12-11-07KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COAMSSION
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, Kati
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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES I Hinchey moved and Balcom seconded a motion to approve
the Minutes of November 13, and November 27, 2007.
ROLL CALL I The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
HEAR THE PUBLIC Megan McCrea - Citizens for a Better Flathead read a
statement regarding the public meeting process. (Copy
Attached)
Mayre Flowers, Citizens for a Better Flathead said she would
like to address comments about the board's ability to
condition transportation decisions that come before the
board associated with land use issues. Flowers. distributed
copies of a detailed memo. (Copy Attached)
Denise Smith, Executive Director, Flathead Business &
Industry Association noted that she represents over 250
business owners. Smith was asked to hand deliver a letter of
support for the Wolford Development project on behalf of
representative Jon Sonju. (Copy Attached)
Smith requested that the board put their trust in the experts
at MDT. They are trained engineers and their judgment can
and should be trusted. Smith said regarding proper
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 professionalism of the planning staff and
their efforts to work with them in all aspects of this project.
Staff, along with the planning board's input, has made this a
better project. They have articulated their positions and they
understand the board must make a recommendation to the
Kalispell City Council that the board can support. They look
forward to the board's positive recommendation and are
present as a team to answer questions.
Pat Arnone, 595 Lauman Road, Kalispell said although she
likes the outdoor style of the project now better than the
original plan, her biggest concern is to be sure the highway
department and the City of Kalispell make careful decisions
about the traffic that will be generated, not only by this
project, but the other developments along Highway 93 that
have been approved. She thinks it is very dangerous and she
is asking the people in power to make sure it is done right
and to not rush into something that will end up killing a lot
of people.
GLACIER TOWN CENTER, A continuation of the request by Wolford Development
PLANNED UNIT Montana, LLC for a planned unit development and phase 1 of
DEVELOPMENT, AND the preliminary plat for Glacier Town Center, a 485.5± acre
PRELIMINARY PLAT PH. 1 site located 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.
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 Conrad noted since the November 27, 2007 public hearing
on the Glacier Town Center the planning department has
received 60 letters/comment cards on this project. Copies of
the comments were provided to the board. Conrad noted the
concerns included the stop lights along Highway 93 between
Whitefish and Kalispell, that standards be put in place to
ensure new development moves forward concurrently with
needed transportation infrastructure, and encouraged the
city and planning board to support the need for a. city and
state plan to identify transportation solutions and options
before development applications are considered for
subdivision review.
Conrad suggested the board take a few minutes to review the
comments received, which they did.
Jentz noted that there were comments made during the
"Hear the Public" portion that the process was not legal or
appropriate and he added staff checks with the City Attorney
on the process to make sure it is followed legally. The
information came in September 10th and has been available
to the public through our website, the application materials
have been available at various locations for the public to
check out, and a proper public hearing was held. Jentz
continued, 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.
Jentz continued staff receives comments from MDT on
projects but it is up to MDT to make the decisions on access
and issues 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 they 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 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 Commission could upgrade 2 of
those accesses to public approaches.
Schutt asked staff to review the response to CTA's letter
dated December 4+h. Conrad said his response is in the form
of a memo to the planning board dated December 6th. The
following discussion was held on those comments.
Comment 1 - Pedestrian Connectivity
Staff Recommendation:
Provide the sidewalk extension as recommended above. A
large scale map will be presented at the planning board
meeting detailing the sidewalk extension in question for the
board to address so that the board can determine which are
appropriate and delete those that are not.
The board agreed with the staff recommendations.
Comment 2 - Pedestrian Connectivity in and Around the
Lifestyle Center
Staff Recommendation:
Staff accepts the revised streetscape plan showing improved
landscaping and pedestrian access within the lifestyle center
and recommends deleting staff condition E.i above.
Staff recommends removing references to condition E.ii.a and
b 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
0-
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, 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.
f. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the city's
site review committee.
With regards to condition E.ii.f requiring the plan to be
reviewed by the city's site review committee, this is how city
staff would recommend reviewing such a plan in lieu of the
developer actually providing one to staff as part of the project
application.
The board agreed with the staff recommendations.
Comment 3 - Connectivity to Adjacent Parcels
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends amending condition 4.A and require 6
right-of-ways using 2 per quarter section along the 3
northerly quarter sections of the project site allowing an
average spacing of a street every. 560-660 feet. Sections 4.B
and 4.0 below would be unchanged.
