDonald Road
was not going to be built all the way to Whitefish Stage Road
in the initial phase of this project.
Kalvig added this is an issue that Wolford is willing to
continue to work with the North 93 Neighbors on because
Wolford wants the community center to work and something
that the North 93 Neighbors and the community as a whole
will be proud of. However Kalvig added he didn't feel that the
board or council should be involved in the terms of the MOU.
They have a good working relationship with the North 93
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 27 of 29
Neighbors and they will do everything they can to address
this issue.
Schutt said then the issue is simply timing. Kalvig said yes,
it is a road that is planned to be built at some point and it is
Wolford's position that the timing for building the entire road
is not in the initial phase. Schutt asked if there is a sunset
clause attached to this land and Kalvig said the MOU states
5 years.
Hinchey asked when Lake McDonald Road will be connected
to Whitefish Stage Road and Wolfrd's team said phase 3.
Chad Wolford said he
North 93 Neighbors a
have the best intent
donating theAacresproblem withWhitefish Stathat would oproposed insparcel they
boundmw of the 5 acre
echoe hat Kalvig said and hopefully
nd and understands that they
thi cel, there is no point in
d of ha used. Wolford said the
McDonal ad all the way out to
zo is $500,00 1 illion in costs
the mmunity c parcel. Wolford
p e road a cul-de-sac at this
o extend the road to the eastern
Schutt a *board ne obe involved or can Wolford
and the thbors ork this out and Wolford said
as far as h is hey can work it out. DeMeester
We
becaus e roads ave changed so much they would
to have ditional discussions.
ROLL CALL T otion to ` tend Lake McDonald Road to the east
the 5 acre parcel for the community center
sed un mously on a roll call vote.
The following note shall be placed on the final plat:
"Property owner(s) shall waive their right to protest the
creation of a special improvement district for road
upgrades in the area which are impacted by this
subdivision." (Findings of Fact, Section D - Roads)
Conrad recommended the board add that condition to the
conditions for Phase 1 of the Glacier Town Center.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 28 of 29
MOTION - PHASE 1, Clark moved and Balcom seconded a motion that the
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt
GLACIER TOWN CENTER staff report KPP-07-12 as findings of fact and recommend to
the Kalispell City Council that the Glacier Town Center
subdivision, phase 1, be approved subject to the conditions
in the staff report and including adding the condition cited
above.
BOARD DISCUSSION
ROLL CALL - PHASE 1,
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
GLACIER TOWN CENTER
NEXT MEETING
Bryan H. Schutt
President
None.
The motion passed on a roll
opposed. A
The next regular m
Board and Zoning
2008, at 7:01 p.m
The next speal
scheduled for TL
the Kalispell City
APPROVED as submitted ec / 08
vote of 4 in favor and 2
Kalispell City Planning
t
uled for January 8,
ouncil Chambers.
i or work se n is tentatively
29, 2 at 7:00 p.m. in
Chambers.
Anderson
g Secretary
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 29 of 29
The Kalispell City Planning Board
17 2"a Street East, Suite 211, Kalispell, MT 59903
From: Citizens for a Better Flathead
PO Box 771, Kalispell, MT 59903
Public Participation issues in general and specific to the Glacier Mall
Process
Citizens for a Better Flathead is requesting that the Kalispell City Planning Board
and the City of Kalispell:
1. Take action to review your public participation guidelines and to
adopt standards that better afford the public the right to be informed
of issues and to be provided timely notice of hearings and decisions of
interest to the public. We also ask that you consider guidelines to
encourage a meaningful and generous opportunity to provide public
comment on issues of concern during a public hearing process.
2. Additionally, we also ask that you consider the following facts and
compliance with Montana Law and schedule another public hearing
before this board on the Glacier Mall/Town Center application.
Facts:
1. State Law MCA76-2-303. requires a 15 day public notice for a public hearing on
a zoning issue. To provide legal notice for a meeting and not provide access to all
materials associated with that zoning hearing until only a few days before the actual
hearing and to allow material to be submitted by the applicant hours before the
hearing and following the hearing, we feel violates the spirit of this statue and the
Montana Constitutional provision to meaningful public participation.
