Loading...
11/07 Agency CommentsE�w— _ Montana Department of Transportation .1:rr: Lynch,, Director nr—m2 /f— . m P ydC 210 r; 01 Pr�,pect Avenue i1 �..an ,icnweii?tr. Governor PO Box 20 100) Helena MT 59620-1001 \ovember 27. 2 . Wayne Freeman Director, CTA LandWorks 1.143 StoneridQe I)rive Bozeman. NIT -9 7 S Subject: 1NII)T Comments Concemiu the Glacier Town Center (6c.71.-�7.e1'- %,\la_yne, the Nlontana Department of Transportation (NIDT) has the lollowmc comments concer-ning the TIS and the issues discussed in the November 26'l', —')()Q7 meeting between the developers, the City_ of Kalispell and -NIDT: I . MDT supports the goals set forth in the Kalispell Transportation Plan including the proposed use of ji . interchanges north of `Hest Reserve Street on US 93. There are, however, significant challenges reeardinry the use of interchanges on US 93 north of West Reserve Street that remain unresolved. Given that these issuers cannot be resolved in the short terns, MDT \viil consider allowing this development to improve US 93 with signals as interim irnprove,ments for the. Glacier To,,vm Center. 2, NfDT requires the developer to submit for review a supplement to the TIS that clearly analyzes the recently discussed configuration of -improvements proposed for the. subdivision. The supplement must clearly 1dentifV improvements required at each phase to full build out. NIDT has the fo(lowuz comments regarding the interim improvements a discussed in our recent meetine: • NIDT concurs that the Rose: Crossing and US 93 intersection must be signalized by the developer. • VIDT contra's Access B as indicated in the attached Site Plan must be si�Tnaiized b;J the developer. • NOT concurs Access A as indicated in the attachment trust be litrtited to a turn movement, • ivIDT concurs Access C as indicated in the attachment must be signalized when warrants are met based on the 3 lane desirun. • Improvements to Whitefish Stage Road at the proposed locations have not been adequately addressed for NIDT to provide comment. It should be noted the analysis provided for all of Whitefish Stage Road and its intersection with West Reserve Street assumes \-IDT improvements to be in place that are not programrned or anticipated in the next firncling cycle. This issue must be addressed in the supplement to the TIS. • Pei- it71DT review process, we will require the developer to submit for approval designs for all identified improvements. Design requirements for all identified -Improvements must be discussed in a scopino meetine with iviDT and the developer. 4. NIDT has not had an opportunity to review the development concerning access control issues. US 93 is an access control facility which can ultimately require action with l is NIT Transportation Commission and other administrative actions. Typicall%, NIDT does not make any reconunendations to the Commission before the rep: ieGv process is complete for the permits requested b\ a de tloprnent. No permits will be issued prior to commission approval. if required. 5, rile developer must submit completed approach permit applications and environmental cliecklisis for each access location on MDT's s"°stern. Pro^rom a FohcyAnalysia ruruziu An Equ0i OpPorlunihl C'Y?,ployer Rad, Transit ana Planninp Dirisbrr i='ltawr jtiUc; 444--3423 % v Y: (8DO,' :2 7^92 Fax' (406) 4»4-7671 V,'&b Peae: svm�r.mdt.slate,rnLt�s 6. The developer must provide copies of any State or Federal agency permit. required for this deveiopment. At a minimum, NIDT requires a copy of the MT DEQ Inter verifying _your Storm Grater Discharge Notice of Intent application has been submitted and is in order. Detailed information concerning the environmental analysis materials can he found on Pa�,,c 20 of the Developer's Guide. Tip;: developer must submit a hydraulics report for the development. The hydraulic report will need to include all items identified in the Hydraulics checklist on PaLre 1S of the Developer's Guide. An e,—Keel spreadsheet with MDT rational can be. made available to the de-velope- upon request. Typical],,, devcloners submit this information after rneeting with i`,-ZDT to scope the desig(T for mitigations. NIDT will require the developer to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (NIOA) that details the developer`s responsibilities for complete mitigation of all this development's impacts to MDT's system. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. at 444-9416. S i ncercl y, Mlle Tierney Planner - Progrram and Policy Analysis Bureau Attachments; Developer's Guide Copies: Duane Kaileyr, P.E., Dist-rict Administrator— Missoula Stephen Hcr-og, P.E., Maintenance Chief— Kalispell Area Danielle Bolan. P.l.. Traffic Enuineer James Frevholtz, P.E„ Traffic Engineer - Kalispell Area Office Jim, Skinner, Nlanager -Prog-yarn and Policy Analysis Bureau Ryan Antonovich, P,L., Traffic Engineering Jim liansz, Public Works Director, City of'Kalispell, P.O. Box, 1997. 312 1st Avenue East, Kalispell, NIT 59901 Tom. Jentz, Planning Director; City of Kalispell, P.O. Box 1997; 31? lst Avenue East, Kalispell, MT 59901 R. Chad Wolford, Wolford Development, Inc., 1200 Mountain Creek Rd., Suite 102. Chattanooga, TNI 37405 Dave :folly, Semi -Tool, PO Box 7010, Kalispell MT 59904 e " v Homan+ Department of Irons o.,tchon November 28, 2007 Wayne Freeman Director, CTA LandWorks 1143 Stoneridize Drive Bozeman, Mi T 59718 Subject: Clarification — MDT Comments concerning the Glacier Town Center Wayne, I wanted to clarify the Ietter dated November 27, 2007. I feel the tone and statements in the letter could be misunderstood and could lead to a misunderstanding as to the Montana Department of Transportation's (MDT) current status ofthis development. Let me first state that MDT has reviewed the conceptual design presented to us on November 26, 2007 and we are approving the conceptual design. There are still multiple details that will need to be reviewed and reconciled, but again we are accepting to the conceptual plan. Regarding paragraph I — MDT is not requiring the developer to build a Junior Interchange at any of the proposed accesses to US 93. While MDT does believe, a,Junior Interchange could provide increased safety and mobility we do not believe it is appropriate to require this developer to design and build such improvements. We are also very concerned as to the feasibility of ever establishing a Jr. Interchange in the vicinity of the proposed accesses. Therefore, MDT is acceptable to the understanding that signals will be installed at accesses (Rose Crossing a:nd.B) and that these signals will be permanent. Regarding paragraphs 2 thru 8 — MDT believes these items will be resolved as we work through process with the developer. Furthermore, we do not believe these items should be misunderstood as fatal flaws to the development. The developer has demonstrated a willingness and commitment to resolve these issues and we are confident a resolution will be reached. Paragraph 3, Bullet #4 — Clarification, the developer will be required to install the signal during construction of the intersection. MDT will work with the developer to determine the most appropriate signal operation. Wayne, I hope this clarifies MDT's status of the development. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at 406-523-5801 Sincerely, Dwane E. Kailev, RE Missoula District Administrator copies: Tom Jentz, Planning Director, City of Kalispell Jim Hansz, _'ublic Works-Directorl � ty.ofIKalispeil Jim Skinner, Manager — Program and Policy Analysis Bureau R. Chad Wolford, Wolford Development Dave Jolly, Semi -Tool. Stephen Herzog, Maintenance Chief, Kalispell Area Danielle Bolan, Traffic and Safety Bureau 600, 1200' %mmm� SCALE. 1" = 600' Glacier Town Center Access Locations Kalispell, Montana A I JK November 26,2007 cv/ oltaw g'is1L, w =, Wddlife 6& TarKs - , T 0 4 2 7 M 490 N. Meridian Road.: Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 751-4543 FAX (406) 257-0349 10/2/2007 REF:MD050-07.doc Sean Conrad City of Kalispell Planning Department 17 Second St. East, Suite 211 Kalispell, iviT 59901 Dear Mr. Conrad, Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the proposed development project called Glacier Town Center. I spoke with the authors of the EA regarding building setbacks and riparian buffer zones adjacent to the Stillwater River. I recommended that they consider minimum building setbacks of 200 feet with vegetated buffers of 75 feet or more. It appears from the proposal and the EA that they propose building setbacks approximately 500-650 feet from the river. I strongly support this approach with the belief that these widths will protect water quality and wildlife habitat resources along the river corridor. A wildlife biologist from Fish, Wildlife and Parks and myself reviewed in the EA regarding wildlife habitat and largely concur with the conclusions drawn. The EA stated that there is approximately 7 acres adjacent to the Stillwater River to be used as park / open space. I strongly support this designation and recommend the city consider an additional use at this site. Recreational boaters, mostly canoeists and kayakers, use the Stillwater River. Currently people access the Stillwater River at a number of points, generally public road crossings. Popular floats on the Stillwater River include the Church Road crossing down to this area around Reserve Road and from this point down to the Kalispell's Lawrence Park or down to Leisure Island at a Flathead County owned access point. An established river access at this key location is not only presently needed, but will be even more valuable as the Glacier Town Center becomes occupied with the anticipated 1655 new residents in the proposed 550 units. I recommend the City consider negotiating with the proponent construction of a river access at this site. This could include a road and parking area, outside the 200 foot setback zone in the southwest corner or the property, to the west of the commercial buildings. I recommend the site include a pathway from the parking area down to the river to allow boaters to carry small watercraft to the ..pater. Within the 7 acre parcel there may also be potential to establish a picnic area and restrooms. Currently, the City of Kalispell, Flathead County and Fish Wildlife and Parks own and maintain river access points in this part of the valley. Any one of these three entities or a partnership between these could own and maintain this site. As the Flathead Valley becomes more populated, the demand for recreational river access will continue to increase. New accesses are needed to meet this demand and reduce further crowding at existing sites. Please consider development of a river access as part of the Glacier Town Center. If there are any questions or I can be of any assistance, please contact me. Sincerely, ; ��wlk U Mark Deleray Fisheries Biologist DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS BRIAN SCHWEITZER ARMED FORCES RESERVE CENTER GOVERNOR 1900 WILLIAMS STREET -STATE OF MONTANA OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL PO BOX 4789 MAJOR GENERAL RANDALL D. MOSLEY FORT HARRISON, MONTANA 59636-4789 November 6, 2007 Sean Conrad Senior Planner City of Kalispell 17 - 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Re: Glacier Town Center Project Dear Sean: I would like to thank the City Kalispell for allowing us the opportunity to comment on the proposed Glacier Town Center Development. The proposed development borders our property on the south and east. The National Guard Facility uses include vehicle storage, office space, classrooms and drill facilities. Our facilities are compatible with light industrial, office, and or commercial uses. We are concerned that this development is proposing single family uses adjacent to our east property boundary. On the weekends we have up to two hundred people drilling. While this may not be a major noise issue for office, commercial or industrial uses this may be a bit more distracting for the single family home owner next door who is trying to read the Sunday paper and sleep in on Saturday or Sunday morning. We are also required to keep our facilities well lit. Residential user next door may find this a bit distracting. It would be preferable if this development proposed uses that might be more compatible with existing uses or created some sort of a buffer area (open space) directly east of our property boundary. We do not wish to hinder the development around our facility, but we would ask that you take into consideration the current uses adjacent to this proposed development and perhaps mitigate what might be an issue down the road between the proposed residential use and the current use of the National Guard Facility. Thank you for you time and consideration. Since ly yip f Debra LaFountaine Master Planner AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER"