Loading...
Resolution 4471/Resolution of Intent and AttachmentsRESOLUTION NO,AA12— A WHEREAS, o April .9 , the City Council adopted the Kalispell City -County Master Plan by Resolution No. 3641, and WHEREAS, the Montana Department of Natural. Resources, in 1997, rude an application to amend said Master Plan by changing the designation of approximately boo acres of state school trust land located in Section 36, Township2 BN, Range 22W, P.M. ., Flathead County, Montana, and WHEREAS, on March 9, 1999, the Kalispell City- County Planning Board held a public hearing, after due and proper notice, received public comment upon, and received FRDO report KMA- 9 9 - 1 which evaluated the proposal based upon the goa.s and objectives of the Master Plan, the purpose o zoning and current circumstances in the planning jurisdiction, and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said public hearing and after consideration on of the proposed amendment, the Kalispell City County Planning Board, adopted report KMA- 9 - , a the findings of fact and recommended that the Kalispell City -County Master Plan be amended through the adoption of a Neighborhood Plan to serve as basis for future development of the property encompassing said School Trust Land, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell considers it advisable that they consider recommendation of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and adopt a Resolution of Intention to Adopt, Revise or Reject a Recommended Neighborhood Plan Amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDY THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of KALISPELL, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I, That pursuant to Section -1- o , MCA, the City Council of the City of Kalispell intend to consider the revisions of the Ka ell City -County Master Plan, as recommended y the Kalispell. City -County Planning Beard, t change he plan for the area located in Section 36, Township 2 N, Range 22W, . M . M , , Flathead County f Montana, by adopting, evI sing or rejecting a proposed Neighborhood Plan for said land. SECTION II, That the City Council of the City of Kal ispell shall consider whether o pass a final resolution revising sing .e K l. pel . City -County Master Plan as set forth herein at a meeting o be held on June 7, 1999 .M., at the Council Chambers, City Hall, Kalispell, Montana, and at the conclusion of said meeting the City Council will consider a Resolution to revise, reject or adopt the proposed amendment. SECTION ION III. The City Clerk of Council o e and directed to give notice of this meeting in accordance with Section 7-1-4128, MCA. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED Y THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALIS EL , THIS 3rd DAY OF MAY, 1999. Wm,1.,BahDrsR*1 e Wm. E. Boharski Mayor Attest: Theresa White Clerk of Council NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is herebygiven that the City Council of the City o Kalispell has a proposal, submitted by the Montana ana Department o Natural Resources, to adopt a Neighborhood Plan for School Trust ,and locatedin Section 36, Township 2 N. Rance 22W, P # M . M . , Flathead County, Montana. The proposed revision to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan has been reviewed .e Kalispell City - County Planning Board and the Kalispell City -Counter Planning Board forwarded to the Kalispell City Council and the Flathead Board of Counter Commissioners a recommendation that said proposed amendment e approved., in accordance with § -1- 60 , M.C.A. The City Council on the 3rd dayof May, 1999, passed a RESOLUTION of INTENTION To ADOPT, REVISE OR REJECT A RECOMMENDED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE KAL I PELL CITY -COUNTY MASTER P AN . Said proposed amendment would chance the Kalispell City -County Master Plan n the 7th day of June, 1999, at " : o o P.M. . In the Council Chambers of City Hall, Kalispell, Montane., the City Council of the City of Kalispell will hold a public hearing and consider passage of a final resolution adopting, revising or rejecting the proposed amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. For further information on act: City Clerk of Council, P.O. Box 1997, Kalispell, MT e l e: 7- 7 n. Tie re a White Clerk of Council Publish: May 25, 1999 June 1, 1999 Flathead Regional Development Office 723 5th Avenue East -Roam 414 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: 8-8 REPORT TO. Kalispell Mayor and City Council FROM: Narda A. Wilson, Senior Planner Chris A. KkuIsk., City Manager SUBJECT DNRC Neighborhood Plan for School Section 3 - An Amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Flan MEETING E.* Jiine 7, 1999 ACKGR UN : The DNRC is proposing a neighborhood plan for the purpose of establishing guidelines for the lease and development of approximately 600 acres o school trust land. The plan board held a public hearing on March 9, 1999 on this matter and then held a special meeting on .April 20, 1999 for finer consideration and action. The planning board recommended, on a vote of six M favor and one opposed, that the county commissioners and city council approve the raster plan amendment. The county commissioners adopted a final resolution adopting the plan amendment ent on May 20, 1999. Because this is are amendment to the Kalispell City - Co my Master flan, this plan also required approval by the city council in order for the plan to be fonnally and finally adopted. RECOMMENDATION: A motion to adopt the resolution amending the master plan y adding the DNRC Neighborhood Plan as are addendum to the Kalispell City County Master Plan would be in order. FISCAL EFFECTS& Unknown. ALTERNATES: As suggested by the city council. • Nar a A. sorb Senior Planner Report compiled: June 3, 1999 Chris A. Klul ski City Manager Attachments: (previously forwarded) Letter of transmittal Draft plan and map Staff report KM-9 9-1 and back-up r.a.terl als Draft planni-ng board minutes Providing Community Planning Assistance : ► Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls * City of Kalispell * City of Whitefish Flathead Regional Development Office 723 5th Avenue East -Room 414 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: 758-5980 Apn'123,1999 .Al Thele ., Interim City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Drawer 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 e; Master Plan Amendment Request from Montana Department of Natural Resources for school Section 3 Dear AL The Kalispell City -county Planning Board held a special meeting on April 20, 1999 to consider a. request by the Montana Department of Natural resources for a Neighborhood Plan for the state school section property located at the northwest corner of Four Mile L r ve and Highway 93. The State hired David Greer, land use consultant, to coordinate the planning process for the plan. Several neighborhood meetings were held as well as a public hearing before the planning board on Marcia. 