In the consideration of the Glacier Mall application, the staff report was not made
available until the day before Thanksgiving and the hearing took place on the
following Tuesday, which is not adequate time for the public to review this report
and its bearing on other documents in the record.
We ask that you adopt a policy that staff reports be available concurrent with the
legal notice for a hearing on a land use application.
2. State Law MCA 76-3-615. Requires that when "new" information is submitted in
a subdivision hearing, the governing body shall determine whether public comments
or documents presented constitute information or analysis of which the public has
had a reasonable opportunity to examine and comment upon.
In the consideration of the Glacier Mall application, it is clear that the applicant
submitted new information concerning traffic and other issues before and after the
hearing and thus the public was denied reasonable opportunity to comment.
We ask that a new public hearing be held on the Glacier Mall/Town Center
Application and that this hearing be scheduled and noticed only after final
application materials are confirmed to have been submitted and a revised staff
report that considers this new information has been prepared and is available to the
public concurrent with notice of this hearing.
3. State Law MCA 2-3-111, states that "Opportunity to submit views -- public
hearings.
(1) Procedures for assisting public participation must include a method of affording
interested persons reasonable opportunity to submit data, views, or arguments, orally or
in written form, prior to making a final decision that is of significant interest to the
public.
(2) When a state agency other than the board of regents proposes to take an action that
directly impacts a specific community or area and a public hearing is held, the hearing
must be held in an accessible facility in the impacted community or area or in the nearest
community or area with an accessible facility."
At the recent public hearing on the Glacier Mall the public was ask to limit detailed
comment and to instead turn in written comments or to summarize comments as much as
possible. With this notice at the beginning of the meeting it was not clear that the public
would be provided adequate time to present oral comments as provided for in Montana
Law and some individuals cut their comments short. No published guide lines are
provided regarding public testimony before the planning board, that we are aware of, and
this is another requirement of state law.
We would ask that the City Planning Board adopt and publish public participation
guidelines and that these guidelines provide additional time for those representing
agencies or organizations with detailed and professional comments and for public
comment that may rely on the use of professional consultants and experts. We ask that
the general public also be afforded reasonable time to speak. Finally we ask that in the
written guidelines prepared to guide public comment, that disrespectful comments
referring to previous testimony or individuals or organizations testifying be prohibited in
accordance with the city's adopted guidelines to promote civil dialogue.
US Hwy 93 Somers to Whitefish
History and Basis for Concern With Proposed at Grade Intersections
North of Reserve and US Hwy 93 and
At the Proposed Glacier MalUTown Center Project
Submitted by Citizens for a Better Flathead 12-11-07
For the Hearing Record of the Planning Board on the Kalispell Transportation Plan and
The Glacier MaIU Town Center Project
History of Transportation Decisions
• 1980, Rebuild of US 93 Somers to Whitefish Proposed: The US 93 is a north -
south principal arterial that extends along the western portion of the state of Montana and
is part of the National Highway System. The segment of US 93 that was covered by the
1994 Final Environmental impact Statement (FEIS) is an approximately 29-mile (46-km)
segment from Somers to west of Whitefish, Montana. Improvements to US 93 between
Somers and Whitefish were originally proposed by MDT in the 1980s to:
✓ Reduce congestion on the existing facility,
✓ Provide for planned growth and development,
✓ Improve safety,
✓ Provide for improved intermodal facility connections, and
✓ Provide for enhanced scenic values.1
• 1989, US 93 Kalispell to Whitefish Established as a Limited Access Highway:
The Montana Transportation Commission passed this resolution based on its findings and
determination that "for the purpose of facilitating the flow of traffic and to promote the
public safety", it is necessary and desirable that the owners or occupants of the lands
abutting Highway 93 Kalispell to Whitefish or other persons, "have not easement of
access, or access, or only a limited easement of access to and from Highway 93 by reason
of the fact that their property abuts upon the highway, or for any other reason." It went
on to establish that such right of way as exists shall be purchased. Subsequent purchase of
right -away by the MDT between 1991-1995 resulted in the reservation of deeded
accesses to properties now included in the Glacier Mall/Town Center application ---this
information has not been disclosed as part of the application for zoning or subdivision.