B. 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
C)
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 with the grid system and thinks
this is a compromise issue. He lives in an area that is a grid
system but it is sheltered (behind the junior high school).
Personally he thinks it is a benefit to a community to have
some sheltered portions too and he would like to see 5
connections but will agree to 6 connections recommended by
staff.
Clark said he thinks 6 road connections to the north are fine.
Conrad continued on the east side of the project site staff is
recommending 1 additional connection be provided between
the tract where East Haven Baptist Church is located and
the property to the north of the church property. The
developer feels there is appropriate connection to these
properties from Rose Crossing and Lake McDonald Road.
Clark said he doesn't think the additional connection is
necessary because they can access those properties from
Whitefish Stage Road. Hinchey disagreed because the
purpose of the. proposed access is to minimize the access on
Whitefish Stage. The church currently has an access onto
Whitefish Stage Road that Hinchey thinks should be
eliminated in the future. Jentz said the question at hand is
should there be an access from the Glacier Town Center
project to these 2 properties without accessing Whitefish
Stage Road. Jentz added it is an issue of neighborhood
connectivity.
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:
S. 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 irrigation plans for the buffer
areas along Highway 93 North and Whitefish Stage
Road, and the perimeter- ef the eet site shall be
reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation
Department. Landscaping within the perimeter
buffer areas of the project site may require
irrigation where appropriate as determined by the
developer and the Parks and Recreation
Department. The buffer areas shall be 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 mix of
tree plantings with a ground cover
predominately of lawn.
C. The perimeter buffer shall include a4a
irrigated l nd seaping 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
(1
Comment 6 - Roundabouts
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 amending condition 14.A and
143 to allow the two freestanding signs, one at Rose
Crossing the other at the access road just north of the
cemetery and one monument sign at the center access. The
location restrictions of the signs should be maintained as
well as sections C and D of this condition.
The board agreed with the staff recommendations.
Comment 8 - Completion of Public Infrastructure
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the planning board consider amending the
condition as follows:
22. A minimum of two-thirds of the necessary public
infrastructure for residential subdivisions on the
Glacier Town Center site shall be completed prior to
final plat submittal for each residential phase and that
both the water and sewer systems serving the
residential phase be operational.
The board agreed with the staff recommendations.
Comment 9 - Project Phasing
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the planning board consider amending the
condition as follows:
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.
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.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 8 of 29
0
Comment 10 - Highway Access
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the planning board consider adding the
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 necessitate the need for an
additional traffic light.
The applicant reserve lots 15 and 16 at the
intersection of Rose Crossing and Highway 93 for a
period not to exceed three years from preliminary plat
approval for the purpose of allowing the city to
undertake in concert with MDOT a corridor
preservation study. If a junior interchange is
recommended, the applicant would reserve the
necessary land. If the study is not pursued or if the
study concludes a junior interchange is not feasible,
the restriction over lots 15 and 16 would be lifted at
that time or three years from preliminary plat
approval.
Conrad said at the planning board hearing some of the board
members cited the growth policy and its intent to limit or
outright prohibit the number of signalized intersections
north of West Reserve Drive. The developer revised the PUD
plan slightly to illustrate what MDT would allow and Conrad
reviewed the plan for the board.
The developers plan includes a signalized intersection at the
future extension of Rose Crossing; the secondary access or
main entrance to the lifestyle center would be a % turn
movement; and just north of the cemetery Access B would be
a signalized intersection. (Access Map Attached)
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
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 9 of 29
0
would allow a signalized intersection at that location and he
questioned whether the condition was necessary now. (MDT
Letter Attached)
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 both 15 and 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 to Wolford Development to
set aside the land for a period of 3 years to see what the
preservation study comes up with. Wolford asked is it a deal
breaker no, it is not and if that is what the planning board
wants to recommend that is their prerogative. Wolford added
he stands by the comment that if MDT stated they don't
require it then to him he doesn't know why they would be
required to provide it.
Clark noted that MDT has made their comments based on
current conditions and once the study is completed they may
decide they absolutely need the interchange. That is why the
board is trying to hold the land in abeyance until the study
comes out. Jentz added MDT has said the study could take
up to 2 years to complete and what staff was trying to
achieve was to allow the project to move forward yet setting
aside the land for the interchange until it is determined
whether or not the land is needed.
Williamson said he thinks the preservation study is a great
idea and asked the cost of the study. Jentz said since the
Transportation update cost $150,000 they feel it would be
significantly less than that amount. Williamson referred to
his discussions with the Transportation Commission who
said there isn't an Access Management Plan for Highway 93
North 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
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 10 of 29
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
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 seconded a motion to table this
GLACIER TOWN CENTER
discussion on the Glacier Town Center to New Business.
TO NEW BUSINESS
ROLL CALL
The motion passed on a roll call vote of 4 in favor and 2
opposed.
KALISPELL AREA
A proposal to .adopt the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
2006 Update as an addendum to the Kalispell Growth Policy
2006 UPDATE PUBLIC
to serve as a guiding policy for transportation decisions.
HEARING
This plan will serve to update and replace the existing
Kalispell Transportation Plan last updated in 1993.
STAFF REPORT
Tom Jentz, representing the Kalispell Planning Department
said the City of Kalispell has been working on the Draft
Transportation Plan 2006 Update (Plan) for 18 months along
with the consultant, Jeff Key of Peccia 8s Associates. The
Kalispell Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) recommended
the draft Plan be forwarded to the Kalispell Planning Board
for this public hearing but the additional comments made by
TAC were not forwarded to the board for consideration.
Therefore Jentz is recommending that the board take public
comment on the plan tonight and then continue the public
hearing until the January 8, 2008 meeting.
BOARD DISCUSSION
None.
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.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 11 of 29
01
Mayre Flowers, Citizens for a Better Flathead distributed a
letter addressing their comments in relation to the
Transportation Concurrency and Collaborative
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 93. The property is located at
1288 and 1270 North Meridian Road.
STAFF REPORT KZC-07-03
Sean Conrad, representing the Kalispell Planning
Department presented staff report KZC-07-03 to the board.
Conrad noted the zone change request is from R-4 (Two -
Family Residential) to B-1 (Neighborhood Buffer District) .
Conrad reviewed the location of the zone change request and
surrounding zoning.
The growth policy designates this area as an urban mixed -
use area and the intent of the B-1 zoning is to provide a
buffer between the more intense commercial uses and traffic
along Meridian and the less intense R-4 zoning and
residential subdivision to the west.
Conrad continued based on the growth policy and its
designation of mixed -use, the neighborhood character along
that stretch of Meridian that is primarily commercial, and
the fact that Meridian with its upgrades can handle any
increased traffic that B-1 zoning on this property and its
associated uses could generate, staff recommends that the
Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission 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
None.
APPLICANT/TECHNICAL
None.
STAFF
PUBLIC HEARING
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
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 12 of 29
changed to B-1, Neighborhood Buffer District.
BOARD DISCUSSION
None.
ROLL CALL
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
llth Street West. The address for the property 1312 7th
Avenue West, Kalispell.
STAFF REPORT KA-07-19
Nicole Johnson, representing the Kalispell Planning
Department presented Staff Report KA-07-19 to the board.
Johnson stated Mr. Buchholtz is requesting to be annexed in
order to have access to city water and sewer. He intends to
subdivide the property into 2 lots and construct 2 duplexes
on the property.
Johnson reviewed the location of the property and
surrounding uses. The growth policy designates this area as
urban residential and the proposed R-4 zoning would be
consistent with that designation.
Staff recommends the planning board 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
Schutt asked how many lots could be created by subdivision
of this property and Johnson said the planning department
is entertaining'a waiver of preliminary plat for 2 lots however,
she reminded the board, they are only considering the initial
zoning of the property upon annexation tonight.
Hull asked if all access to this property will be from 7th
Avenue 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.
APPLICANT/TECHNICAL
Lonnie Buchholtz, 1079 Patrick Creek Road said his
STAFF
intentions for this property are exactly as staff reported.
PUBLIC HEARING
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.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 13 of 29
C�
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.
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 Estates and Spring Creek defines the
western boundary. The owner is also requesting preliminary
plat approval for Bay Ridge Estates, a subdivision that plats
40 lots ranging in size from 7,000 to 30,000 square feet.
