Loading...
11-27-07 Special Meeting(J KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 27, 2007 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The special 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, Kati Gabriel, John Hinchey, Jim Williamson and C.M. (Butch) Clark. Rick Hull was absent. Tom Jentz and Sean Conrad represented the Kalispell Planning Department. There were approximately 60 people in the audience. HEAR THE PUBLIC I None. GLACIER TOWN CENTER, A request by Wolford Development Montana, LLC for ANNEXATION & INITIAL annexation of 485.5± acres into the city of Kalispell. As part ZONING, PLANNED UNIT of the annexation request the developer has requested the B- DEVELOPMENT, AND 1 (Neighborhood Buffer District), B-3 (Community Business), PRELIMINARY PLAT PH. 1 R-3 (Urban Single Family Residential), and R-4 (Two Family Residential) zoning districts over the entire 485.5± acre project site. The developer is also requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay district for the 485.5± acre project site. Of the 485.5± acres, 322.5± acres would be included as part of the commercial PUD with the remaining 163± acres included as part of a residential mixed -use PUD. In addition to the annexation, zone change and PUD, the owner is requesting preliminary plat approval for the first phase of a five phase development proposal for the entire 485.5± acres. The first phase will consist of 191.6 acres divided into 37 lots, 36 commercial lots and one common area lot. The lot sizes range from 1 acre to 39 acres. The 485.5± acre project site spans between Highway 93 and Whitefish Stage Road. The project site is generally bounded by Glacier Memorial Gardens Cemetery, the Stillwater River, West Reserve Drive and Semitool along its southern boundary, Highway 93 along it's western boundary, Whitefish Stage Road along it's eastern boundary and a combination of state owned land and lands within the city and county along it's northern boundary. STAFF REPORTS KA-07-17, Sean Conrad, representing the Kalispell Planning KPUD-07-06 & KPP-07-12 Department presented staff reports KA-07-17, KPUD-07-06, and KPP-07-12 to the board. Conrad provided the location of the project site and noted that the developer is requesting the initial zoning districts of B-3 (Community Business), B-1 (Neighborhood Buffer), R-3 (Urban Single Family Residential), and R-4 (Two Family Residential). They are also proposing a planned unit development (PUD) overlay for the entire site proposing approximately .1.8 million square feet of commercial retail office space, 282 single family residential homes, 150 Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 27, 2007 Page 1 of 15 townhouses and 200 apartments. In addition they are proposing 72.3 acres of open space and parkland with a major park running through the center of the project site and along the Stillwater River. In addition before the board is first phase of an eventual 5 phase subdivision on this site. The preliminary plat of the first phase includes the western portion of the project site and consists of 37 commercial lots, as well as a 17. acre park. The planning board held a work session on November 13 and some of the issues that came up were access onto Highway 93 North, pedestrian connectivity throughout the site, lighting pole height and connectivity to adjacent properties. At a .meeting with MDT yesterday, the city wanted to convey to MDT what the city's expectations were on Highway 93 as far as access. When the city completed the Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment the intent was to maintain Highway 93 North as a rural segment of highway and keep traffic flowing and limit or prohibit stop lights. Conrad noted staff received a letter from MDT late this afternoon indicating they support the goals set forth in the Kalispell Transportation Plan but are recommending interim improvements which Conrad reviewed for the board. i(Co,py of [!DT's 'Letter Attached). Pedestrian connectivity is discussed in the staff report. There are some large parking lots surrounding each of the commercial areas in this proposal and staff is recommending a combination of landscaping and walkways be provided within the large parking lot areas to break up the asphalt and provide better pedestrian connectivity. Conrad continued within the lifestyle center the developer is proposing 4 parking aisles. Staff is recommending that although some parking would be allowed within the lifestyle center it should be reduced and the sidewalks should be widened to make it more pedestrian friendly. The developer has proposed lighting pole heights up to 40 feet in the area of the center. The zoning ordinance calls for a maximum height of 25 feet for lighting poles and was something the planning board members felt very strongly about at the work session. In the staff report they are recommending denying the deviation from the zoning ordinance and that the developer follows the standard of a maximum lighting pole height of 25 feet. In conclusion, Conrad reviewed the connectivity with adjacent properties and the locations of those access points that are being requested by the city. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KA-07-17 and Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 27, 2007 Page 2 of 15 recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the initial zoning for the 485.5 acre site be B-3, B-1, R-4 and R-3 as shown on the zoning district map for the property. Staff also recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KPUD-07-06 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council the PUD for Glacier Town Center be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Staff further recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission recommends that the planning board adopt staff report KPP-07-12 as findings of fact and recommend to Kalispell City Council that Phase 1 of the Glacier Town Center subdivision be approved subject to the conditions in the staff report. Conrad added in the last several days staff received 10 emails that were given to the board tonight. The majority of the concerns include inadequate review time for the public, traffic impacts, and if approved, there would not be adequate sewer capacity for the project and the taxpayers would have to fund the upgrade of the system. Conrad noted that the city has water and sewer impact fees which are collected as hook ups to water and sewer are requested, and those fees go to the upgrade of the wastewater treatment plant and other infrastructure related to water and sewer. The Public Works Department does not feel that phase 1 of this project will substantially impact the wastewater treatment plant because it is a commercial phase. BOARD DISCUSSION Schutt asked for clarification of the MDT letter under item #4 which notes that MDT has not had an opportunity to review the development concerning access control issues. Conrad said based on discussions between MDT and the city for Highway 93 North and the city's desire to limit the amount of access points to keep traffic flowing smoothly north of West Reserve, when MDT reviews the details of access for this project they may need to further limit access. Conrad said how this project will access onto Highway 93 North will be the decision of MDT. Williamson asked for clarification on item # 1 of the MDT letter regarding the challenges of interchanges that are unresolved. Conrad said there were discussions regarding a junior interchange at Rose Crossing and he thinks the challenges were to get enough R/W not only on the project site, but also on adjacent land. Although this project. could dedicate additional land for expansion of the highway MDT cannot condemn other private property for improvements that the city wants but are not absolutely necessary. Conrad also noted funding would also most likely be a challenge. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 27, 2007 Page 3 of 15 APPLICANT/TECHNICAL Chad Wolford, Wolford Development Montana introduced STAFF their team. Wolford thanked the board and said they have taken the comments from the work session and hopefully their project is .something now that the board could support. Brent Moore and Wayne Freeman, CTA, 2 Main Street, Kalispell provided the details of the Glacier Town Center through a power presentation. Freeman noted the total value for the improvements for just the Lifestyle Center is $117 million; the tax estimate that would come back to the city would be approximately $2 million. This does not take into account the additional tax revenue of the remaining commercial property proposed for this site. Moore reviewed the comments made at the work session on November 13th: Moore noted that the applicant feels their approach to lighting, with 40 foot light poles was reasonable and could help the city achieve their goals under the Dark Skies Initiative. However, the applicant is willing to accept the recommendation to reduce the height of the light poles to the city standard of 25 feet. Transportation and connectivity are important issues for this area and they have focused on determining what would be good for this community and according to the city's recommendation, as well as providing the type of access that a project of this scope requires. Moore said it should be noted in the staff report and be a condition of approval that MDT will have to approve any and all accesses prior to final plat. Between now and final plat the applicant, City of Kalispell and MDT will discuss these access issues in greater detail. The applicant is constructing and providing an essential connection by extending Rose Crossing from Whitefish Stage Road to Highway 93 North which the Kalispell Transportation Plan identifies as a need. Staff is recommending approximately 4 roundabouts in various locations and the applicant is willing to provide roundabouts were needed, however they do not necessarily agree with all of the recommended increases in connectivity. Moore stated their proposal calls for 2 signalized intersections along Highway 93 North that would be approximately 1/2 mile apart and located at the future Rose Crossing connection and Access B (south of the main entrance to the site). At their primary entrance there will be a % interchange. Also Rose Crossing will be constructed with the first phase of the project. Moore said the applicant Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 