US 93 Somers to Whitefish West (Kalispell Bypass Only) Re-evaluation, Executive Summary, 2006
These easements providing access to US 93 exceed the number of accesses currently
proposed for the Glacier Mall/Town Center but they are limited to widths less than those
proposed by the Glacier Mall/Town Center. New access permits are required for the
accesses proposed in the Glacier Mall/Town Center application. These access decisions
are governed by current state law and policy.
• 1994 The Kalispell Bypass Route Identified: The Kalispell Bypass was the
preferred alternative recommended in the 1994 FEIS to provide a 7.6 bypass route around
Kalispell. The goals of the bypass were:
✓ Relieve traffic congestion in the Central Business District (CBD),
especially on Main Street.
✓ Reduce truck traffic in the CBD.
✓ Relieve traffic congestion at the intersection of Main Street and Idaho
Street.'
• 1997, The Kalispell Bypass Route Established as a limited Access Highway:
The Montana Transportation Commission, with the support of the city and county
reaffirmed this decision in 2004.3
• 2006 The Kalispell Bypass Re-evaluation Resulted in a Redesign to Replace
Six At -Grade Signalized Intersections With Grade -Separated Interchanges
(Overpasses And Underpasses). This decision was based on findings that MDT
recognized that traffic conditions evaluated in the 1994 FEIS only considered forecasts to
the year 2015 and that recent population increases in the Kalispell area could negatively
impact future traffic conditions. To accommodate the changed traffic conditions, MDT
proposed design modifications to accommodate year 2030 projected future traffic
increases, thereby increasing the service life of the facility and allow unimpeded traffic
movement along the bypass.
�nly)
2006 The Kalispell Bypass US 93 Somers to Whitefish West (Kalispell Bypass
Re-evaluation study and record of decision does not include consideration of
additional traffic impacts from a major mall and retail complex north of Stillwater
Bridge (the project now know as the Glacier Town Center) in the reconstruction
design for the intersection of US 93 and Reserve.5
• 2007 Draft Kalispell Transportation Plan released: It is scheduled for hearings
before TAC, City Planning Board and City Council. This study does include
consideration of traffic volumes to be generated by the Glacier Town Center, but it does
2 US 93 Somers to Whitefish West (Kalispell Bypass Only) Re-evaluation, Executive Summary, 2006
3 US 93 Somers to Whitefish West (Kalispell Bypass Only) Re-evaluation, Executive Summary, 2006
4 US 93 Somers to Whitefish West (Kalispell Bypass Only) Re-evaluation, 2006
5 Phone conversation with project engineer, Stelling Engineers
Fa
not address potential need to readdress the redesign of the bypass terminus at US 93 and
Reserve to meet these traffic volumes.6 It does recommend a need for a junior
interchan e/g Qverpass at the Glacier Mall/Town Center and calls for a highway corridor
study to address additional growth impacts in the US 93 corridor north of Reserve Drive.
It also calls for the extension of Rose Crossing in the future from Whitefish State to Farm
to Market Road to create a new east west corridor.
�nexation
2007 The Glacier Mall/Town Center submits application. They request
to the City of Kalispell for 485 acres, including 1.8 million sq feet of
commercial and office, 350 apartments and condominiums, 285 single family homes and
70 acres of park land (if no changes are made to his proposal). They propose at grade
intersections with stoplights on US 93, Reserve Street, and on Whitefish Stage Road. The
Glacier Mall traffic impact study assumes that Whitefish Stage and Reserve Drive have
been already rebuilt to five lane facilities (at the requests of MDT some revised figure
have been submitted, but only not much more than 24 hours before the hearing so without
time for review by the public. No planning staff or peer review of this data has been
done). Note that the Glacier Mall Traffic Study bases much of its data on the Kalispell
Bypass study that does not consider the traffic impact of the mall or traffic counts or
population figures as current as those available in draft Kalispell Transportation Plan.
• 2008-2009 First Actual Construction on the Kalispell Bypass: This
construction will begin at the south end of the project. Build out of this project is
expected to take —assuming a steady annual stream of federal funding —until 2015-2030
to complete.7 (The Reserve Loop, an amendment to the original Bypass was built in
2007 to address safety issues associated with the location of the new Glacier High School
in this area was built with federal Bypass funding.)
44
Issues of Agnificant aii cern a
x5
.3
• Significant Safety Issues from Kalispell to Whitefish: At the time the FEIS was
prepared (1994), the accident rate on US 93 between Somers and Whitefish was higher
than the statewide average for similar highways. Accidents were considerably higher in
the urban areas and in areas where there were multiple access points. This study also
found that in 1994, US 93 operated at a level of service (LOS) D or R in many locations.
2015 traffic forecasts projected a LOS reduced to F throughout the Kalispell area without
the relief of the bypass 8 In 2006 MDT released a federally required report on traffic
safety on Montana Highways, known as the "Five Percent Report." Out of the top ten
most dangerous stretches of highway in the state this report identified both US
6 Based on Consultant comments at project workshop with the Kalispell City Council and the City Planning
Board Nov. 2007
7 General estimate from phone conversation with project engineer, Stelling Engineers
8 US 93 Somers to Whitefish West (Kalispell Bypass Only) Re-evaluation, Executive Summary
93Kalispell - Whitefish and US 2Kalispell — Hungry Horse in the top ten. These top ten
highway corridors had a combination of high crash severity rate and high number of
fatalities and incapacitating injuries per mile, based mostly on 2000-2004 crash data.9
• Significant Federal Investment in Highway Improvements: The safety and
capacity improvements to US 93 and the Kalispell Bypass are federal projects that
receive federal funding. Overall, the bypass project is expected to cost almost $76 million
— with inflation accounted for only through 2010. That estimate does not include an
extra $24 million for ramped interchanges at Airport Road and U.S. 2 West, which are
supposed to be built after everything else, is finished.10 After many decades on the
"drawing -board" the Kalispell Bypass is only just now receiving funding for its
construction. On top of federal investment in the bypass is the cost of improvements to
US 93 which are also from federal dollars primarily. It is in the interest of federal, state,
and city governments to put in place policies and to take actions that conserve the
capacity, traffic flow, LOS, and safety of US 93.
4grades
Kalispell Faces Need for Significant Transportation Infrastructure
and Has Severely Limited Financial Resources to Address these. These
needs and their costs are laid out in the Kalispell Transportation Plan. Funding for most
of these identified new improvements must wait in line behind the completion of the
Kalispell Bypass which is the top priority of the Kalispell Transportation Plan.
• Numerous Studies of Tourist Concerns, public comment on continued
commercial growth in the valley and research on which MDOT has based its
decisions of improvements to the US 93 Corridor have concluded that Kalispell and
county risk the loss of visitation and tourist and local dollars if increased congestion
is allowed to continue and that this can negatively impact the local economy.
• Kalispell zoning provisions for PUD's (27.21.030 (2)) require that a PUD
shall be under single ownership."
✓ It should be noted that the Glacier Mall/Town Center PUD is not under
single ownership as required by the city zoning regulations. Furthermore,
established access rights have not been clearly disclosed by the applicant
9 Montana 2006 Five Percent Report
10 Kalispell Daily Interlake, Bypass project Hinges on Funding, 9-18-07
4
as required by the city's subdivision regulations and EAii. These facts
calls into question the planning board's legal authority to accept and
process this application. It also raises problems for the city and MDT in
being able to deal with one land owner when establishing land use
conditions for limited and consolidated access points to the Glacier
Mall/Town Center that allow for the preservation of the functional
integrity and safe and efficient operation of US 93.
✓ The main entrance to the proposed Glacier Mall/Town Center is located
on property owned by Gary and Janet Spannuth on property adjoining the
Glacier Memorial Cemetery. Under the right-of-way condemnation
proceedings by the MDT against the Spannuth property a single 30ft wide
private access was established and was further limited into the future by
the Limited Access Resolution adopted by the Montana Highway
Commission in 1989. This access is considerably less than the 80ft access
with stoplight on US 93 proposed in the Glacier Mall/Town Center
application.
✓ Kalispell Growth Policy Update calls for policies that do not support
additional stoplights and unlimited access control on to US 93.
GOAL -1: Gateway entrances to Kalispell that enhance the community through improved
design.
POLICIES:
1. Gateway Entrance Corridors (areas of special concern) would extend up to 150 feet of either
side of the existing R/W for primary highways and up to 50 feet for secondary highways.