9 , 1999. Tom Bentz, Director of the Flathead Regional onal evelopment Off" -ice, made a oriel' presentation to the board at the public hearing and recommended they adopt staff` report KMP - - l as findings of fact and resolution KMPA-99-1 which includes a copy of the draft plate. and map as an amendment to the master plan . The development .t plan owes goals and pollees for the proposed development of the site with a. mix of commercial, office and high density residential uses. The development plan anticipates draffing a memorandum of understanding with. the City and County and using a performance lased zoning proposal alter the plan has been formally adopted. The draft plan and map, planning board minutes and resolution are attached with this transmittal. A resolution of intent .t for this proposal should e scheduled for city council consideration. A transmittal is also being sent to the county commissioners for their consideration which will be scheduled to coincide e with the city co nci .' timetable . if you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact rye or Tom Jentz at the Flathead Reional evelopr. ent Office at (406)758-5980. Sincerely, nispell qKV-Couptoyo)Planning Boair rear. os Preside JJ J NtrV/ Providing Cornilty Planning ,assistance T: * Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell * City f Whitefish • NRC Master Plan Amendment April 23, 19 Page Attachments: Draft plan and reap FRDO Report KM1-- and back-up materieds Resolution KM -- raft Minutes from the planning; board meetings o; Theresa ate, Cif Clerk w/Att Jon Dahlberg David Greer Board of County Commissioners • .. KAKM- KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY COUNTY MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION "P-99-1 WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County Master~ Plan was adopted by the Kalispell City council on April 7, 1986 by Resolution .43641 and by the Flathead County Board of Conimissioners by Resolution 578 on February 6, 1986; and WHEREAS, this plan is general in nature addressing a broad level of community wide goals; and WHEREAS, the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation NRC) owns approximately boo acres of State Section 36 in Township 29 North, Rage 22 West which is bounded on the north by Reserve Drive, on the east by Hwy, 93, on the south by Four Mile Drive and on the west by Stillwater Road, and; WHRE S, the DNRC is desirous of developing a plan for this land that would glare them a greater degree of guidance for future development, and WHEREAS, the DNRC Neighborhood planing effort began in August, 1998 for the purpose of developing a more specific neighborhood plan that would address local issues and offer local solutions for the NRC; and WHEREAS., the r N C Neighborhood planning effort continued throughout the remainder of 1998 and into early 1999 resulting in the preparation of a draft nelg borhood plan-, and WHEREAS, on January 12, 1999 the Kalispell City-Courity County canning Board held a study session to review the neighborhood plan; and WHEREAS, the Kalispell city -county county Planing Board then held a public heang on said neighborhood plan on March 9, 1999, and then continued discussion on the neighborhood plan unto April 20, 1999, tang all comments received at the public hearing both Witten and oral into consideration; NOW THEREFORE let it be resolved that the Kalispell City -county county Planning Board hereby recommends to the Kalispell city council and the Flathead County Board of commissioners that the DNRC Neighborhood Plan as illustrated in Attachment A be adopted as an amendment to the Kalispell city -county Master Flan and that the plan as described in Attachment B be adopted as an addendum to the Kalispell City- C ou nt y co .nty M aster Plan Year 2 o 10. Signed on this day of April# 1999. KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY COUNTY PLANNING Bow M SN N PAN-s. oc KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MEETING March 9, 1999 CALL TO ORDER AND The meeting was called to order by Jean Johnson at ROLL CALL approximately :02 p.m. Members present were: Donald Garberg, ,fob He neeke, Greg Stevens, Jean Johnson, Don Dines, Keith Brian Sipe, and Don Mann. Joe Brenneman was absent. The Flathead Regional Development Office was represented by Tom Jentz and Narda Wilson. 'there were approximately 23 people in the audience. " ROVAL OF It was noted by the Board President, Jean Johnson, that a vote of Mks abstention sty requires a. majority vote of the members present, thereby rendering that vote the equivalent of a negative Soto. But with a member excusing hi-Tn self because of a conflict, which should be done before the issue is discussed or voted on, then the requirement becomes the majority of the members voting. n a motion by Stevens and seconded by Mom, the mutes of the meeting of February 9, 1999 were approved with the following amendments: Unicore - Board Discussion - Page 1.1, comments made by Jean Johnson: 'there was no technical information available as to the bore hoes and It had to be avci able to make a determination on setback. The board had reviewed a smear subdivision with smear soils and minimum setback based on analyses was 35', therefore that would negate their proposal. It 14 physically impossible to back a car out of the parldng areas as shorn on - the prehminary plat)Without hitting someone, They had an onsite drain system design that would totally undennine the fon ation and it is totally unacceptable in his mind. On a vote by acclamation the motion passed unanimously. NRC NEIGHBORHOOD A request by the Department of Natural Resources and AN Conservation ,for consideration of Neighborhood ghborhood 'lan to assist the DNRC in their long range lain efforts to meet both the Mate and community goals. STAFF REPORT Tom