27, 2007 Page 4 of 15 doesn't believe that the 7 connections to properties to the north, as requested, are reasonable. He continued some of the challenges when looking at an urban edge project like this is that they don't know exactly what will occur to the north of this property and therefore they would agree to 4 connections to the north but not 7. Moore noted the applicant also believes there is sufficient access onto the collector arterial roads crossing through the property in the residential and mixed use neighborhoods. The applicant is willing to construct the necessary connection to West Reserve Drive (Access C) with a signal added when warranted. Kathleen Krager, Krager 8s Associates said the city recommended roundabouts at the intersection of Glacier Drive and Glacier Loop and the intersection of Many Glacier Drive and the roadway serving phase 3 and they agree to those locations. The city is also recommending 2 roundabouts at locations to be determined on Rose Crossing. Krager recommended a roundabout off of Rose Crossing at the intersection of the ring road to the lifestyle center and instead of another roundabout on Rose Crossing she is recommending one off of Sweet Meadow Lane again to the ring road of the lifestyle center. As they are working through this process she is confident appropriate locations will be found. Clark noted at the work session Krager mentioned they were involved in the Centerra project outside of Denver, which he had a chance to see last week. Clark asked if the roundabouts for Glacier Town Center are going to be as large as the ones at Centerra. Krager said the ones here will be one lane and would be much easier to use. Clark said on the original proposal they proposed 40 foot lighting poles with 1000 watt bulbs and suggested instead they could perhaps have 25 foot lighting poles with 500 watt bulbs, but have more of them. Freeman explained the process for determining lighting of parking lots in the design process. Freeman reminded the board the developer has now agreed to the city's standard of 25 foot lighting poles and their design team will make the adjustments to ensure there is. enough lighting for safety, etc. Balcom had questions regarding the signs and the buffer area and asked how it will affect the need for businesses to advertise their location. Wolford referred to Exhibit H of the application which is the proposed sign plan and Conrad added signs are also addressed in the staff report and in condition of approval # 14. Conrad reviewed the recommendations for signage for the board. Clark referenced the letter from the Department of Mili Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 27, 2007 Page 5 of 15 Affairs (DMA) that noted their concern with residential properties adjacent to their drilling facility. Conrad noted Condition #20 states the developer shall contact DMA and work with them to come up with a plan to buffer the residential land uses adjacent to DMA's facility prior to submitting the preliminary plats for phases 2 and 3. Conrad added this plan could include additional setbacks or buffer areas and would be reviewed and approved by the planning board and city council. Freeman noted they have reviewed Condition #20 regarding this issue and they will work with DMA to meet the condition. Jentz indicated the planning board could consider an amendment to this condition if they feel more detail is needed to ensure the residential properties are not unreasonably impacted by the activities at the DMA facility. Schutt asked CTA to summarize their objections to various conditions, as stated in a letter distributed to the planning board during the meeting. ((Copy Attached) Staff requested the addition of sidewalks/bike paths to the parking lots. Moore said the applicant feels that they have provided sufficient pedestrian accessibility within the project, and does not agree with the conditions to provide additional pedestrian ways. Ian Macaskill, Architecture + stated he is representing the developer and is the architect who designed the project. Macaskill reviewed how vehicle and pedestrian traffic flows around a lifestyle center as opposed to a typical downtown area. Macaskill read from a study that indicated there are a very low proportion of accidents in parking lots that involve injuries and pedestrian accidents presented an even smaller fraction and further indicated special pedestrian protection within parking lots was not found to be justified. Macaskill noted there are more accidents that occur by people slipping off of curbs, particularly in areas with winter conditions like Kalispell. Clark said the lifestyle center in Denver that was discussed earlier has parking lots with landscaping and are more user friendly rather than the huge pieces of asphalt presented here and why wasn't that done for this project. Macaskill said the ordinance calls for 5% of the parking lot to be landscaped and they have incorporated 15%. One thing that they have found that doesn't work is single trees in a planter in a parking lot. What they intended to do was to focus the green space at the edges and tried to create swales for snow storage in winter so snow storage is not in the parking area. Krager said the biggest difference is here in Kalispell there will be more snow and it is going to stay on the ground longer than snow does in Denver. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 27, 2007 Page 6 of 15 C Moore stated they are again requesting that 4 access points be required to the north, instead of the staff recommendation of 7 access points. He reviewed the additional access points they are contesting in their letter. Williamson asked what the block length would be if 4 connections were approved to the north and Jentz said 800/900 feet. Williamson said that would be less than the maximum allowed and Jentz said yes. Moore continued regarding open space, the PUD proposed 72.3 acres of open space which is in excess of the requirements. The applicant is somewhat concerned with the number of requests for additional connections for this phase and future phases and is stating that the amount of open space may be reduced but at no time will it be reduced to less than what is required in the subdivision regulations. The developer is requesting the word "irrigation" be removed for the statements that relate to landscaping of the buffer areas. Although they intend to irrigate appropriate areas, numerous native plant species do not require irrigation. Moore indicated the landscaping improvements will be bonded for which is allowed under the subdivision regulations. They are requesting that the location of two roundabouts recommended along Rose Crossing be amended to read two roundabouts at intersections to be determined by the traffic impact study with input from the Public Works Department. Regarding their concern with the sign restrictions Moore indicated that they will need to meet with staff to clarify sign Moore noted state law allows for either the construction of improvements or a financial guarantee for improvements prior to the project going to final plat. The applicant has some concern that at least 2/3rds . of the infrastructure construction must be completed prior to final plat, which is over and above the state subdivision standards. The developer is therefore requesting that all improvements be constructed according to state and local subdivision standards. Wolford explained the major anchor stores will be responsible for the infrastructure on their lots and the work will coincide with the infrastructure improvements being completed for phase 1. In order to get final plat and have 2/3rds of that completed before they can get to the point where they can bond some of the work, creates a problem in terms of turning over the pads to the larger anchors so they can complete their work. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 27, 2007 Page 7 of 15 rJ Schutt asked at what point would they consider the work to be bondable and Wolford said they would have to meet with city staff to make that determination. There was further discussion regarding this item. Moore concluded by addressing the requirement for phasing and noted the application contains information regarding the anticipated phasing of the project, with associated timelines. However, the development of each successive phase shall be dependent upon market conditions. Moore suggested the applicant can't provide the guarantee that each phase would be ready to come in within 2 years of the previous phase. Therefore they are requesting that the phasing plan as stated in Condition #23 be eliminated. PUBLIC HEARING Brent Hall, 197 Lakeside_ Boulevard and business owner read a letter for the board. i(Copy Attached) B.J. Carlson, 2620 Mission Trail Way read a statement. [(Copy Attache., - -- Dick Sonju, Kalispell said he is 100% behind the Wolford project, it is long overdue. However, he asked if a study had been done on the R/W impact for properties that would be adjacent to the Rose Crossing future extension from the west side of Highway 93 to Farm to Market Road. Schutt noted the board will address that question during board discussion. Scott (last name inaudible) of Kalispell said he also supports this project and agrees it is long overdue. He works for a general contractor and can envision 12 years of jobs for this project but he is also tired of his wife driving to Missoula and Spokane to go shopping. For his family to shop locally he welcomes the project. Chris Moritz, Bigfork suggested the board take a look at the lighting at the Glacier Toyota Dealership (at Four Corners) because he feels it would serve as a good example of parking lot lighting. Mike Cashmere, 190 Aspen Loop in Kalispell stated he is not a native of Kalispell however, he married a Kalispell native. He wanted to congratulate Wolford for continuing to pursue their quest to do business here. He has been involved with 3 start-up businesses and he feels Montana is a hard place to do business. What Wolford has had to go through to even get to this stage of his development is really a tragedy. Cashmere said growth in areas like this is like water, you can't stop the flow of water but you can direct it and he doesn't think that the city could ask for a better steward of the land. This developer is bending over backwards to meet 40 conditions and frankly Cashmere thinks it should be the other way around. As a business owner and