STAFF REPORTS KA-07-08 Nicole Johnson, representing the Kalispell Planning
& KPP-07-13 Department presented Staff Reports KA-07-08 & KPP-07-13
to the board.
Johnson reported the project includes 4 tracts of land and
they have requested an R-3 Single Family Residential zoning
designation and a proposed 40 lot subdivision. The 18.8 acre
site is located on the north side of Three Mile Drive and
starts at the terminus of Meadows Road, which is a county
road that will be improved to city standards and dedicated to
the city.
Johnson said the proposed 40 lot subdivision and R-3 single
family residential zone complies with the suburban
residential land use designation from the growth policy
which allows. up to 4 units per acre. The proposed
subdivision's density would be approximately 2.1 units per
acre.
Meadows 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
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 14 of 29
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
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.
Condition # 12 relates to the private road and utility
easement that currently serves this tract of land. There are 5
tracts that utilize the existing private road extension from of
Meadows Lane. Based on staff recommendations the road
should be upgraded and the easement be moved to provide a
better intersection angle. The road and utility easement
should be shifted to the south to be better aligned with the
driveway of the property next to the subdivision. Abandoning
the old connection would eliminate the current hazardous
intersection.
Condition # 10 relates to connectivity. A connection to the
north to Quarter Horse Estates would be required by this
condition and would be located roughly in the area of lot 17.
Johnson added if this condition is approved lot 17 would
probably be eliminated.
Johnson noted as new information was brought forward and
after the staff report was completed the following
amendments to conditions 7, 23, and 26 are recommended
for the board's consideration.
Condition #7 requires the upgrades to Meadows Lane. The
amendment clarifies the county road shall be dedicated to
the city. Johnson noted the deed information was provided to
the 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
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 15 of 29
��
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,
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 & 10
would be provided as part of that dedication. Since the
writing of the staff report the developer and the Parks
Department met and came up with another solution to the
park area requirement and therefore staff is recommending
that Condition #26 be amended to read:
"Dedicate parkland equal to one -ninth of the area in lots. The
parkland include din the dedication shall be located in the
southwest corner, outside of the adopted floodplain
boundaries, shall not include storm water management
facilities and shall be contiguous with the parks in the
northeast corner of the Cottage Gardens subdivision and
Mountain Vista Estates to the west. Note: Based on approval
by the Parks and Recreation Department the applicant may
offer a reduced land dedication and provide a cash -in -lieu of
land payment to assist in development of the park area.
(Findings of Fact, Section D - Parks and Open Space)"
Staff recommends that the planning board adopt staff report
KA-07-08 and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that
the initial zoning of the site be R-3 (Urban Single Family
Residential) upon annexation.
Staff further recommends that the planning board adopt staff
report KPP-07-13 as findings of fact and recommend to the
Kalispell City Council that the proposed subdivision, Bay
Ridge Estates be approved subject to the 43 conditions as
amended.
BOARD DISCUSSION Clark questioned whether both lots 9 & 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.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 16 of 29
Clark noted they could also lose another lot for connectivity
to the north and he suggested that lot 16 could be made
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 connection to the north would be
sufficient and Johnson said yes.
Williamson asked what the required setback from the river
was for Mountain Vista Estates and would it be the same for
this project. Johnson said yes it is the same as Mountain
Vista Estates and the setback is 100 feet with a 50 foot
buffer area where no development may occur.
Clark asked for the definition of the thread of the creek and
Olaf Ervin, the applicant's technical staff said the thread of a
creek is a surveyor term which is if a stream were to dry up it
would be the last location where the water would run.
Hinchey asked for further explanation on the easement issue
on the eastern portion of the site. Johnson said now
Meadows Lane comes to a point then a private 40 foot road
and utility easement extends north and then curves to the
west. The developers are proposing eliminating a portion of
that easement and constructing a full city road to the south.
The property owner in the northeast corner is not part of the.
subdivision and still requires use of the private easement
because 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,
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 17 of 29
and 39 and Johnson agreed that was an error and it will be
corrected.
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 View Way formerly of 545 Three Mile
Drive, which is one of the properties within this subdivision,
stated this whole process started a number of years ago
when this area began to change very rapidly. He owned a
horse ranch and began running into conflicts so they
relocated their ranch. They then put this property up for sale
4 years ago and were unsuccessful in selling it but then
developers became interested. Fetveit thanked the board for
their time and noted it has been a pleasure working with the
city staff. Mr. Fetveit, his wife and the other property owners
involved are very enthusiastic about the project.
Barrett Sharpe, representing his parents Ron and Marcia
Sharpe, who reside at 543 Three Mile Drive, said his parents
have worked with Steve and Samantha Fetveit to develop this
property. He said a lot of time and energy has gone into this
process and they feel it will be one of the nicer developments
in this area. Sharpe thanked the board for their
consideration.
Hal Bauer, 76 Prairie View Way, formerly of 541 Three Mile
Drive said he also has horses and the rural area he used to
have changed so he moved. Since the change in the area this
development makes sense to him. Bauer said he is in favor of
the 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
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 18 of 29
0
conditions.
Williamson asked if there is an easement to this well and
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 provide future connection to his
property since he has absolutely no plans to develop his
property.
Jan Kienas, 535 Three Mile Drive said she has lived on her
property for 37 years. Kienas is concerned about the
requirement for a sidewalk along the entire western
boundary of her property and city upgrades to the road and
asked who would maintain the sidewalk and plow the road.
Kienas said her well is within 50 feet of the road which she
has a water right to that is filed with the State of Montana.
She has no intention of either giving up her well or becoming
a part of the city. She added she would never be able to pay
taxes on 4 acres at the city property tax rate. If this project is
approved she wants a written guarantee that she would
never be forced to annex because she would then be an
island of county property surrounded by the city.
Mayre Flowers, 2770 Upper Lost Creek Road said this area
had been in agricultural use for many years and noted small
scale agricultural uses are important in this valley. There are
some policies in the subdivision regulations that would allow
existing agricultural uses be retained and she asked the
board to look at that with this property.
MOTION - INITIAL ZONING
Balcom moved and Clark seconded a motion to adopt staff
report KA-07-08 as findings of fact and recommend to the
Kalispell City Council that the initial zoning of the site be R-3
(Urban 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
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 19 of 29
n
U
in the staff report.
BOARD DISCUSSION Williamson asked about the well head isolation buffer and
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 portion of the plat. Jentz said
they already exist and staff is requesting that they are show
on the plat for public awareness. Johnson added the location
of the sewer system that will be extended along Meadows
Lane may need to be shifted within the 60 foot road and
utility easement to avoid encroaching on the 50 foot buffer.
Schutt clarified the wells noted in Condition # 15 are the
wells within this subdivision. He asked if the wells and
properties to the south on either side of Meadows Lane have
their own associated well head protection zones and Johnson
said yes but they will not be indicated on this plat. Schutt
asked if this happens often when an upgrade of a road &
utility easement would encroach into well zones and Jentz
said he hasn't seen this before but when comments are sent
out to public agencies and they respond, the comments are
included in the planning process.
Schutt asked if the existing wells in the subdivision will be
abandoned and Johnson responded at least 2 of the wells are
proposed to be abandoned. The well in the northeast portion
of the subdivision will be retained and used. Ervin added the
well on the Van Allen property, the southeast portion of the
site would 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.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 20 of 29
C!
MOTION - AMEND
Clark moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to amend
CONDTION #7
Condition #7 to eliminate the requirement of installing a
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.
Hull suggested that the homeowners association maintain
the sidewalk along Meadows Lane.
MOTION WITHDRAWN
Clark withdrew his motion and the second concurred.
MOTION - AMEND
Clark moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to amend
CONDITON #39
condition #39 to include that the Homeowners Association
will also maintain the sidewalk along Meadows Lane from the
subdivision to Three Mile Drive.
ROLL CALL
The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Schutt asked if the impact fees referred to in Condition #6
are typically assessed at the time of annexation and Johnson
said only fire and police impact fees are assessed at
annexation for properties that are already developed. Those
developed properties would also be assessed sewer and water
impact fees only when and if they connect to city services.
Schutt thought this would be a disincentive to annex and
Jentz agreed but that is the policy. Schutt said the impact
fees for undeveloped properties are assessed when the
building permit is issued and Johnson said yes.
Hinchey said he is all about interconnectivity but to require
the loss of a lot for connectivity to Quarter Horse Estates and
have that connection never go through to him would be
onerous. Johnson said that would ultimately be up to the
board to decide but the connection has been deemed to be
important 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.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 21 of 29
0
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
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 neighborhood and wouldn't be further
subdivided even if it were to be annexed.
Ervin added since there are already existing homes on the
lots in Quarter Horse Estates to subdivide them could be
problematic. However, they are willing to comply with the
condition if it stands.
MOTION - DELETE
Clark moved and, Hinchey seconded a motion to delete
CONDITION # 10
Condition # 10 which would require interconnectivity to the
north.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Schutt said if they have required connectivity in two dozen
other subdivisions in the past year or more he isn't
comfortable with changing a requirement that they have held
other developers to, even if they think they know that
Quarter Horse Estates will not be annexed or further
subdivided. The applicant is comfortable with providing the
connection and in the future other planning boards will
think it was a wise decision.
Hinchey said his only rebuttal is this is an area that is
already developed.
Question was called.
ROLL CALL - DELETE
The motion to delete Condition # 10 passed on a roll call vote
CONDITION # 10
of 4 in favor and 2 opposed.
ROLL CALL -
The motion original motion, amended passed unanimously
PRELIMINARY PLAT
on a roll call vote.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
Continuation of the Glacier Town Center discussion.
MOTION TO REMOVE
Hinchey moved and Balcom seconded a motion to remove
GLACIER TOWN CENTER
Glacier Town Center from the table.
FROM THE TABLE
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 22 of 29
ROLL CALL I The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
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 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 necessitate the need for an
additional traffic light.
The applicant reserve lots 15 and 16 at the
intersection of Rose Crossing and Highway 93 for a
period not to exceed three years from preliminary plat
approval for the purpose of allowing the city to
undertake in concert with MDOT a corridor
preservation study. If a junior interchange is
recommended, the applicant would reserve the
necessary land. If the study is not pursued or if the
study concludes a junior interchange is not feasible,
the restriction over lots 15 and 16 would be lifted at
that time or three years from preliminary plat
approval.
Hull 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
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 23 of 29
O
amendment would do to traffic flow. He sees problems with
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 with a growth policy that is
trying to preserve the free -flow of traffic. In addition, years of
planning has been put into construction of the bypass that
would get traffic around Kalispell then dump that traffic into
a sea of red lights.
Clark concurs, however the city council mandated the KN-1
land use designation, which is this development, and they
also mandated that there had to be controlled access which
negated their intent to preserve this corridor. Clark doesn't
believe the Town Center can be successful without a
signalized traffic light at Access B and Rose Crossing. Clark
continued, in saying that he also agrees with staff on their
recommendation of a right -in, right -out only at the main
entrance to the lifestyle center. Clark added he doesn't think
this will generate a number requests for additional traffic
lights north, he thinks these will be the last 2 lights,
especially when the corridor study is completed.
MOTION - CLAIFYING Clark moved and Balcom seconded a motion to clarify
SIGNALIZED Comment # 10 and recommend approval of the signalized
INTERSECTIONS accesses at Rose Crossing and Access B, and the right -in,
right -out access at the main entrance to the lifestyle center
and reserve lots 15 & 16 for a junior interchange, if
recommended in the corridor preservation study.
BOARD DISCUSSION 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
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 24 of 29
thinks a signalized intersection at Access B would distribute
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 was missed at Rose Crossing
traffic could turn at West Reserve and use the southern
access off of West Reserve. Hull suggested that the West
Reserve entrance should become a major access into this
project.
Williamson said he spent a lot of time looking at the traffic
counts and he doesn't see that as a solution. West Reserve is
more impacted than Highway 93 according to the traffic
counts. He said the 2 signals are needed.
Hull said there is a tremendous snarl of traffic between
Costco and Reserve. If a lane is closed because of an accident
for example, the traffic backs up for a mile and he is
reluctant to push that north.
ROLL CALL
The motion to clarify Comment 10 that Access B and Rose
Crossing will both be signalized failed on a tie vote.
MOTION - ACCESS B
Schutt moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to change
Access B to right -in, right -out only.
ROLL CALL
The motion to change Access B to right -in, right -out failed
on a tie vote.
MOTION - RESERVE LAND
Williamson moved and Balcom seconded a motion to amend
FOR FUTURE
the language from reserving lots 15 & 16 to reserving an
INTERCHANGE
appropriate amount of land as determined by any study that
would be completed.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Jentz said staffs intent was not to take all of lots 15 & 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
8v 16 that might be too much and he doesn't want the
developer hung up for an interchange that may never be
required.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 25 of 29
O
Clark said the lots would only be hung up for 3 years and it
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.
SECOND WITHDRAWN
Balcom withdrew the second to the motion.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Hinchey said if he looks at the 485.5 acres and calculates
the general commercial and urban mixed uses it looks to him
to be primarily a commercial project. if he looks at the
definition of mixed use it says that it is a compatible mix of
higher intensity uses including office as well commercial,
medium and high density residential.
MOTION - DEFINE URBAN
Hinchey moved and Clark seconded a motion to add a
MIXED USE
condition limiting the general commercial development of the
site to 45% and the urban mixed use development to 25% of
the total site. The urban mixed use portion of the site shall
be limited and defined as follows: a development of
compatible mixed uses not to exceed 1/4 retail, 1/4 offices and
the remainder to be various medium and high density
residential uses and related public facilities to serve as a
transition from more intense uses to less intense uses.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Williamson asked what the residential percentage would be
and Hinchey said about 60 acres out of the mixed use and
then there is additional residential specified up to 20%.
Williamson said he looked up the city council's discussion
when they approved the amendment for the KN-1 and the
council's attempt to make residential a larger percentage
failed. Williamson said he is not going to get hung up on the
specific math in applying the percentages to this
development because the developer has increased the open
space from 10% to 15% and we certainly wouldn't want to
apply the math in that case. Williamson said he looks at the
percentages as a guide. We have seen a plan the shows
exactly what they plan to do and he is comfortable with that
and he wouldn't want it changed.
P urther 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
O
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 to the eastern property line of
CENTER SITE the proposed 5 acre community center site.
BOARD DISCUSSION Clark asked if the board should be involved in the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Wolford and
the North 93 Neighbors.
Williamson said he would like to see a plan from the parties
to really know what they are considering.
Clark asked if Wolford's attorney could comment on this
issue.
Ken Kalvig said he has been representing Wolford
Development for the past 8 years and was involved with the
discussions with the North 93 Neighbors last winter when
they spent 2-1/2 days working out the terms of the MOU.
Kalvig said when working on the MOU they did their best to
try and address the issues although they didn't have all the
details worked out for the project yet. Kalvig recalls from
those meetings Wolford wanted to make a contribution of the
land for a community center and North 93 Neighbors and the
City of Kalispell would have a say in how that land would be
used. It was proposed to Wolford that he sell the land to the
community at cost and Bucky said he would donate the land
instead. Kalvig said it is important for the board to know that
Wolford 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 Wolford's team said phase 3.
Chad Wolford said he echoes what Kalvig said and hopefully
North 93 Neighbors and the board understands that they
have the best intent with this parcel, there is no point in
donating the 5 acres and not have it used. Wolford said the
problem with taking Lake McDonald Road all the way out to
Whitefish Stage Road now is $500,000 to $1 million in costs
that would only serve the community center parcel. Wolford
proposed instead of stopping the road as a cul-de-sac at this
parcel they are willing to extend the road to the eastern
boundary of the 5 acre parcel.
Schutt asked if the board needs to be involved or can Wolford
and the North 93 Neighbors work this out and Wolford said
as far as he is concerned they can work it out. DeMeester
said because the roads have changed so much they would
need to have additional discussions.
ROLL CALL The motion to extend Lake McDonald Road to the east
property line of the 5 acre parcel for the community center
passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
ROLL CALL - ORIGINAL The original motion passed on a roll call vote of 4 in favor
MOTION GLACIER TOWN and 2 opposed.
CENTER PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AS
AMENDED
BOARD DISCUSSION Conrad referred to a second memo from staff dated
December 6th indicating that a condition was unintentionally
omitted that would read as follows:
The following note shall be placed on the final plat:
00Property 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
None.
ROLL CALL - PHASE 1,
The motion passed on a roll call vote of 4 in favor and 2
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
opposed.
GLACIER TOWN CENTER
NEXT MEETING
The next regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning
Board and Zoning Commission is scheduled for January 8,
2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the Kalispell City Council Chambers.
The next special meeting or work session is tentatively
scheduled for Tuesday, January 29, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in
the Kalispell City Council Chambers.