2. The following roadway corridors are identified as gateway entrances to Kalispell.
a. Highway 93 North corridor north of Four Mile to the County Landfill.
b. US Highway 2 (LaSalle) from Reserve Drive to Birch Grove
c. Whitefish Stage from Reserve Drive to Birch Grove. (minor entrance way)
3. The following design standards are intended to enhance the gateway entrances to Kalispell
a. Access control is important along the gateway entrance roads.
b. Access should be coordinated so as to allow only collector or arterial streets to
intersect. The judicious use of right -in right -out approaches, frontage roads and good
internal development street design should be the rule to reduceor eliminate the need for
direct access onto major gateway roads.
c. With the construction of the Church Drive overpass on US 93, every effort must be
taken to fully utilize this interchange and conversely limit direct access onto US 93 for at
least % mile along areas north and south of this facility to avoid congestion points and the
need for future traffic signals. The judicious use of right -in right -out approaches, frontage
roads and good internal development street design will mitigate the need for direct access
out.
11 Kalispell Subdivision Regulations under Contents of the Preliminary Plat at (F) call for this disclosure as
does the community impact report of the EA under 2. g.
5
d. Extra setbacks, buffering and landscaping along US Highway 93 North and
US Highway 2 and to a lesser degree along Whitefish Stage Road are the norm.
e. In those areas planned for general commercial development on a gateway entrance, it
should occur as an integrated development utilizing and enhancing the property back
from the gateway as opposed to occurring as a shallow linear strip. Significant individual
business highway exposure, individual access points, and pole signage would not be the
norm. Out parcels of commercial businesses would be anticipated within the improved
design of a PUD along the corridors.
f. Additional design standards should be developed to ensure that signage enhances
development, not detracts from it. Wall signage integrated into the overall building
design is preferred over free standing signage. Monument signs are preferred over other
types of free standing signage. Where development entrance signage or monument
signage is proposed, it should be done so as part of a unified planned unit development
concept.
g. Where the adjacent gateway road speed is posted at 35 mph or lower:
i. A minimum 20 foot landscape buffer should be provided abutting the gateway
road.
ii. Street trees should be incorporated into the landscape buffer.
iii. A pedestrian trail or sidewalk should be incorporated into the landscaped
buffer area.
iv. Four sided architecture would be the norm adjacent to gateway entrances.
h. Where the adjacent gateway road speed is posted from 36 — 45 mph:
i. A minimum of 40 feet of landscaped buffer area should be provided.
ii. Street trees and berming should be incorporated into the landscaping.
iii. A pedestrian trail or sidewalk should be incorporated into the landscaped
buffer area.
iv. Four sided architecture would be the norm adjacent to gateway entrances
i. Where the adjacent gateway road speed is posted above 45 mph:
i. A minimum 100 — 150 foot impact area should be provided for major entrances
and a 50 foot entrance for minor entrances.
ii. Within this impact area, a combination of berming, landscaping using live
materials and trees as well as grass, a pedestrian trail system, limited parking and
frontage roads should be incorporated.
iii. Primary buildings should not be located in this impact area, unless
specifically approved in a PUD.
iv. Four sided architecture should be the norm for development adjacent to the
impacted area.
v. Monument signs would be anticipated to occur in the rear portion of the
impacted area, other free standing signs would not.
vi. Whenever parking or signage is proposed in the impact area, it shall only be
done under a PUD process where the impacts of these actions are anticipated and
provided for.12
✓ Kalispell Subdivision Regulations implement these growth policy
goals and policies at 3.09 of these regulations by establishing that:
12 Kalispell Growth Policy, page 78
r
K. Street intersections shall meet the following requirements (pg. 39):
8. Location of collector and arterial streets shall comply with the Kalispell
City -County Master Plan or any other major street and highway plan adopted
by the Board of County Commissioners and/or the City of Kalispell."