Jentz introduced David Greer, band Use Consultant to the Department of Natural. Resources and Conservation who gave a. presentation on the DNRC Neighborhood Plan. Greer explained the property bo nda es of the proposed plan. He noted that the Mate School Trust Lands are designated as property held in perpetuity by the Mate to generate revenue for the state school system. He noted that this is a. long term plan and went over the plan and its processes explaining in the 4 pods within the property and the different phases ofthe plan. He highhghted the plans designations and roadways. He stated that the DNRC is asking for an official amendment to the Kalispell Master Plan and wart to adopt zoning regulations, both of which will be followed in the development of the property.. A Memorandum of Agreement with Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting March 9, 199 Page 1 of 9 the city and county is suggested, which will show the goodwill of the DNRC to adhere to the Master Plan and Zoning Regulations as adopted. He presented a handout to the Board which addresses the concerns that the FRDO had in regard to the phasing of the development. Ted Giesey, DNRC Manager of Trust Land Management Programs for the northwest corner of Montana, continued the presentation by explaining the State statutes relating to the propel involved in the proposed neighborhood plan. Any use of these lands roust generate revenue for the State school system at full market value. They have to comply with the Montana Environmental Policy Act. Also must seek highest development of the property, to the benefit of the local community and state and must be sound. The legal staff for the DNRC advised that the only legitimate objective in the management of gist land is in the production of revenue, no other use is constitutional. DNRC has clear direction to manage the stags School 'Trust Lands for economic gain, without impairing the long -tern productivity of the land, and lm'thin the bounds of the Montana Environmental Policy Act. In summary, we are directed to rn e income, but must consider and prevent damage to the natural and human environment. Jon Dahlberg, area manager for DNRC, explained the public input process they have undertaken with this proposal. He noted that he had incorporated the FRDO and. David Greer as well as the adjacent land owners and public officials in this process. They conducted public meetings in order to incorporate the public concerns and evolved the plan to meet the requests of the neighbors. He cited concerns that if a plan for development is not adopted the DNRC wiU be in a position of having to accept whatever cones along in order to meet their directives. They would like to sec a plan, implemented that would allow for direction in the development of this property. Toni Jentz gave a. presentation of staff report KNp--- l inwhich staff' recommended that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board adapt, by resolution, the DNRC Neighborhood. Flan as an addendum to the Kalispell City county Master Flan Year 2010 with the conditions as stated in the report. He explained that the Board's responsibility is to dete�ne whether the plan complies with the Master plan and if it does not then whether it warrants an addendum to the Flan. Stevens asked Mr. Giesey, if the plan had been submitted to the Land. Board. Greer answered that the position the DNRC has taken is that this process should go through the local plannm' g process before going to the Land Board. PU13LIC HEARING The pubic hearing eras ope ►.ed to those in favor of the petition. PROPONENTS Jon Dahlberg, as a homeowner in the area, noted that he would Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting March 9, 1999 Page like to have planned growth and development on the property. Bryce Hades., who lives nearby the propel question also spoke for Citizen's for a Better Flathead. He said the group is generally in favor of the planned approach to development. He also spoke of concems that the plan may dam the value of the current commercial properties in the county, and phasir� g concerns. Two suggested changes: 'age x and Page 11 change to 75 % developed prior to development of the next phase. Dale L uma , 169 Trail Ridge Road, agrees with the planned OPPONENTS development process but believes a. reasonable range o altematives has not been considered. He noted concerns over non- compliance with the current, t, and proposed revised, Master Plan, citing many sections of non-compliance. (Board President Johnson explained that the board has to use the current Master Plan in maldng determinations, therefore the board cold not consider any comments in regard to compliance with the proposed revised Masten Plan.) Lurnan stated in chasing that he chooses to live within the jun*sdiction of the Master plan and associated zoning so that be can have a reasonable expectation of retairn'g the character of the neighborhood and surrounding area. The Planning Board and elected officials have a obligation to follow the Master Plan, and protect property rights both by allowing people reasonable freedom to with their property what they wart as Drell as preserve the character of his neighborhood so as not to degrade his quality of life and property values* His concern is that the DNRC is that the plan is way out of scale in size and i�pa.ct for the plan ni g jurisdiction. and would seriously impact the current commercial areas. No one else spoke against the plan and the public hearing was closed.. BOARD DISCUSSION Torn explained, that the bando is given by Mr. Greer shoe ld be incorporated in the plan if the board moves forward with the plan. Stevens noted that he had questions and concerns on the compatibility of the plan With the mandates by the state on trust. land. He wondered whether the planning board has any authority to inake recornmendatio s, or if the plans shoiald be through the DNRC, the bard Board and the state processes before coming to the planning board or the city. Tom dentz explained to the board members that the DNRC is setting up a. relationship with the board the city and the county and is asIdng that the master plan be anie led in respect to the land so that they would be able to plan developmentally and then there would not be incremental development. ent. Stevens asked who has the feral authority on plan and development of the tryst land.. Kalispell Clry