resident of Kalispell he Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 27, 2007 Page 8 of 15 feels that the city should work hard to attract more opportunities like this. Roger Claridge, 222 Somerset Drive said at one time he had spoken with 3 different developers who all claimed to have Wal-Mart in their back pocket. When he met Bucky Wolford he was very straight forward and forthright. Everything that he agreed to he has done wholeheartedly and when Wolford gives his word Claridge feels you can count on it. From the standpoint of the economy Kalispell has the potential to become a very strong retail center. The quality of life is so much better now from when he grew up and kids can now grow up here and have jobs here. With developers like Wolford our economy and valley will become even better. Joe Unterreiner, 136 - 5th Avenue East said he is in support of this project and offered a few comments on behalf of the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce Board. From time to time they conduct community visits and in Bend, Oregon in 2003 they looked at their downtown and mall and other examples to revive their community and they wondered when this type of project would come to Kalispell. He thinks it is exciting to see the moment come and feels it will be a great asset for the community. Unterreiner hears people say that everything is getting divided. up so much nobody will be able to make any money but he thinks the pie is getting bigger by broadening the range from which we are attracting customers into this market. Unterreiner said it makes it more of a regional trade center that creates the kind of jobs that are great for this community. Unterreiner urged the board to support the Glacier Town Center. Don Hines, Kalispell said this is the 3rd hearing he has attended on this project as he is a member of the Flathead County Planning Board. This has been a long process and he admires Bucky Wolford and his team. Hines said that Mr. Wolford exercised his option back in June on this property which is a pretty bold move of setting his money on the table and wondering if it will be approved or not. He has been willing to go beyond the extent of other developers which Hines has never seen before in his 10 years on the planning board. Now that Bucky has passed down the project to Chad it now has roots in the valley. Hines asked the board to recommend approval of this project to city council. Mayre Flowers, Citizens for a Better Flathead had several comments. Co Attached Denise Smith, Executive Director of the Flathead Business & Industry Association, representing over 200 business owners in the Flathead Valley read from a statement. (Copy 1, ttached)' Richard Whittet, 2786 Highway 93 North said his property is Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 27, 2007 Page 9 of 15 directly across from this project. Whittet agreed with the comments by Smith.. When he heard about the development he was concerned and he has since visited another mall constructed by Wolford in Mississippi and he thought it was a great place. His sister lives there and shops there all the time. His sister also told him that an acquaintance of hers had a lot of praise for the Wolford organization. Whittet is in support of the project and he may try and buy one of the townhouses for himself. Whittet thanked the planning staff who he thinks have done a great job. Jeff Claridge, 462 First Avenue West North said he agrees with almost everything that everyone has said. While they recognize the patience and resolve of the Wolford's they also need to recognize the consideration of the developer to provide an important link with the completion of Rose Crossing from Whitefish Stage Road to Highway 93 North, with no strings attached. Paul Heidegger, 1455 Church Drive in Kalispell said he is 100% in favor of this project and it is long over due. It is amazing what they have gone through to get to this point. Heidegger said one thing that he hears at his real estate office downtown is this will hurt the downtown but he feels it will help the businesses and traffic flow in downtown. Heidegger said he, his wife and 8 children patiently wait for this development because they are tired of going to Spokane to shop. Brian Beck, 2100 Mission Way South said he owns and operates 4 businesses in downtown Kalispell. Beck said even though Wolford is a Bobcat fan he is speaking in favor of their project. For the record he feels the public has had plenty of time between Thanksgiving and this hearing to look through these documents. The developer and consultants have done a good job in preparing the application and they don't need any more time. He has known Wolford for years and can attest to their credibility. Everything they do is high quality. It is time to move forward with this process and he thanked the staff for their work. Bob Herron, 249 White Pine, Ponderosa Estates, read the following statement. (Copy Atta he BOARD DISCUSSION Schutt asked about the R/W issue for the continuance of Rose Crossing that was brought up by Mr. Sonju. Jentz said the Kalispell Transportation Plan actually shows an east - west corridor from Highway 2 all the way to West Valley and if that road were to go through the road would either be dedicated by a developer who would be doing a project and/or dedicated by a willing property owner or, if it was a state road MDT would acquire it. It is not a condemnation issue from that standpoint. Schutt asked if there would be an impact study associated with that project. Jentz said Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 27, 2007 Page 10 of 15 whenever a facility like that goes in MDT is required to do a traffic study, show a need or necessity and the want or need for a stop light. The design of the intersection would be based on the current and projected traffic volumes. How would it impact Sonju's property, Jentz didn't know. Schutt asked for the acreage of phase 1 and Conrad said approximately 191 acres. Freeman said phase 2 is about 90 acres. Schutt said within the roughly 600 acre site and in the growth policy there is about 45% commercial, 25% Urban Mixed Use, and 20% residential and 10% open space and asked what do the first 2 phases add up to. Moore said they firmly believe that the land use plan has been designed in accordance of the Kalispell Growth Policy. They do not agree with the statement that it has not been planned according to the growth policy. Moore noted that the growth policy identifies a 600 acre area and this proposal is 485 acres which is smaller. The growth policy identifies general types of uses which indicates generally up to 45% commercial, etc. Moore said, yes, generally the largest portion of the site is planned for commercial, as you get into other areas there is the potential for mixed uses in subsequent phases and then residential. Gabriel asked how many parking spaces are required for the structures proposed. Conrad said 5 spaces for 1000 square feet of retail space and he added it varies when you get in to office space. Gabriel asked if they are proposing more spaces than what is required and Conrad said they do not have that detail for the project yet. Macaskill stated the general industry standard for parking is 4.5 spaces for 1000 square feet, they have typically worked at 4/ 1000 at their other centers, and as staff mentioned 5/ 1000 is the requirement for Kalispell. Jentz noted staff is currently working through the parking standards and they are considering reducing that number to 4/ 1000. Jentz said when Wolford comes in for the building permits they will get down to the specifics for parking which will be calculated based on the regulation in place unless there is a specific recommendation in the PUD to relax that standard. Macaskill said there is an additional problem that they also encounter in dealing with parking for future expansion. The department stores have in their agreement the ability to a expand 20,000 square feet in the future. Therefore, if they don't provide the additional parking spaces up front they won't have enough. Balcom asked staff if the objections to the conditions from CTA are deal breakers. Jentz noted staff just received the comments tonight and hasn't had a chance to thoroughly Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 27, 2007 Page 11 of 15 review them but, he added, the planning board will ultimately determine if the staff recommendations are reasonable, if the applicant has valid points, or if there was public comment heard that would help the board with their decisions. Clark and Schutt felt that the project should be continued because there has not been sufficient time for the board or public to review the materials, additional information has been submitted at the last minute from MDT, and the applicant has submitted objections to the several of the conditions. Schutt added to him the Highway 93 North access is a deal breaker. There are some serious issues with MDT and the access points onto the highway and connectivity. Schutt said he thinks this project in general is in agreement with the growth policy and he is willing to move forward with the initial zoning but not the preliminary plat or PUD. Clark noted that this is a workable project but 2 weeks is not enough time for the board to digest it and enable staff and the developer to work out the details. MOTION - INITIAL ZONING Gabriel moved and Clark seconded a motion to adopt staff report KA-07-17 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the initial zoning for the 485.5 acre site be B-3, B-1, R-4 and R-2 as shown on the zoning district map for the property. BOARD DISCUSSION None. ROLL CALL - INITIAL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. ZONING - GLACIER TOWN CENTER BOARD DISCUSSION Schutt said the way the project is laid out is going to impact the Highway 93 North corridor. The growth policy attempts to preserve the high-speed arterial north and he doesn't think it is the sentiment of this community to start putting stoplights every quarter mile up the highway. He said where does that stop, the south side of Whitefish? Access along Highway 93 North is a crucial sticking point for him and what is proposed isn't in keeping with the spirit of the growth policy. Schutt noted in Condition #2 staff is requesting a revised conceptual site plan based on the conditions of approval for the PUD. Schutt would like to see what the project would look like after