• MDT's TransPlan 212002 Update Access Management and Land Use
Planning Policy Paper:
✓ Call for MDT to support local government land use review and decisions
and planning actions that "preserve the efficient and safe function of
Montana's transportation corridors." 14
✓ Recognizes the authority of local governments to regulate transportation
impacts through it authority to establish growth policies and to carry out
zoning and subdivision processes and to set limits with these tools. 15
✓ Established the goal of working with local jurisdictions "to require
developers to mitigate the roadway systems impacts resulting from large
development by contributing to improvements required to accommodate
travel demands."16
✓ Provides examples of corridors developed through corridor planning and
funding partnerships that included cost participation by businesses
locating along the corridor.17
• Montana Right of Way Manual, Chapter 8 on Access Management adopted
in March 2007 Provides Direct Guidance:
✓ Access guidelines recommends denial of access to US 93 (as US 93 is part
of the National Highway System) if alternative access to other roads is
available (which it is by way of Whitefish Stage Road and Reserve Drive).
It allows for an exce tion of one access for ma or traffic generators only if
it is proven to MDT's satisfaction that there will be a significant benefit to
the highway network. (Please note that despite MDT's letter of November
28`' stating that the state is willing to allow the accesses proposed by
Glacier Mall/Town Center they have failed to provide any documentation
13 Kalispell Subdivision Regulations, page 39
14 MDT's TransPlan 212002 Update Access Management and Land Use Planning Policy Paper, page 1-3.
" MDT's TransPlan 212002 Update Access Management and Land Use Planning Policy Paper, page 1-2
16 MDT's TransPlan 212002 Update Access Management and Land Use Planning Policy Paper, page 3
17 MDT's TransPlan 212002 Update Access Management and Land Use Planning Policy Paper, page 21
7
of the data used to support the conclusions in that letter, despite three
requests made to the Regional Director for this data.)18
✓ Development of Access Control Plan requires that the MDT contact the
local planning board authorities and inquire whether there are any special
requirements for access, including new or future subdivisions planned, if
there are any access limitations imposed in the area, and existing land use
plans/regulations (as is the case now with the Kalispell growth policy and
subdivision regulations).19
State Law supports Access Management Decisions by Cities
✓ 61-8-331. Restricted and controlled access. (1) A person may not
operate a vehicle onto or from a controlled -access roadway except at
entrances and exits that are established by public authority.
(2) On a controlled -access highway or facility a person may not:
(e) construct, operate, or maintain a road or private driveway
connecting with the highway or facility without first obtaining permission
in writing from the public authority having jurisdiction.
✓ 61-8-332. Restrictions on use of controlled -access roadway. (1) The
department of transportation may by rule and local authorities maYby
ordinance regulate or prohibit the use of a controlled -access highway
under their respective jurisdictions by any class or kind of traffic that is
found to be incompatible with the normal and safe movement of traffic or
by any vehicle.
(2) The department or the local authority that adopts the prohibitory
regulation shall erect and maintain official traffic control devices on the
controlled -access highway on which these regulations are applicable. A
person may not violate the restrictions stated on the official traffic control
devices.
✓ 61-12-101. Powers of local authorities to regulate traffic. The
provisions of chapters 8 and 9 do not prevent local authorities with respect
to sidewalks, streets, and highways under their jurisdiction and within the
reasonable exercise of the police power from:
(14) enacting as ordinances any provisions of chapter 8 or 9 and any
other law regulating traffic, pedestrians, vehicles, and operators of
vehicles that are not in conflict with state law or federal regulations and
enforcing the ordinances; and
ICY .+.--rr
18 Montana Right of Way Manual, Chapter 8 on Access Management adopted in March 2007, page 6,
Figure 8-2A
19 Montana Right of Way Manual, Chapter 8 on Access Management adopted in March 2007, page 8.
8
• MDT's Administrative Rules (ARM) Updated 9-30-07 Provide Further
Guidance in Implementing State Law
✓ Chapter 5 of the Preconstruction Bureau of ARM establishes that for
dedicated streets which the City of Kalispell will maintain and own such
as Rose Crossing and the city dedicated streets proposed to connect to
Whitefish Stage and to Reserve Drive that are part of the Glacier
Mall/Town Center, that the developer shall obtain approval from the local
unit of government who will have control over the dedicated street or road
but that the governmental unit shall be the body that then submits the
approach application to the department (MDT) and reaches
agreement with the MDOT on these accesses.20 This standard places
the city in control and not the applicant in the role of making the approach
application and in working with MDT to achieve corridor standards that
are of benefit to the public and the applicant.
ARM 18.2.238 and following sections establish criteria that trigger
the need for the completion of an Environmental Assessment, an
Environmental Impact Statement, and compliance with the Montana
Environmental Policy Act or the federal National Environmental
Policy Act. Depending on the recommendation and nature of the
proposed accesses to US 93 the need for compliance with one of these
reviews maybe triggered before an approach permit can be issued. 21
20 Administrative Rules of Montana, Preconstruction Bureau, 9-30-07, 18.5.113, (10) (b)
21 Administrative Rules of Montana, Preconstruction Bureau, 9-30-07, Chapter 2, 18.2.101
01
Gs i
MONTANA HOUSE OF REPRE1 SENTATI 11 S
REPRESENTATIVE JON SONJU
HOUSE DISTRICT 7
HELENA ADDRESS:
CAPITOL BUILDING
PO BOX 200400
HELENA. MONTANA 59620-0400
PHONE: (406) 444-4800
HOME ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX 2954
KALISPELL, MT 69M
PHONE: (406) 270.7113
COMMITTEES:
TRANSPORTATION - CHAIRMAN
TAXATION - VICE CHAIRMAN
RULES
Member of the Kalispell Planning Board, 12/11/2007
Thank you taking the time to read this letter of support to the Wolford Project. As a
businessman, taxpayer and a legislator I am happy to see the willingness of the Wolford
Group to work with all of our local citizens and elected officials to make this
development one we can be proud of. This project has been changed many times causing
delays and money to this business group. We pride ourselves on being business friendly
state and we need to respond to this business group. This project will provide a healthy
tax base to our economy and schools.
As the Chairman of the House Transportation Committee I have complete trust in the
MDT's opinion that junior interchanges are not needed for this project. I would also like
to express my comments on requiring sidewalks around "ring road" and around the
Centers. I would question whether they will even be used and moreover they will be a
waste of money. Lastly I would also urge the committee to review the sign request of 8ft
x 12ft. There is a 100 foot setback from Hwy 93 and I would question how anybody
would see a 6x6 ft sign. There are other businesses in the area that have much more
visible signage.
I appreciate the board's commitment to the taxpayers and citizens of Kalispell and the
State of Montana. Thank you for supporting this project and moving it forward. If you
have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Best Regard I t
Jon Sonju
State Representative, HD 7
Chairman- House Transportation
December 11, 2007
Dear Planning Board Members
My name is B.J. Carlson. As you know, I am a member of North 93 Neighbors,
the group that reached an agreement in February with Mr. Wolford on the proposal for
the Glacier Town Center you have before you now. As you also know, as part of that
agreement, Mr. Wolford generously agreed to donate a 5-acre parcel adjacent to the
"Central Park" for a community -oriented facility. The offer is only open for a period of
five years following final plat approval for the First Phase. We see this community
facility, and the park and open space components of the proposal, as being central to
enhancing the project and we want to recognize Mr. Wolford's generous contribution and
its potential to benefit our entire community.
At the same time, we have concerns about the configuration and timing of the
road systems necessary to effectuate the community facility. As currently proposed,
while the community parcel, and a cul-de-sac road into it, is in phase 1, the main access
roads running north and south adjacent to the parcel and the east and west Lake
McDonald Road are not planned until phase 3. As a result, while the sunset clause for
the donation is 5 years, full access on these roads is not scheduled until phase 3, or 2014.
We believe that these access issues would make it more difficult to attract a viable project
sponsor up front, and if the facility is developed, will make access to it after it is
constructed difficult. We strongly urge that the east/west Lake McDonald Road, and the
north/south road adjacent to the Park, be completed in Phase 1 so that people get to the
community facility, both from the direction of the Glacier Town Center and from
Whitefish Stage Road.
We also wish to reiterate our hope that you fully consider very carefully the traffic
impacts along US 93 due to the additional access to and from the Glacier Town Center,
and approve a plan that has the long term interests of our rapidly growing community in
mind.
To: The Kalispell City Planning Board
17 2°a Street East, Suite 211, Kalispell, MT 59903
From: Citizens for a Better Flathead
PO Box 771, Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: The proposed Kalispell Transportation Plan
When TAC reviews the Kalispell Transportation Plan we ask that you consider the addition of the
following two policies.