County Planning Board Minutes of meeting March 9,1999 Page 3 of 9 DaWberg explained that this process has never been done before and that the DNRC administrators, legal staff and Commissioners are familiar with this plan, as is the Board of Land Commissioners. The teat is to work toward a better system for the use of trust lands that wiH give the community a plan that they are in agreement en.t it and meets as much as possible the Master flan for the area and fret still meets the directives by the state. In response to further questions from the board., Jentz noted that the board should, if they choose to move forward, continue the application to the next meeting and direct the staff to prepare a resolution. MOTION Stevens s moved and Sipe seconded to continue this process for 30 days to the next regular meeting). On a roll call vote: Hines, Stevens, Nana, Sipe and Johnson voted Are. l einec e and Garr erg voted No. The motion passed on a vote of -2 in favor of continuation. The staff was directed to prepare a resolution to be presented at the next regular meeting. HANC ZONE A request by Michael Ha xc ett for an amendment to the Kalispell AMENDMENT Zoning Ordinance, to allow single family, duplex and multi -family residential uses as petted uses M the - , Central Business .strict. STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, Senior Planner, gave a presentation of staff report KZTA-99-3 In which staff supports the petition and recommends that the Board adopt the reports as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council to allow single-family residences, duplexes and multi -family dwellings s a petted use in the - , Central Business. PU13LIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to hose m favor of the petition. PROPONENTS Randy Snyder, representing the petitioner, spoke in favor of the application, citing that the petitioner has o -ned the property for a number of gears and has used it as a rental property. He noted that the rental is M' extreme disrepair and, based on their research and recommendations, they chose to request a text amendment for the permitted use of residences in the commercially zoned area. This would allow for ftnrovements to current residences M the area without causing any impact to the neighborhood, the plan or the long range goals of the area. Wilson presented a letter received at FRDO from Sandie Mueller isupport of the petition and outlined the comments M the letter. OPPONENTS No one wished to speak in opposition to the petition and the hearing was closed. Kalispell City County Planning Board Cp Minutes of meeting March 9, 1999 Page 4 of City Council to approve R-2 zoning, Sipe seconded. On discussion Brenneman stated that the board should not arbitrarily change an application but must make decisions based on the applications as presented. On the motion the roH caH vote was: Sipe, Mes, Mara, Hcmeckc, Johnson, Garberg and Stevens voted Yes. Breneman and Rice voted No. The motion to amend the findings and recommend approval of the request for a zone change to T 2 passed on a vote o -2 in favor. NEW BUSINESS 'there was no new business presented. OLD BUSINESS CONTINUATION N of Continuation of the DNRC Plan amendment and Neighborhood NRC PLAN Plan addendum: Jentz explained that the staff and the DNRC are recommending that the newly developed amendments dT ents e adopted and then the Neighborhood plan be adopted or denied by a resolution. MOTION der some' discussion by the board, Sipe moved and Gar en, seconded that due to the late hour the Board continue discussion and recommendation of this item to a special meeting to be held at the work session dated April loth. By acc a nat o . vote the motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting, May 11 , 1999, vvUl begin at 6 p.m. The meeting was adjourned by motion at approximately 1: o ` a.m. Jean Johnson, 'resident Tricia Laske, Recording Secretary Approved as ././99 . Kalispell city County Planning oa r Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999 Page 13 of 1 KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 249 1999 CALL TO ORDER AND The special meeting was called to order by gear Johnson at ROLE. CAL approximately ' :10 p.m. He motel the sole purpose ofthe meeting was to consider the Montana Department of Natural resources Members Neighborhood Plan for Section 36. Members present were: rob I ei ecl e, Greg Stevens, Jean Johnson, Don Hines, Keith Brian Sipe, Joe Brenneman and Bel Rice. Don Garberg and Dori Mann were absent. The Flathead Regional Development Office was represented by Narda Wilson, There were appro=' ately three people ire. the audience. DNRC A request by DNRC for approval of a proposed neighborhood plan NEIGHBORHOOD known as DNRC Neighborhood plan, Section 36, property located. AN, SCHOOL on the west side of Highway 93 between Four M .e Drive and Nest SECTION 36 Reserve Drive, north of Kalispell. ST"F REPORT The chairman noted that this matter was continued from the regular April 1.3, 1999 meeting where a. staff report was presented by Torn gent , FRDO Director, with a. recommendation that the board adopt the 1- 9 9-1 staff report with the changes attached to his'inemorandum to the board dated April 6, 1999. Additionally, the board should adapt Resolution KMp -99-1 andfor-ward the plan to the Kalispell City Council and the Board of County Commissioners for consideration, Once adopted the plan would serge as an addendum to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. The matter was continued until the special meeting because of the late meeting on April 13, 1999. The chairman an asked for comments from the applicants . COMMENTS FROM David Greer, planning consultant for the DNRC, explained that the THE APPLICANTS reason for this proposal is to plan for long terra growth on this property, provide some predictability for the neighborhood and avoid the intrusion of inappropriate uses. Jon Dahlberg, Northwest Montana Region . Area Manager for DNRC, noted pass lard use decisions such as the transmission easement, the Kalispell Bypass and the location of the City ball.flelds were decisions that were not based on good planning and has unintended consequences for the future use of the remaining land.. For instance, they would rather have located the City ballfields on the northwest corer of the property rather than where is was located, but since there was not guiding doc rnent