Bryan H.'Socohuttf Michelle Anderson
President Recording Secretary
APPROVED as submitted/corrected: 6 / 0 /08
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of December 11, 2007
Page 29 of 29
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: 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 tools 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.
O 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 filial 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 Bearing 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."
O
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 sunnnnnarize comments as much as
possible. With thus 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 Mall/Town 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 Mall/ 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 (46-1(m)
O 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.I
• 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.
1 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.2
• 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 Bearings
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
not address potential need to readdress the redesign of the bypass terminus at US 93 and
Reserve to meet these traffic volumes.' It does recommend a need for a junior
interchange/overpass 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.
a 2007 The Glacier Mall/Town Center submits application. They request
annexation 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
By-pass 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—assuining a steady annual stream of federal funding —until 2015-2030
C� to complete.? (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.)
t '.lu..,
Issues, -of Significant Concern , ; ...,; = a',
0 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
G Based on Consultant comments at project workshop with the Kalispell City Council and the City Plamiing
Board Nov. 2007
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 talce 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.
O • 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
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 3Oft 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 reduce or 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 3/4 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.
" 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.
0d. 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, landscapuig 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
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.13
• 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. is
✓ 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
O ✓ 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 exception of one access for maj or traffic generators only
it is -proven to MDT's satisfaction that there will be a significant benefit to
the hi lg Zwgy network. (Please note that despite MDT's letter of November
28t" 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.
is 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.)"
✓ Development of Access Control Plan requires that the MDT contact the
local planning board authorities and inquire whether there are anYspecial
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 may by
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
0 by aizy 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
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.
• MDT's Administrative Rules (ARM) Updated 9-30-07 Provide Further
C 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 malting the approach
application and in working with MDT to achieve corridor standards that
are of benefit to the public and the applicant.
U
✓ 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 pen -nit 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
MONTAINA, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
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 59903
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 bow 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 Regar s
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.
�.._.._..;_.._..rT___. ..........--- .............
I I T� 1T:1 i i
r
zi
I
" :.. .Rose Cro sins
.t
i�
i r.._. _ —r---- !
I� !
--------------
i I
Legend
Phase 1 2007-2009
(-� Phase 11 2010-2013
Phase III 201d-2015
Phase IV 2016-2017
Phase V 2018-2020
F.l r
Stillwater
Meter
L.`
West Reserve Dnve
Glacier Town Center
® . Phasing Plan i
September 4.2007
NORTH KalispelL Montana WOtFORD
n
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 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
n be able to make traffic improvements to ensure compliance with LOS standards. In short, if a proposed
�J 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 �' nsportotrc�r�_ ..__.........._.... Jim Lynch, -04recror
...._....--_.._ - .._.._ ._....__._�._ _ ._._._.._..___.....__...
S:!YUUr¢{larrtvtth;�rletn' ........ Y7?'dC.1 t" ;�1":-r W�i�Zc:i; Cites.+1�;f'iGr.
i7fi x.�y'a� "7.713Q
November 28,.2007
Wayne Freeman
Director,. CTA LandWorks-
1143 Stoneridge Drive
Bozeman, .MT '5971.8
Subject:. Clarification— N4DT Comments concerning the::GlacierTown Center
Wayne; Iwanted'-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 offransportatian's. (MDT) current ztatus 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 stilt multiple
details thatwill need. to be.reviewedand reconciled;but:again we. are :accepting.to'the:
conceptual plan-
Regarding.paragraph 1—'IVIDT 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.
OInterchange could provide. increased: safety and: mobility.we da. 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. Interchange 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
duringconstruction of the intersection. MDT will work.with the developer to. determine
the most appropriate signal operation.
Wayne, I hope this clarifies.l MT's status of the development. If you..have:any questions
please do not hesitate to calf me at 406-523-5802.
Sincerely,
Dwane E. Kailey, P.E.
OMissoula District Administrator
copies: Tom Jentz, Planning Director, City of Kalispell
Ji,rn Hansz, PublicWozks. Director QY QC'alispell
Jim Skinner; .Manager — Program and Policy Analysis. Bureau
R. Chad. Wolford, Wolford Development
Dave :lolly; Semi:Tool.
Stephen Herzog, Maintenance Chief, Kalispell Area
Danielle Bolan,: Traffic and Safety Bureau