Transportation Concurrency is a policy tool used to ensure that adequate transportation infrastructure is in
place at the time of new development approval or that the community has made adequate provisions to address
transportation impacts from development. Transportation concurrency links a community's land use plans
with its transportation and capital improvement plans, providing it with a tool for effectively managing the
growth.
As an example, before the City can accept an application for development, a determination must be made that
the development will not create enough traffic to exceed the LOS standards, or that the City or developer will
be able to make traffic improvements to ensure compliance with LOS standards. In short, if a proposed
development is likely to exceed established LOS standards, the development cannot be approved.
Concurrency is not intended to be used as a tool to stop both new development and new people from coming
into a community. A balance must be found, however, between setting realistic levels of service and achieving
realistic expectations consistent with the achievement of growth aims. Setting such levels too high could,
under some regulatory strategies, result in no growth. As a deliberate policy, this would be contrary to the
intent of adopting a concurrency policy. A realistic policy can also encourage cost effective infill and
innovative project designs to take advantage of redevelopment opportunities.
Whitefish adopted concurrency as a key element of its new growth policy last month. Washington State's
Growth Management Act requires that all cities and counties adopt concurrency standards.
Collaborative Transportation Review Process: Similar to the concept of concurrency this process would
commit the MDOT and the City of Kalispell to completing review of transportation impacts prior to
preliminary plat review by the planning board. This collaborative project may be most appropriate for projects
generating 100+ trips and those that require or trigger a system impact review by the MDOT. This would
allow for consideration of mitigation measures, alternatives needed including project layout prior to an
application submittal. It would allow for a realist review of funding availability for needed improvements in
the effected travel corridor. It would allow for identification of right-of-way needs and plans for securing this
prior to consideration of a preliminary plat. Joint standards for review would need to be developed and land
use goals would provide one basis for these standards.
Montano Department of Transpodatlon
sad%
November 28, 2007
Wayne Freeman
Director, CTA LandWorks
1143 Stoneridge Drive
Bozeman, MT 59718
.�r.�yn�'r. recta
9non :hweitzer; C."Ovemor
Subject: Clarification --MDT Comments concerning the Glacier Town Center
Wayne; I wanted to clarify the letter dated November 27, 2007. I feel the tone and
statements in the letter could be misunderstood and could lead to a misunderstanding.as
to the Montana Department of Transportation's (MDT) current status of this
development.
Let me first state that MDT has reviewed the conceptual design presented to us on
November 26, 2007 and we are approving the conceptual design. There are still multiple
details that will need to be reviewed and reconciled, but again we are accepting to the:
conceptual plan.
Regarding paragraph 1-- MDT is not requiring the developer to build a. Junior
Interchange at any of the proposed accesses to US 93. While MDT does believe, a Junior
Interchange could provide increased safety and mobility we do not believe it. is
appropriate to require this developer to design and build such improvements. We are also
very concerned as to the feasibility of ever establishing a Jr. Iinterchange in the vicinity of
the proposed accesses. Therefore, MDT is acceptable to the understanding that signals
will be installed at.:accesses (Rose Crossing and B) and that these signals will be
permanent.
Regarding paragraphs 2 thru 8 — MDT believes these items will be resolved as we work
through process with the developer. Furthermore, we do not believe these items should
be misunderstood as fatal flaws to the development. The developer has demonstrated a
willingness and commitment to resolve these issues and we are confident a resolution
will be reached.
Paragraph 3, Bullet #4 -- Clarification, the developer will be required to install the signal
during construction of the intersection. MDT will work with the developer to determine
the most appropriate signal operation.
Wayne, I hope this clarifies MDT's status of the development. If you have any questions
please do not hesitate to call me at 406-523-5802.
Sincerely,
rV
Dwane E. Kailev, P.E.
Missoula .District Administrator
copies: Tom Jentz, Planning Director, City of Kalispell
Jim Hansz, Public Wor!cs i3 rectory FC ty �f Kalispell
Jim Skinner, Manager — Program and Policy Analysis Bureau
R Chad Wolford, Wolford Development
Dave Jolly, Semi -Tool.
Stephen Herzog, Maintenance Chief Kalispell Area
Danielle Bolan Traffic and Safety Bureau