for land uses, it ended up elsewhere, Ted Giesey, Trust bands Program Manager with the DNRC, also noted that the lease negotiated with the City for the blfield Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 20, 1999 Pale I of property was based iapon the AG- 80 zoning and he does not believe was are equitable asessre.t. This fact let to the State mot receiving the highest possible value on the lease and to meet their mandate to seek the highest value of the land for the purpose of providing funding to the schools. Bow DISCUSSION Chairman Johnson noted that this was the first tirne that the DNRC has attempted to implement this Vie of plan for development on school trust lands There was discussion among the board about the plan and its relation to conventional zoning. Greer noted that this plan was the first step in the process and that the State intended to move orward with a customized proposal somewhat like a PUD that would address the location of streets, performance standards for landscaping and the types and timing of development. Furthermore, they would enter into a memorand-um of understanding with the City and County which would be binding t future land boards and provide assurances to the community regarding the type of development which would occur on the site. Stevens stated that he believed he is laced with a dilemma in this situation because he the emphasis of the plan is weighted M favor of the neighborhood concerns rather than the State's fiduciary respons bi i.ty to the school Est. Sipe stated that he agreed with Stevens that the Mate was not proposing to get the highest possible value for the property and did not understand why the State would want to bird themselves the type of par. being proposed. John Dahlberg explained the tenuous balancing of the various interest groups when making these decisions M order to avoid being taken to court., as they havc in the past. He further noted that the Montana Environmental Act M pA provides for a public process when considering the disposition of state-owned land.. There was additional board discussion regarding the type of lease holder that would make the necessary Mvestr ent to extend water, surer and provide other services to the site. Several board members expressed skepticism abot a lessee who would be Ong to make that kind of investment on leased. land. Others noted that there are many situations such as the Gateway West ball who heavily invest in leased land.. MOTION Heinec e moved and Pee seconded a motion to adopt Resolution KMPA- - i and staff report KNP- -1 and forward the plan on to the county commissioners and city council for consideration. The motion passed on a vote of six in favor and one opposed. Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 20, 1999 Page 2 of '3 ADJOURNMENT Haig Wished the business M'tended for the special meeting, the annboard adjoumed at row. tc y 7:49 PW It was noted that the next regular will start at 6:00 PM. Joan Johnson, President Narda Wilson, Recording Secretary Approved as s .tt corrected: �/�/qq Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 20, 1999 Page 3 of DNRC NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN RDo STAFF REPORT KNW99•-1 ADDENDUM TO THE KAS CITY -COUNTY MASTER PLAN MACH 211999 Definition of a Neighborhood n The neighborhood plan is a tool to coordinate and clarify the development of a specific neighborhood or project area. The neighborhood plan focuses in on an area order to provide clear and detailed direction. The neighborhood plan is t pica . r developed with' the o eraH framework of the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. Wile t. e City County Mater Plan is very broad in its analysis and guidance for the community, the Neighborhood Plan serves to refine this overall concept by expanding on the goals and pohcies and providing guidance at the neighborhood or project level. The neighborhood plan, when adopted, embodies the public policy for the area it addresses. Any land use ordinance or regulation such as zoning or subdivision review shall be based on this plan. While this plan is specific in nature, it must be remembered bered that a neighborhood borhood plan is not an engineering or construction docurner t. gent: The Kalispell Office of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and. Conservation(DNRC) is requesting consideration of adoption of a neighborhood plan as are addendum to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. The neighborhood plan would apply to the Mate School Tryst Lands found in Section 3, Township 2N, Rage 22W, P.M.M., Flathead County. (See attached map.) The area is bounded on the north by West Reserve Drive, the east by US Highway 193, the south by Four Mile Drive and the merest by Stillwater Road (excluding the 20 acre tract of land described as Tract 2 situated on Stillwater Road In the center of the section owned by Gro s reiler Dairy) . The purpose of the neighborhood plan is to assist the DNRC in their long range planning efforts to meet both the Mate prescribed mandate of seeking the highest development and return on State-owned school trust lands while at the same time ensuring neighborhood compatibility and compliance with community goals. The DNRC is asking to amend the existing City County Master Plan, to incorporate this proposed plan as a specific neighborhood plan. The DNRC had originally hoped that the proposed update to the Kalispell City -County Master Plann would have been completed by this time so that the proposed neighborhood plan could be reviewed for compliance with the new plan as conceptually, the proposed plan had recognized changes in this neighborhood. This has not occurred and are adoption date of the draft City -County Master Plan is still some months in the future. Therefore, the DNRC Plan should be reviewed in the context of an overall amendment to the existing City -County Master Plan as well in that it departs substantially from the existing City - County Master Plan.. Page I of C. Reason for Request: The local DNRC C Office is mandated to ravage Section 3 (the subject of this neighborhood plan.) in accordance with Section -1- 01, Montana Codes Annotated rhich. states: It is in the best interest and to the great advantage of the state of Mortara to seek the highest development of state -owed lards in order that they might -be placed to the highest....and best use and thereby derive greater revenue for the support of the common schools, the university system, and other stitutiox s benefiting therefrom, and that in so doing the economy of the local community as well as the state is benefited as a result of the impact of such development."' The applicant states that over the years there have been a series of disjointed or uncoordinated decisions made relative to the use of this state school section. These decisions include placement of the BPA utility corridor criss-crossing the section., placement of the proposed Highway 93 bypass alignment through the middle of the property and lease of the southeast 160 acres of the site to the City for a. ball field recreational complex. While each decision had merits, taken collectively, they have limited the future use and viabl .ty of the section.. It is important to mote that the Mate of Montana is exempt from direct a phcation of local planning and zoning statutes. For example, Mate lair section -2- o2 MCA states that if a state agency wishes to use land contrary to local zoning it shall hold a non -binding public hearing prior to undertaking the action. Consequently, the plann-ing process and the neighborhood plan are voluntary efforts on their part to implement a long term management plan for their lands. The DNRC is willmg to be bound by the terms of the plan and any subsequent t zoning developed to implement this plan. Eidst n lard use and zo Mate Lands section 36 contains 620 acres, excluding the Grossweill er dairy 20 acre site on the west side, which was sold some time ago. The southeast 160 acres is leased for recreational ballfields by the City of Kalispell and is zoned - 1 within the City of Ka ispe . The remainder of the site is outside the city limits of Kalispell and i zoned .G- 0. The DNRC has its local office complex immediately north of the ball fields on Highway 93. The remainder of the site is actively farmed. The property is bisected southwest -northeast by a 250 foot wide BPA power lire corridor and by the proposed Westside Highway 93 bypass corridor which encompasses are a.dditiona. 250 foot wide strip. E. Existing aster Plan Map Desigration: The Kalispell City -County Master Plan reap carries 2 designations for this section.. The extreme southeast corner is designated public. The proposed neighborhood plan complies with this designation and the southeast 160 acres is presently leased for public recreation (ball fields) . The remainder of the site o plus acres) is designated Agriculture/ Silvacult .re on the existing City -County Plain map and described as beyond the immediate development needs of the city. This designation sloes not comply with the proposed neighborhood. plan. Page 2 of 6 The Kalispell City -County Master plan was last updated in April., 1986. It is genery acknowledged that the current plan is dated, unfortunately it is still the plan of record. The Planning Board is in the process of updating that plan at this time, however the plan is in the draft stage before the Planning Board and the plan update has no standing at this time. Cam ax a of I NRC Neighborhood Plan with a Kalispell Cl,- CountyMaster Plans The primary basis of review for a r el&borhood plan is its compliance or divergence with the adopted raster plan. Compliance factors: The neighborhood plan acknowledges the proposed Highway 93 bypass alignment adopted as part of the Kalispell Transportation Plan update. The neighborhood plan lies with in the perimeter of the urban growth boundary as adopted by the City Extension of Services plate. dated November 6, 1995. This boundary designates those areas in the next 10 - 15 gears that if developed should be ultimately served or designed to be seared by municipal infrastructure (sewer, grater, streets, etc.). Page 9, Kalispell city -county Plan, Goal 8, Public FacHities, policy a. states, "Designate areas of future development which are already serviced or are in areas which can be economically serviced by water and surer systems, police and fire .protection.."' The Kalispell City -County Master plan map shows the southeast corner of the section as public. The proposed neighborhood plan designates the southeast 160 acres a public sports fields and it is currently leased and utilized as such. Page 8. Kalispell City -County Plan, Goal 6, Lard Use, Policy b. states, "set standards for the designation or expansion of cornmerclad areas based on a compact de elopr ent pattern designed to meet the needs of the intended service area and not the desires of speculative or strip developers."' The purpose of the neighborhood plan mixed commercial POD is to designate a commercial area with design standards to encourage compact development which incorporates design standards that inhibit or preclude "strip" development. Page 8, Kalispell City -County Plan, Goal 6, Land Use, Policy h. states "Concentrate medium and high density residential units in areas close to commercial services, good traffic access and open space specifically to provide efficient access to these amenities for the occupants..." The plan clots provide a Tnixed use residential POD next to the Commercial POD and adjacent to the open space ball fields with convenient access Hwy, 93. Non-compliance factors: The Kalispell city -county Master Plan map designates the remaining 3 quarters of the section excluding the southeast quarter as Agriculture. The proposed neighborhood hl orh.00d Page 3 of plan diverges from this designating 3 different categories of wed corn ercial, wed professional and mixed residential, all of which involve urban scale development. The proposed neighborhood plan would replace the 480 acres of agricultural designation with. l 00- l 1 o acres of cor mercial property, 150 acres of professional office and neighborhood od commercial uses and 140 acres of residential designated property. Page 1 l of the Kalispell City -County Plan, Goal 12 and policies a speak strongly to recognizing that agriculture is an important element in the Co nty's economic base, that highly prodiictive lards are a finite resource, that usage of prime agnc It ral lands is in the public interest, that 1 3 of all prime lands in the county are within City -County planning jurisdictions, that there is a delicate balance between the remaining agricultural lards and the co nt 's agri-business support base and that creative ways reed to be fostered to protect these lands. G. Public comment