the discussions have been held on the applicant's objections. Hinchey said he likes the development and there are a lot of Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 27, 2007 Page 12 of 15 good aspects to it, but he is not really excited about the roadways within the development. He sees Rose Crossing as the only through road. It looks like the development is meant to operate on its own, bringing traffic in but not good at allowing traffic through the development. Hinchey said the comments regarding interconnectivity to the north and to the east by the developer were they aren't necessary because of other roads in the area. However, Hinchey feels that the interconnectivity is needed in order to mitigate and minimize the accesses from those developments onto Whitefish Stage and allow the whole area to operate more like a community. Clark agreed with Hinchey. MOTION TO TABLE Clark moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to table the PUD's and preliminary plat of phase 1 of Glacier Town Center to December 11, 2007. BOARD DISCUSSION There was discussion regarding the date that the Glacier Town Center should be tabled to and further discussion on access onto Highway 93 North, traffic circulation within the lifestyle center area, and requiring a revised conceptual site plan. Moore stated the applicant strongly requests that the board discussion be continued to the next regular meeting on December 11, 2007. However, Moore said there is no reason for the board to postpone a decision on the PUD and preliminary plat because the changes to the site plan, if any, can be worked out between the developer and staff before final plat approval. Schutt felt there were several conditions that specifically relate to the new information received. Moore read the condition that states "prior to final plat MDT will approve the transportation plan" and he noted the initial comments were submitted by MDT and they will work with the city to figure out the best design. Moore added this allows the applicant, the city and MDT to move forward. Schutt said they have put a variety of conditions on projects in the past and conditions are written in such a way that could drastically affect the final layout of the project. In earlier discussions with the applicant the absolute minimum requirements for access for a viable project would be 2 stop lights and a 3/4 interchange. Schutt said he personally does not think that the minimum meets the spirit of the growth policy. There is such a difference that he doesn't know the final size and shape of the project. Hinchey and Clark agreed. Moore said he doesn't feel there will be major design changes based on the conditions. Moore added the transportation issue is not going to change the site plan in the short term and Schutt disagreed and said the council also indicated that the high speed rural road to Whitefish would start at Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 27, 2007 Page 13 of 15 West Reserve. Balcom suggested if the growth policy calls for commercial and also calls for limited access along the same corridor there a conflict. Moore said they are asking for clear direction because they don't see any major changes considering the conditions and their suggested amendments. Wolford stated if the board is considering recommending junior interchanges be required instead of the 2 stop lights and % interchange onto Highway 93 North, it would be a deal breaker because junior interchanges cost approximately $5 million each. They need to have, at a minimum 2 full movement interchanges to handle this kind of traffic and the only way he can do that is with signals. ROLL CALL The motion to table this project until December 11, 2007 passed unanimously on a roll call vote. BOARD DISCUSSION Jentz asked if the board is asking for a redesign that shows MDT's recommendations. Schutt said there is a lot of information to digest which is a major reason for a continuance. Jentz said staff will meet with the developers to discuss their comments on the conditions and try to come up with a recommendation. Gabriel said she was comfortable with the project and recommendations from staff until the letter from the developer regarding the conditions was given to the board. Gabriel said she needs to know staff's recommendation on each item in the letter. Jentz said staff will get the information to the board as soon as possible. Wolford mentioned they have had several conversations with staff regarding the conditions and he understands if the board needs more time to review them individually. However, since they each know where the other stands on the conditions there probably won't be much of a change. Wolford suggested it is now up to the board to make the decision to either recommend approval or denial. Clark asked staff to provide a brief overview of both sides of the issues. Staff and the developer agreed. Schutt noted setting the agenda for December 11, 2007 will be up to staff. OLD BUSINESS: None. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 27, 2007 Page 14 of 15 NEW BUSINESS: None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:50 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission will be held on December 11, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. Bryan H. Schutt Michelle Anderson President Recording Secretary APPROVED as( )�/�/07 Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 27, 2007 Page 15 of 15 hrlonteina Department_of_TraR�portation 2.707 Prospect Avenue PO Box 201001 Helena MT 59620-1001 Novernber 27, 2007 Wayiie Freeman Director, CTA LandWorks 1143 Stoneridge Drive Bozeman, SIT 59718 Subject: MDT Comments Concernin—q the Glacier Town Center (65.73.327.(>i 1 _ Jim Lynch. Director Won Schweitzer, Governor Wayne, the Montana Department of Transportation (.MDT) has the following comments concei-ning the TIS and the issues discussed in the November 26"', 2007 mectinu between the developers; the City of Kalispell and MDT; 1. M.DT supports the goals set forth in the Kalispell Transportation Plan including the proposed use of jr. interchanges north of West Reserve Street on US 93. There are, however, significant challenges regarding the use of interchanges on US 93 north of West Reserve Street that remain unresolved. Given that these issues cannot be resolved in the short term, MDT will consider allowing this development to iniprove US 93 with signals as interim improvements for the Glacier Town Center. 2. MDT requires the developer to submit for review a supplement to the TIS that clearly analyzes the recently discussed configuration of improvements proposed for the subdivision. The supplement must clearly identify improvements required at each phase to full build out. MDT has the following comments regarding the interim improvements as discussed in our recent meeting: • MDT concurs that the Rose Crossing and US 93 intersection must be signalized by the developer. • MDT concurs Access B as indicated in the attached Site PIan roust be signalized by the developer. • iviDT concurs Access A as indicated in the attachment must be limited to a !/.* turn movement. • 3KDT concurs access C as indicated in the attachment must be signalized when warrants are met based on the 3 lane design, • Improvements to Whitefish Stage Road at the proposed locations have not been adequately addressed for MDT to provide comment. It should be noted the analysis provided for all of Whitefish Stage; Road and its intersection with West Reserve Street assumes MDT improvements to be in place that are not programmed or anticipated in the next funding cycle. This issue must be addressed in the supplement to the TIS. • Per MDT review process, we will require the developer to submit for approval designs for all identified improvements. Design requirements for all identified improvements must be discussed in a scoping meeting with TVIDT and the developer. 4, i\MDT has not had an opportunity to review the development concerning; access control issues. US 93 is an access control facility which can ultimately require: action with the wr Transportation Commission and other administrative actions. Typically, MDT does not make any recommendations to the Commission before the review process is complete for the permits requested by a development. No permits will be isst.ied prior to commission approval if required. 5. The developer must sub nil I completed approach permit applications and environmental checklists fbr each access location on MDT's system. Program & PoticyAnalysis Bureau An F.quol Opporlunily Employer Rail, Transit and Planning Division Phone: (406) 444-3423 TTY: (300) 336-7592 Fax: (406) 444-7671 Web Page: w✓na.mdl.slare,ml.us 0 6. The developer rust provide copies of any State or Federal agency permit required for this development. At a minimum, MDT requires a copy of the MT D.EiQ letter verifying your Storm Water Discharge Notice of Intent application has been submitted and is in order. Detailed information concerning the environmental analysis review materials can he tbund on Page 20 of the Developer's Guide. 7. The developer must submit a hydraulics report for the development. The hydraulic report will need to include all items identified in the Hydraulics checklist on Page 1S of the Developer's Guide. An excel spreadsheet with MDT rational can be made available to the developer upon request. Typically, developers submit this information after meeting with MDT to scope the desigri for mitigations. 8. IvtDT will require the developer to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that details the developer's responsibilities for complete mitigation of all this development's impacts to MDT's system. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 444-9416. Sincerely, Mike Tierney Planner - Progr'am and Policy Analysis Bureau Attachments: Developer's Guide Copies: Dwane Kailey, P.E., District Administrator- Missoula Stephen Herzog, P.E., Maintenance Chief — Kalispell Area Danielle Bolan, P.£., Traffic Engineer James Freyholtz, P.E., Traffic Engineer - Kalispell Area Office Jim Skinner, Manager - Program and Policy Analysis Bureau Ryan Anionovicb. P.E., Traffic Engineering Jim Hansz, Public Works Director, City of Kalispell, P.O. Box 1997, 312 tst Avenuc East, Kalispell, iNIT 59901 Torre Jentz, Planning Director, City of Kalispell, P.O. Box 1997, 312 1 st Avenue East, Kalispell, MT 59901 R. Chad Wolford, Wolford Development, Inc., 1200 Mountain Creek Rd., Suite 102, Chattanooga, TN 37405 Dave Jolly, Semi -Tool, PO Box 7010, Kalispell MT 59904 November 27, 2007 City of Kalispell Planning Department Attn: Sean Conrad 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: Response to recommended Conditions of Approval for the Glacier Town Center PUD and Preliminary Plat Approval Dear Sean: This letter provides a response to the recommended conditions for the PUD and Preliminary Plat for Phase 1. The responses (in normal font) to the recommended conditions (in italics) are being submitted for consideration and discussion. Prior to outlining some of specific concerns with regards to the following conditions, some general comments are necessary. The applicant, Wolford Development, firmly believes that the proposed project design has been developed to insure overall project success. Numerous market and design factors were considered by the team during the design process. These included consideration for a multi -modal transportation design, facilitating vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic as well as a detailed open space and parks plan. Furthermore, the project has been designed according to City standards as a Plamled Unit Development, which is a planning tool intended to provide "flexibility of architectural design and mixing of land uses while preserving and enhancing integrity and environmental values of the area." A number of the following conditions are considered by Wolford Development to be challenging to the overall project success. Where changes to conditions are requested, the Developer believes due consideration should be given to the applicant's proven success in developing projects of similar scope in other areas of the country. More specifically, the developer has developed 25 million square feet of retail space over the last 35 years. The following conditions warrant continent from the applicant: A. Kalispell Subdivision Regulations, Section 3.11.A (Sidewalks) i. Allows the development of the roads within the project to be designed as shown in Exhibit F-Roads, of the development application with the following additions: • Road Section A —provide an 8-foot bike path with a minimum 10-foot boulevard along the western side of the road. The bike path shall connect with the path shown along Many Glacier Road on. the PUD site plan and extend south to the southern edge of the BPA easement. • Road Section C — provide a 5-fool sidewalk on both sides of the roadway. The sidewalk shall be located to the outside edges of the right-of-way providing a minimum 10 foot boulevard. • Road Section D —provide a 5-foot sidewalk along the outside edge of the roadway. A minimum 5-foot boulevard shall be provided. • Road Section F — provide a 5-foot sidewalk on both side of the roadway with a minimum boulevard width of 5 feet. Note: The southern most access into the subdivision firona Highway 93 North O shall have an 8-foot bike path in lieu of a sidewalk on the south side of the roadway to connect with the bike path shown on the PUD site plan. • Road Section K —provide a 5-foot sidewalk along the southern edge of the right-of-way along the street frontage of lot 32. • All road sections shall locate the sidewalk or bike path within ]foot of the right-of-way boundary. The applicant feels that they have provided sufficient pedestrian accessibility within the project, and does not agree with the above conditions to provide additional pedestrian ways. E. Kalispell Zoning Regulations, Section 2 7.15.03 0(13) (Conditionally permitted uses in the B-3 zoning district) Allows retail malls/community shopping centers as a permitted use within the zoning district. The following conditions shall apply to the lifestyle center and power center: i. The two center parking aisles within the lifestyle center shall be removed and the sidewalks be widened to provide for a more pedestrian friendly O mall. ii. The developer shall provide the city with a pedestrian access plan for the entire project site. Both trails and sidewalks shown on the PUD plan and as a condition of approval shall be included in the plan. a. For access throughh the parking lots serving the lifestyle center (phase 1) and power center (phase 2) the access plan shall include a minimum S.foot wide walking path with accompanying landscaping every third parking row or 200 feet; whichever is less. Landscaping shall include predominantly living material and include shade trees to be placed at such intensity and location as to form a canopy where they cover or line sidewalks. b. All sidewalks located within parking lots shall have a raised concrete sur face for separation fr-om traffic and parking. c. 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 fromm 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 O within the parking lot, the sidewalk may be at grade but shall be constructed of colored or textured concrete, stone or other contrasting material to visually denote a pedestrian way. Simply painting the walk area is not adequate. d. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the city's site review committee. The applicant does not believe that these design recommendations will provide any improvements to the overall proposed design. The applicant does not believe that the recommended pedestrian ways will improve pedestrian mobility or provide any substantial increase in improving the overall health, safety and welfare of pedestrians. The applicant believes that this increased hardscape area will not be fully utilized by pedestrians, and will detract from the overall design of the parking areas, including reducing landscaping areas. Additionally, with regards to point d, the applicant requests that the plan be reviewed as according to the City's adopted review requirements. The following access points or road connections shall be incorporated into the design of future phases of the project: A. Right-of-way intervals of 500 feet along the northern boundary of the project site requiring a minimum of seven 60- eZ cal road right-of-ways. C� We request this condition to be amended to refle t onnections rather than seven. 4 B. A minimum of one 60 foot local road right-of-way along the residential block adjacent to tracts I and 2 of Certificate of Survey 15221 to provide access to these properties western boundary. The applicant does not believe that these proposed access points will improve overall access, and may cause challenges to the projects residential success. The applicant feels there is appropriate access onto Rose Crossing as proposed. 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 boundar y for access onto the future Lake McDonald Road. Again, the applicant does not believe that these proposed access points will improve overall access, and may cause challenges to the projects residential success. S. A minimum of 72.3 acres of developed open space and parkland shall be provided within the Glacier Town Center subdivision. The applicant is concerned that the number or recommended conditions are reducing the availability of land for development, specifically the additional requests for additional transportation connections. Therefore, at this time, the applicant can agree to meeting all O state and local requirements for open/park space dedication through the subdivision review process. At no time will the open space/park space be reduced to be less than that required for subdivision regulations. 11. The landscaping and irrigation plans for the buffer areas along Highway 93 North, Whitefish Stage Road, and the perimeter of the project site shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Department and developed as follows: A. Highway 93 North buffer° shall include an irrigated landscaping corridor with undulating topography and have a mix of tree plantings with a ground cover predominately of lawn. B. Whitefish Stage Road shall include an irrigated landscaping corridor with undulating topography with landscaped berms a minimum of 5 feet in height from grade and have a naix of tree plantings with a ground cover predominately of lawn. C. The perimeter buffer shall include an irrigated landscaping 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. rr ^ We request that "irrigation" be removed from the above statements. While the applicant intends to irrigate appropriate areas, numerous native plant species do not require irrigation, nor is it the applicants intent to use an excessive amount of water in areas that would be appropriately landscaped without irrigation. The approved irrigation and landscaping plans shall be installedprior 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. The applicant requests the ability to bond for this portion of the project. The following road intersections shall include engineered roundabouts as part of phase I: • Glacier Drive and Glacier Loop • Many Glacier Drive and the roadway serving phase 3. • Two roundabouts along Rose Crossing at intersections to be determined by the traffic impact study with input from the Public YVorks Department. Please remove Rose Crossing from the above statement. 14. The signs within the Glacier Town Center shall adhere to the sign plans proposed in the application and referenced in condition 3X subject to the following Oconditions: A. The fivestanding sign designated 1.1 of Exhibit H of the application shall be located east of the 100 foot buffer area along Highway 93 North. The use of message boards shall be prohibited. B. The two monument signs designated 2.1 of Exhibit H of the application shall be located along the eastern edge of the 100 foot biffer area along Highway 93 North. C. All other detached signs shall be monument signs within the Glacier Town Center Commercial PUD. A monument sign is defined as a freestanding, self- supporting sign, supported by columns and a base, which is placed at ground level, and not attached to any building wall, fence or other structure. Monument signs shall have a maximum building envelope of 6'x6' including architectural embellishments. An example of a monument sign is provided in Exhibit H of the Glacier Town Center application, entry monument sign 2.1. D. Signage on lots 6-10 of Block II and lots I1-16 of Block III of phase I shall be limited as follows: i. All monument signs shall be located along the eastern boundary of the lot adjacent to the internal subdivision road. ii. Wall sign area for the west, south and north.facing walls of the building shall be limited to a total of 50% of the total sign area allowed for the lot. The applicant does not agree to the above requested conditions, and requests consideration for the proposed signage plan, and the existing City regulations. 22. A minimum of two-thirds of the necessary public infrastructure for subdivisions on the Glacier Town Center site shall be completed prior to final plat submittal for each phase and that both the water and se-w)er systems serving the individual phase be operational. It is the applicant's intent thai all improvements shall be constructed according to state and local subdivision standards regarding construction of public improvements and financial guarantees of improvements. A subdivision improvements agreement will be negotiated prior to final plat approval, and will address the portion of improvements to be constructed prior to final plat. 23. 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. O The application contains information regarding the anticipated phasing of the project, with associated timelines. However, the development of each successive phase shall be dependent upon market conditions. The applicant appreciates your consideration of the above comments. S44v---- Wayne rreenan Cc: Wolford Development Montana, LLC 1200 Mountain Creek Road, Suite 102 Chattanooga, TN 34715 Edwin E. and Janet J. Spannuth PO Box 428 Lakeside, MT 59922 R L C love o ir- 2-7- c-2 2 "1 C_-rnA /L To: Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission Subject: PUD for the Glacier Town Center Planning Board Members and Staff, My name is Brent Hall and I reside in Lakeside and have a business in Evergreen. I have been involved in this project since it started through the process 8 years ago. It was a good project then with the exception of the location which was northeast of Reserve and Highway 2. The flood plain was not conducive for a project of this magnitude; however, there is now a major subdivision that is now being built out in this same location. My how things change. Being the person he is, Mr. Wolford persevered and found another sight that was well out of the flood plain so he could move forward with his plans for the Glacier Town Center. During the past 8 years we've seen 24 major buildings constructed in the same general area as Wolford proposed his project. These 24 buildings were constructed with very little opposition and I feel that the Wolford Group was treated unjustly and I admire them for their staying power. His Planned Unit Development will be heads and shoulders above the gigantic strip mall we now have centered around the Home Depot and Costco locations. Having served on the original Kalispell City/County planning board I am not new to the O approval process, Fifteen to twenty conditions of approval were common and the developer and staff could usually work things out. This PUD has 46 conditions, which I feel is way out of line. I feel that to impose this number means only that some people didn't do their homework. I looks as though we are telling someone who is in the retail development business, how to do his job, with no regard to the economic impact of our conditions we are imposing. If our goal is to put the developer out of business, so be it. Let's work with the developer not against him. If we want to make the retail center people friendly, let's make it so the customer can drive up to the store he wants to visit. Having raised sidewalks in the center parking area makes little sense other than adding to the contractor's costs. They do little or no good. This situation occurs at the Famous Dave's and climbing over these raised areas is more of a nuisance than a convenience, especially if you are older or handicapped. The same theory applies to sidewalks on the ring road. Connectivity to the north as proposed is something so far out it in the future that this condition shouldn't be considered at this time. Four entrances in to the development from the north fit the project as drawn. We don't need to make every street in the residential area a speed trap or a high traffic area, especially when we eventually are going to have a number of children running about. Two signals, one at Rose Crossing and the other at the main entrance with 3/4 movement Oat the main entrance has the MDCT's biessing and Slloll'id suffice. All tI1C slg3lage as proposed by Wolford complies with our regulations and should be accepted. The main sign on the highway with a reader board will definitely help the center succeed. I find the Wolford's of very high integrity and by working together they will give us a development we can all take pride in and enjoy the amenities this project will bring. Just the sewer and water fees they will pay is a boon to the city treasury. The taxes created by the retail center should approach two million dollars. Add this to the jobs created and we now have a win -win situation for all of us. Since this project is all brick, mortar and steel and me being in the wood business I have little to gain supporting the Wolfords'. Yet, because of the type of individuals they are and the economic benefits that will rain down on our community, I stand behind them. Your support of the Glacier Town Center will be appreciated. Sincerely yours, Brent Hall November 27, 2007 Dear Planning Board Members, My name is B. J. Carlson and I am representing North 93 Neighbors. By way of background, on December 4, 2003, North 93 Neighbors as Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Commissioners, alleging that the Commissioners had violated the Flathead County Growth Policy, the Growth Policy Act, Flathead County Zoning Regulations and the Montana Zoning Act in their November 5, 2003 approval of an amendment to the Growth Policy and their December 23, 2003 and February 4, 2004 decisions approving amendments to the zoning regulations. Subsequently, Mr. Wolford intervened. On February 15, 2005, the District Court issued an Order and Rationale on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment, granting summary judgment to the Defendants and against the n North 93 Neighbors, which the North 93 Neighbors appealed to the Montana Supreme �J Court. On June 13, 2006, the Montana Supreme Court issued its decision on the appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court in part, reversed the District Court in part, and remanded the case to the District Court to ensure that the Commissioners fulfill their obligation to consider public comments and incorporate them into their decision -making process. At this juncture the parties agreed to meet to work out a preliminary settlement, which in fact happened after three lengthy sessions with all parties gathered together. As you know an MOU was reached on Feb 13, 2007. At that time we all felt that we had come to a very workable, doable compromise and still are of this opinion. However we have not yet finalized the settlement and dismissed the lawsuit, nor have we signed off on O Exhibit E which deals with our agreement with Mr. Wolford regarding his very generous iJ donation of 5 acres for a community facility. The parties still need to finalize the means by which an appropriate beneficiary will be chosen and the conditions that beneficiary must meet. Accordingly we are asking that any final approval by the City follow the finalization of the agreement between Wolford and North 93 and the dismissal of the lawsuit. As Exhibit E which deals with the donated land was late in getting to us we have not had the time to put together the final version, although we are confident that we will be able to do so. We are actively working with Mr. Wolford and Mr. Kalvig to make sure these two things are accomplished in a timely manner. There are certain additional concerns and questions, however, beginning with the lack of full access to the donated 5, acres. While the property donation is in Phase 1, the roads to it are in Phase 3, giving only partial access to the donated property. Partial access will hamper the planning of this property. Where will the parking lot go? How will people get in and out of the facility? We are asking that Lake MacDonald Road be completed to Whitefish Stage in Phase 1. This is important for access to the Town Center as well as to the donated land. The Glacier Town Center will, of course, change the view shed, but without any limits on the number of buildings that can be built that are 60' or more in height we are concerned about how drastically the view shed will be affected, to say nothing about the general appearance of the Glacier Town Center. We ask that Mr. Wolford clarify his intentions in this regard. The issue of traffic is a major one, and we want to be sure that public safety is Oprotected to the greatest extent possible and that Highway 93 isn't a series of stop lights. If this means an interchange at Rose Crossing and Highway 93, then that's what we Oshould have. The question, as usual, is how and who pays for it. Can the Department of State Lands property be used for part of the interchange? What funding sources are there? In the traffic study done by Robert Peccia and Associates several funding sources are listed in Chapter 12. We agree that the Glacier Town Center should be connected to the property to the north, but we are concerned about the number of streets that should connect especially at this time not knowing how the Valley Ranch project will develop. This development has the potential of being a great asset to this community, and a model for sound, environmentally friendly design throughout the valley and the region. We are confident that we will be able to reach final agreement with Wolford on these few final issues and urge the Board's favorable consideration of this proposal subject to the parties' final settlement. �f To: The Kalispell City Planning Board 17 2"d Street East, Suite 211, Kalispell, MT 59903 From: Citizens for a Better Flathead PO Box 771, Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: The Glacier Town Center Annexation, Planned Unit Development, and Subdivision Phase 1 Note: This Memo Summarizes Oral Testimony Given At the Public Hearing on This Matter on November 27th, 2007 Please accept the following comments regarding the proposed Glacier Town Center for the hearing record. Public Process: We ask that the Kalispell City Planning Board continue this public hearing until such time that all application materials have been finalized anc O submitted. When this application has been deemed sufficient, and after such time that no more additional new information from the applicant will be accepted, and when a revised staff report has been drafted, we asked that the public be given two weeks to review and develop comments on .this application prior to the reopening of this public hearing. We ask that the city and the applicant give due consideration to the holiday season in the rescheduling of a future hearing. There is no excuse and it is simply not fair to the public (or legal) for the city to schedule a public hearing for the largest commercial expansion in the valley's history and then not release the planning office review of this proposal until Wednesday; the day before Thanksgiving with the hearing scheduled just one day after the holiday weekend! Furthermore, the holding of a non public meeting ---non advertised meeting ---and a meeting the public was told was not open until just before the meeting is illegal under Montana's open meeting laws and MDOT policy. This meeting occurred with the developer, the MDOT, and the City the day before this public hearing and at which time new information and new "negotiations" resulted in significant new information from both the applicant and the MDOT. These events make it fully impossible for the public to be able to come before you tonight with informed and thus meaningful public comment. State law requires that the public be given adequate time to review application materials prior to a public hearing to ensure the opportunity for meaningful public input. It also requires that when new information is submitted that another hearing must be held before the planning board on this new information. The City is under no legal deadlines to annex this proposed mall development into the city. While a subdivision application does have time limits, it is important to note that those limits are not legally activated until this property is annexed. The public and the planning board deserve to have all the facts and reasonable time to study and review them prior to a public hearing of this importance. Transportation Issues: More information and analysis of traffic impacts is needed prior to a public hearing. The public is being asked to comment on the largest single commercial development ever proposed in the valley without knowing how the Montana Dept. of Transportation will recommend traffic impacts, on US 93, Reserve, or Whitefish Stage, be mitigated and who will pay for this. The public and this board should be provided with copies of the criteria and the data upon which recommendations from the Montana Department of Transportation are being made. We applaud the public statements yesterday by the MDOT and the City that they are committed to reviewing together and prior to consideration of a preliminary plat shared transportation planning concerns so as to encourage better planning. • There are clear conflicts in the data conclusions of the developer's traffic study and those of the new draft Kalispell Transportation Plan. These need to be resolved. The city staff report should be revised and should n include an analysis of the data discrepancies between these two documents. Traffic gridlock and increased accident rates are already occurring on Reserve Street and just south of Reserve Street on US 93. It is totally unacceptable that the city staff report concludes that it cannot analyze or make findings about the impacts of this development on Hwy 93, Reserve, or Whitefish Stage, because these roads are state roads! Yet, the city staff is recommending approval of this proposed development. The city must scale back or condition the phasing of this development to be concurrent' with the provision of road and other infrastructure needs on both city and state roads. 1 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. 2 The Glacier Mail developer is proposing three new traffic lights, when what is needed is a full overpass interchange so as not to degrade traffic flow on U.S 93. We understand that this issue is one currently in flux and discussion between the city, MDOT, and the applicant following yesterday's meeting ---but we believe this is a decision that the city must provide leadership on. You, the planning board, and the public should be provided pictures of possible options being considered from overpasses, junior interchanges, to stop lights. Context sensitive design is a concept that the MDOT has embraced and it is a planning tool that helps to ensure that transportation improvements are done in a way that respects the character of the community. MDOT should be asked to provide the planning board a presentation on possible context sensitive design options and they should identify land use conditions that would facilitate a design that honors the northern entrance to Kalispell. Such a review was provided the community of Bigfork when they went though decision making process for HWY 35. Kalispell needs to take the time to get the best design for this corridor. A junior interchange should be designed into the Glacier Town site and it should be build before traffic access is provided to US 93. • Setbacks from the highway should be the maximum 150 feet not the 100 feet proposed. Significant earth moving proposed on this site is of concern and deserves careful study. It appears this earth moving will put planned commercial development at grade with the highway. Elevations for this important view shed should be provided and setbacks should be conditioned to enhance the view shed through berms and landscaping for O visual and sound issues. To be consistent with standards linked to the current speed limit adopted by the city in its growth policy for highway setbacks the proposed setback should be increased to 150 feet. If traffic/road improvements are phased, rights of way should be dedicated now and building locations moved to accommodate this. Even if this board should decide to temporarily allow a stop light, a future right of way for an interchange should be secured now. • The City should not consider annexation of this property until traffic impact fees are in place and the new city transportation plan has been adopted. Taxpayers deserve the assurances that these costs are born by the developer. • With the new Kalispell Transportation Plan is so close to adoption, the planning board should table this application until this plan can be fully reviewed and adopted. If this PUD and subdivision is approved prior to the adoption of this new transportation plan, or at least the first phase of this subdivision, it cannot be required to be compliant with it. 3 • Land use decisions of this scale cannot be made without better cooperation between the city and the state. Both the city and state must identify and recognize the limits of funding for needed transportation infrastructure north of the city and condition new development proposed to be concurrent with the development of necessary transportation infrastructure. Higher Taxes? Adequate Sewer Capacity? N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN No analysis of this proposed development has been provided to demonstrate that it will pay for its self and that city residents will not be left paying higher taxes. The city has done this for other developments and it should do so for this one. The City has still not put'in place traffic impact fees and these should be in place prior to new annexations. The City Public Works Department, months ago, made a presentation to the city council cautioning them that with the council's approval of the 3000 unit Starling Subdivision and other approved developments the city has now exceeded the planned future capacity of the city's sewage treatment plant. They told the city that another major expansion would be needed of the sewage treatment plant to accommodate any additional growth and that there may be costly limits to the plants capacity to continue to discharge at increasing volumes to Ashley Creek ---- including the possibility of needing to build a plant to pre -treat waste water to drinking standards before it could be discharged. Yet the city planning office does not even mention this concern or provide an analysis of potential costs and construction limitations that must be addressed. It also does not recommend conditions to the Oscale or phasing of this development to meet these limitations. The city is dependent on steady growth to be able to meet the cash -flow demands of ongoing sewage plant expansions ---what if housing slows down, who pays the bills; furthermore the city must be able to demonstrate capacity to serve for the entire development at final plat ---who pays for this capacity to be available ahead of this build out, who has to wait in line if capacity is not available due to over allocations by the city for yet unbuilt treatment capacity? These and other questions deserve your consideration and written response from the public works office. The planning board should request a presentation from the public works office on this important issue prior to taking action on this application. Poor Planning ---Lack of compliance with city growth policy NNNNNNN NN NNNNN NN NNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNN NNN • The city growth policy for this area calls for "up to 45% general commercial (270 acres) and up to 25% urban mixed use (150 acres)." Note the Glacier Mall proposal makes a joke of this mixed use designation, which should be largely residential as this is the common planning definition of mixed use. Instead by calling for 95% of this mixed use area to be general commercial also it is not in keeping with the city's growth policy. Thus the Glacier Mall proposal asks for 66% 4 general commercial (322 acres) with a B-3 general commercial zoning and does not comply with the city's growth policy that allows for up to 45% general commercial or only 270 acres. • A PUD is a zone change and as such it must be consistent with the city growth policy. Need for this scale of commercial is not established and its potential impacts on the Flathead Valley are not adequately addressed. The staff report needs to be revised to more accurately address these issues and the commercial uses in this development should be reduced. Affordable Housing: NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NN NNNNNNNNNNNN NNN This development is proposing to create a significant number of retail gobs that rarely provide a "living wage" given housing costs in the city and county. This development fails to mitigate this by providing permanent affordable housing within this development. We are submitting for the record and your consideration an article on community land trusts that offer what many communities are finding is a win -win for both the developer and the community. The developer gets a significant tax reduction and the community increases its supply of affordable housing that's needed to sustain an adequate workforce. Other Issues of concern. NN NNNNNNNNNNNNN NN NN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNN • Building Heights: The PUD allows for unrestricted use of 60 foot height limits when the City's PUD standards require compliance with 35 foot building heights. City PUD regulations to not allow for this 60 ft height unless it is an exception handled as a variance. A blanket height limit of 60 feet should be denied. Phasing: To address a job housing balance and to reduce traffic from non neighborhood employees, phasing should be reconfigured to include a balance of residential uses in all phases. Two PUD's: No justification has been provided for the use of two PUD's. The effect may be to allow for a much longer build out period than the staff report calls for and may contradict conditions that are worded as if there is only one PUD. The Planning Board should require one PUD as it will be easier to enforce and track compliance with. • Only 2/3 of Infrastructure at Final Plat is required as proposed. Is this legal? Who decides what 1/3 does not have to be done at final plat? What deadlines must a developer meet in providing the remaining 1/3? Is full bonding required for all infrastructure? The public needs a clearer explanation of why this is being proposed and what are the disadvantages for the city and the public. • Access to proposed river park: We support the provision of a seven acre or more river park. We believe that access and roads to this park should be developed now. We appreciate and support a 200 foot setback from the river as 5 proposed. It should be clarified that a buffer area remain undisturbed for water quality purposes. r-,,) No Snout houses: We support this design standard and urge four sided architecture for all buildings. • Central Park of 72 acres+: We appreciate this design feature, but do not agree that the developer should be allowed to hold out reduction of this park area as a threat if the board reduces the developers' proposed land uses or design. This park should be zoned as park land as called for in the K-1 growth policy land uses. Community Center: Road access to this should be clearly secured for the first phase and it should not be part of the 1/3 not put in place before final plat. Conditions to ensure that this use remain in place should be locked in. Parking Requirements: Consideration should be given to reducing parking as called for in new parking guidelines being considered by the city. Bus stops should be identified and provided before finial plat. Staff Report: With consideration of our comments we are in general support of the staff report ---but urge careful consideration of our comments and the need to condition future development to address these as part of a revised staff report. In Summary some key points to address include: N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN Continue the public hearing until more complete information and analysis of � the proposed Glacier Mall is available. . Provide the public adequate time to review this information ---with reasonable consideration of the demands of the Christmas holiday season. Analyze conflicts between the new draft Kalispell Transportation plan and the findings of the Glacier Mall traffic study. Identify limits to funding for transportation impacts current and future in the North 93 area and scale -back and/or phase additional development in this corridor to be concurrent with the completion of the needed transportation infrastructure. Require an interchange for access to US 93. Provide analysis of the capacity and potential cost impacts to taxpayers for expansion of the sewer treatment plant over and above what is already committed. Limit general commercial to be in accordance with the growth policy and demonstrate a justifiable need, given existing and already approved commercial development. C9 Page 1 of 2 Michelle Anderson From: Denise Smith [denise@flatheadbusiness.com] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 1:16 PM To: manderson@kalispell.com Subject: FBIA Statement for Planning Board Hearing 11/27/07 Dear Planning Board Members, President Don Dulle The FBIA believes in the principles of the free market enterprise system, which is the economic foundation of this country. Specifically, we endorse the concept that a proprietor has the right Vice President to risk personal resources in pursuit of an enterprise with out providing public assurance of the outcome. Those of you on the Jim Oliverson planning board that own businesses should understand this concept better than anyone. Treasurer There is a lot of talk about traffic congestion and concerns over Marc Rold traffic safety. I am not an engineer, but have had the opportunity to work closely with the folks at MDT over the past 5 years and if they feel the traffic concerns have been addressed, I have no doubt Board Members r in their judgment. Turner Askew There is talk about this not falling in line with the growth policy. By the Kalispell City Council adopting the North Growth Policy Will Astle Amendment, this is an acceptable use. Doug Denmark There is talk about this being the largest commercial expansion in Bob DePratu the valley's history. Take a look at the other developments in the area, Home Depot, Target, Hutton Ranch, Costco, and Lowes. Gene Dziza Combined, they make up a far greater development than this proposal. Bob Herron There are concerns about the impact to the tax payer, by approving Mike Kazmier this proposal; you will approve two million dollars of new tax revenue in Phase 1 alone. Bill Lincoln Jayson Peters You are being asked to continue the public hearing until more information is available. This community has had seven years. Jon Sonju The Kalispell Planning Departments has had seven years to develop this document. How much more time is necessary? Mike Strotheide In regards to the past seven years, look at all that Wolford Executive Development has endured. They have moved site locations at this communities request, they've endured a lawsuit (and they are ODirector continuing to work with North 93 Neighbors to resolve all the Denise M. Smith issues), they have change their original concept to the one you have before you today, they have basically jumped through more 12/3/2007 Page 2 of 2 hoops than we have asked of any other developer, and are willing to give more acreage in open space and parks than any other new developments. After seven long years, the Wolford's have shown that they have staying power and - it is time for our community to welcome them. Sincerely, Denise M. Smith Executive Director Flathead Business and Industry Association Denise M. Smith Executive Director Flathead Business and Industry Association P.O. Box 8635 Kalispell, MT 59904 Phone: 406.752.8681 Fax: 406.755.1568 email: denise(a)flatheadbusiness.com 12/3/2007 -� Good evening! My name is Bob Herron I live at 249 White Pine in Ponderosa Estates, approximately 1/ mile from the proposed Wolford Development site. I also own and operate a business in downtown Kalispell at 35 Main St. I have been located there at Depot Park Square for the Past 9 years. I, along with a vast majority of the business community support the staff report that we have before us to night recommending that you the planning board approve this request by Wolford development for annexation, zoning and a P U D........ The Kalispell City Growth Policy amendment that was adopted by you folks last summer and passed by the City Council has specifically identified this area known as KN-1 as the place the City of Kalispell 0 wants a project like this to go. I should know, as well as anyone in this room, because I was on the City Council last summer when the growth policy amendment was adopted. The thinking of the planning board and the planning staff along with the council was that by allocating enough acreage in one place that not only proper planning, but excellent planning can take place. What is interesting to me tonight, is that there are still nay sayers out there in the community and perhaps even some nay sayers on this board. Isn't it time that this community comes together and starts acting decently towards this developer and playing fair with this developer. This developer has done everything that the community has asked, let's give him a chance to do his thing and get er done ............. Let's stop and think what Kalispell gets from this developer, 74 acres of parks, 5 acres for a community center. A crucial East — West road north of Reserve, when this developer punches that road through from Whitefish Stage........ The Montana Department of Revenue estimates that over $2,000,000 will be brought in a year in tax revenue, with $487,000 going to the city of Kalispell ........ Mr Jentz will tell you that commercial development only uses less than 25 % of the tax dollars it brings in in services, which leaves $375,000 of additional tax revenue going into the general fund of the City of Kalispell. It is time to quit putting roadblocks in the way of this developer ....... and let him develop........... Or, you can continue to put roadblocks in the way and lose this project.......... Do you want to take that chance........... of pushing this developer away and have him throw in the towel and not develop and sell this property off piecemeal........... and have a mess........ n Plus lose the parks, lose the community center, lose Rose Crossing........ Connectivity and No Traffic Lights........... Those are roadblocks .............. Those of us that live on the North end want traffic lights.......... Slow the traffic down......... 45 miles an hour growth policy and your not yet approved transportation plan are at odds with each other........ Because Tom and Bryan don't want traffic lights doesn't mean that they are correct, and it certainly doesn't mean that this is the official position of the city of Kalispell............ 0 Finally the economy of the Flathead needs this project ..............