I involvement: The DNRC and their consultant, David Greer, held 4 community meetings from August- ecerrber, 1998. In addition, approximatel.y a dozen additional meetings were conducted with smaller citizen groups, the Kalispell Planning Board, the County Commissioners, FRDO staff, etc. Letters were seat by FRDOo appro>dmtel. adjoining property ow-ners notifying them of the larch 9th Planning Board hearing while DNRC seat out notices to 60 individuals and agencies using a slightly overlapping list. Two written comments have been received to date by this office. Those letters are attached. Public concerns focused around the need to have a better documented phasing program that emphasizes b ildo t east to merest. There was a concem that development t within each POD may occur randomly which will prematurely limit the fa=ab*lity of the site, allow a. pattern of development which cannot be efficiently serviced by municipal services and therefore utilize septic systems, and inadvertently create a pattern of sprawl. There was also a concern that the commercial POD should have a substantial. b .ildo t before leasing and development of the other PODS occurs. The current neighborhood plan states that 0% of the site be leased before more than. 0% of the rnixed professional POD be leased for non-agricultural uses. A 75% lease ratio has been proposed by representatives of the resid.entied Country Estates Development t immediately north of Reserve. H. Staff concerns: While reviewing the draft plan and attending a series of neighborhood meetings, RDO staff has raised a series of concerns to the consultant and DNRC officials, These concerns have generally been affirmatively answered. Those concerns fell into 2 categories, land use and transportati : . To spec call r address the transportation issues a. specific transportation elemem, was added. staff issues and hour they were resolved are as follows.. Land Use: 1. FRDO encouraged compact development extending east to merest and south to north emphasizing ing a development pattern that could efficiently be served by the extension of municipal sewer and grater and alloy for orderly annexation. The addition of the south to north pattern makes good sense in the 4 Mile Drive area Page because of the presence of existing municipal services abutting Mile Drive. The south to north pattern is appropriate as weU as the east to west in the cone ercial. POD to allow the orderly expansion of the city services as well. There is a strong desire to inhibit sprawl by encouraging the haphazard development randomly across the section and to encourage the continuation of agn'culture on the undeveloped potions of the site. The DNRC plan provides a phasing plan that emphasizes the development of the reed commercial phase first, the wed professional phase second and the wed reide.tial phase last. Note that the plan (page 9, policy limits the mixed professional site development to less than 20% of the site until at least 0% of the mixed commercial site is leased. Note that no commercial uses are allowed in the mixed professional area per'od until the 0% threshold has been reached. DNRC has stated it is there desire to phase compactly east to west and south to north. Staff strongly supports this but encourages that a more specific discussion of the actual phasing concept be included. 2. There is a strong desire to eliminate the appearance or propensity for linear strip commercial development at the norrth entrance way to Kalispell along Highway 93. Pages -, policies 1-12 address this concern and discourage such commercial development patterns. This is done by orientation of buildings, setbacks, landscape buffers, limiting access to internal streets and limitations on the type of commercial uses that demand substantial outside storage and sig-nage. 3. Stillwater Road is extremely ely rural and under any phaslr g plan, is substantially removed from urban issues and should be buffered. deferred development area designation was placed along Stillwater Road. Transportation. 1, Limit the access onto Highway 93 to no more than 2, coordinating therm where possible to adjoining street access points. This has been done per transportation Section on page 14, goal 3 and policy 2- 3 page 15 and policy 1 page 7. 2. Limit the .ant mal access points to the Highway 93 corridor to one crossing as this A is a. moderate speed. arterial. This has been done per policy 5, page 1. 3. Place spacing requirements between access points on Reserve Drive, 4 Mile Drive and Stillwater Road. This has been done,, no access point on the above mentioned collectors shall be within 1,300 of another, all uses will have internal fools and access per policy 1-2 on pages 1 - 1 . Page of SUMMARY OFFINDINGS: The proposed neighborhood plan proposes a level of development substantially more intense than anticipated or planned for in the e sting City -County Master Plan. The neighborhood plan WIR ultimately encourage the conversion of Soo plus acres of agricultural land to urban uses. The plan will impose impacts on Reserve Drive and Mlle Drive. t the same time, the land lies within the urban groom boundaries of the city, municipal al services are available to this section of land, urban scale development abuts the site to the south, east and .off; lands lying adjacent to this site were recently the subject of a plan amendment ent to allow a commercial civic center and shopping mall on 65 acres, the plan acknowledges the bypass route, the orderly extension of services and utilitles, the need for annexation and the extension of municipal services at time of development Staff does recommend .d that the DNRC Neighborhood Plana be adopted as are addendum to the Kalispell City County dater Plan Year 2010 with the following 2 provisions: r The DNRC strengthen the section on phasing to ensure that development will indeed be phased east to west and south to north in compact fashion to allow for the orderly extension of services and Futilities, to encourage the coat uation of agriculture on the site as long as viable and to inhibit a pattern of sprawl. 2. The Kalispell City- Cou -ty Master flan update 2 2 still i progress incor o ante the DNRC Neighborhood Plan as an addendum and that the overall land use policy map 2020 acknowledge that this neighborhood plan is are. overa .l management plan for this area with an implementation buildout of lo- o years and that it will be phased east to west and south to north. Page 6 of ................................ s 1 t 40 #► i Wk 1 #i1r a _ � -`' A' iMY �i 49 WISST ME DR - a . + + , ... .•..�F +.`.".`.A. :':', ,�,i. :-,- ,'.•.-.•. .`.•.`.`.a.`.'.F.'t '.'.+.-.`.".".".'.'• ..�.�a ."..-.. .-...�.�.�a•.�.�........... . .. . r�'a�a•.i.x,i `,`,+++,a,+++,',' ,'� +'� ,, ',``•`,, ''"'•',`"`,",",",' +.},.r..'.'.'.`.`.'.'.'.'.`."+".'."t+.+.".+,+.+++.+.'.".},".",'.`.`.`.'.`.`ta.{ • '- . .a.. .T. .'. + +f• , r• t ,+-. . . .-.'.�. �a�.+.aaaay+*.t.'r•F,'t++•.',.------.+_`_-_-_-_r_i_-.`.+i.�_-.'_`.r.F. .+. .F . .........+ ...},y.}.t,*t*,".ir ...... ....... a�a . + t + r + , .... .. a + + . r .. .. . t + r r . .... a ...... a ... ..... . ii t ia.�.tttti. ,r` .............�".'+ ..... ... . .,".i++ ..�'-.�.'.'.a'...,. ."`..'.'.... .-. ... +'+++ .t� a +...�.�.�++.+.�.}.+.i.+tt.tt +iii+ii'ii++;+iF;''tit+t+ + .. r ++.�ttt .i,•,.+.. ....a', .•"',",+,+,+,'i'i .'•.'.a.+,+.+.'+`.".'."F``',"y".a.+.+.`.}.'A.�"Ft+tF ,-...r...�.-..*r *r' -, t . -- i .r: t-. + ' } -r„},r • �'� i . +! +Yr .i ay'.y r• '`'- ````'�"�". `.'.F"•spry". �.� F`. .``r'.-'}a^-`'''a. . �++'•'_- '-.'+'. a+'+.++ -.'.'.'.'. •.".y.j.".. + r- }++ -. .+++--a-'a-''``'' --''`'" r `'"`.�. . ''-'''''a}a` y `+ `a. �. . . . + . . . . . . . . . + . . . . . + r r r r + _ . + . . . r . + + : +� . . . . ,t.r Fa'a `tlt +.•,,, F, •r r.i.t.'.+.-.'.'.'a'.•.4.'y-y".+.+.ii*r+ ++�ayi=yat'*+ a+. F' .'.+.}.++++y+t+ F.`t•r •. . .`.'.`.-.-.. .FFy. . .ti '+ i'+'. ,++. k f t t"+ +tr• .t. rFt+++rr } tftr++ a+�y. µr •Y+t ".;, .t. ''.'. .'. .a. .'.'. `. '•' ++y *ttr F`i '- ''" `, `,y k.,a+}�. ' ..- ---F++t' ''- Jr' t.•.F'V+*++tr F-`''-4F4+`+.................. ``aa'++........+++r,t+....a.{J`+". + +++. t-r`•tt•i T'+''''--.#+ `''.'='t 'r-+r}''++`` ..... r... +-++}+ *`-.++-`-''-'y`""+a..++ .........k :.....�....:Ji+.±+. t..'.. ...+tttt++ taiiit i-*+ ' . . .' a .+. . . t t . t . . . . .`, . . .. .+.+.+.+. r*-'-�a'.'a + . + .a +. ++ `.`.-.-.-.+. .-.-.-.. .'.'+'.-+' -{ 'r'.'.'.". . .a.-..}. .i.. J1 £ y . + y . , , a a r k . . . + . ♦ t + ♦ . a a a + + Y + + , t . + .. . . . . a . + + . . + + + t 4 . . . . r . . . . + •"rFt. t . . a a • a . . . , y . . . . . r . . . . . . . . . . + . + . . . t . . .. . . . k + + t • r• + t . . .. . . . . . a fY . y a + a + . . k . . + . r . t t . . + + . + . .t#r. . • • t , y a . . . . a . . t . + .+ + . . , , . . . . t �! S J♦'i'.a r•`.a. i+.t.,.*.":F.`.. .a++ r • ++}+++. ,.i.'a .'. y.y .' as + 'i' 'r' . .rt .`r•".+.+.+. ta{t'++'+.+. }++rF t`F`F. a-.t.+. .'.'t'. `.'+ + . .' }' `--♦ I +'.r+t ,'i+++t++-` .+''+aa FtF. 4 .+.+.�.�� + • ry . . '. . . .F. -. . .' a.'.+.+++.'.}.".}.++++}+++}+}a �iky+♦ -` .* -t t*. ter ..�.+.�a�. +.. ... . t . .. . ... + ++< ttr r ..+ .-.`. .r+....+t......t...+.+.r..�.�.�.-.�..r.F..t.+. i.i. a .".'.. } .. + .. . . t ..-.. `.' r++ .. ..... a ...... ..... .....: . is •+*i+}• =� . .t. .. + .... .. ' . .. . t . . . . r• . r• r t . . . , a k . + . + + . t. t t'f . . . ++at}.}".y+ y , i `+--'-' T-•''`: i!}+ 'ty+}". .i. .r. -'' F t.r ...+.'..'.-...'.'.}.++'t*}tr•*.it+.at.F.-.'.'.'.... .. . . . . •.. . . . . . ..•'• . . . . . . . + • . . t r• • . . . . . . . k , a . . . . . . . • . + . . . . . . a . . . . . .t . .. . .. . . . . . + . . . .`.`.'.*• . ++•+++f++F+ • i -`'-' ' ` }'i}}t++. . . . .F. F .'. `.`+ 3 t}.i .'. .'.'.'.T.+.+.. .'. . .`.'.'a'.'.'.'.-.'.'. }. .+.+k".`.••iy.y.•`. . . . +T+'.'.}++.+•..10 . . • . . +`'.� . . . r r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k r• + • r"{" ` " `.}.".t.i. . a . , t . , + + . t + t r r . . . f }. . . . ' ...r. ... ".+a+++.'.+.it rr� :,v f `..r..� .t..t..�.�.- �.".t.'.+.+.+++.}.y. .t.t.. t, ...i .. -t ... `........i. 1:1 F ''�" " 'a-' t `+F ~" `, . y++..+*r3................ . ......`.`.-.i.'+t.'............. a.,r ...++.. ,.................... t ........... ....... ......a+....tttt,.t....t. ,., tt ., ............. r................... ..a.t., ...... ..........,...+ . ...................... .... + . ...... . y.................. . .... a , .. r '. .•.�.�.'.+.�,.�.':tt", ."a�.a.-.�.� .. •.-.-.'. •. `. `+'aaai. r*.i+ t r . ... / ..�.�.".'.tea+. ++ .}. i_++*++.`s`.'.'.'.` `.{`' '+': fi.{'a'{.".+.�.t.}.t.�.".�.... ram." - "-.i .. *{} + gat " a . . + . . .. r ... ... .. + .... . + + + + , + .. , , . .... • 4 J,��,+th*.' •.-.-.-.•..}.+. }i.. ,".'t ." y .�---�.�a--+, t,.'.i..+.'. .t i... ..-.'.'.-.'. .��.i.`.�.}. +.','r �.� ."'', '�.�.-..'. .�.�.�.•.•. �.�.�.�.�. � '.'..i.r...a}'� . .i.'..�.�. ". �.'.�+......+.+.t trt."..",.". - . }.}.'. .F.r.... .++. . .�a.,00 . ,-,,t . ,,'.T.,a..A.+.'+�...:" a,,-.-.,., '.'.'.+.T.i.'-.'.+.+.'.'a..' '.'..'..'_________ _____+..*+ +y_y.y..,+++ .R.•.•.•.•.ry.+.+. ++.ry.,.,.*.s.*.T.++`+'.+ �� � � �' . . . .',+. '.i r•,` ' + `'+'''-'J'}i+r•ivSt .-.'.-+ ♦'.'+'..i.iit+. . .+. •.-.•.'..-.`.'.`.J.'.'.'.'.'.'.•.T+'++++,'+T.'. .". .i. .r. .` i . ♦ . t . . . . . . . . ♦ ♦ . . . . , . + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y r .., .t .............. . LOT i ilia 10 SOL pw 1 wa } I !m IV3 ff r r veyi� •� iF.. -$ • LAG S ; ' - ti #_ +._ I f — 10 E.. S. ,. 1 i 7 VICINrl DAVID GREER ONBE—H—ALF OF MONTANA DEP—A—R—TMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION REQUEST FOR ADOPTION F A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AS AN ADDENDUM TO THE —K—A— SPELL CITY —COUNTY MASTER PLAN PLCrT naTE:2r17/e9 FILE # KMPA — 9 9 — i SCALE 1 " = 1200 H:\gi$\Slta\XJWPA99_l.d,.g T ry Country Estates Homeowners Association ., Box 753 KaispeiL MT 59901 ' Jane 11 7 1999 .,W. John Dahlberg Department of natural Resources and Conservation 0 FE<Yhwav 9 North Kalispell, MT-5.9901 Dear Nlr. Dahlberg, The Country Estates Homeowners Association (C-4r:7.1-LAO Board has reviewed your draft proposal for the � State Sect n � , as e� a r� fall pe l *� o ;:t aster n �? d reet o . e are �enerall supportive f the dry City -County _Master Plan, and recommend that the proposed land uses on the State Section be made compatible le with this direction. We do not support the Stat 's propose :ts CUT -rent form. Our primary concern is the =isting excessive commerciai and industrial development within the City -County planning area_ The CEFLA, Board would like for you consider the Following after native to your drab proposal for f5uture land uses on L-e Section: • H hwa Community- Ent- fixed Use � e rat Cite- ountf. Master ter Plan) e adopted for the area that the state has proposed as NLxed Commercial. However, we belleve to be onsisten'. with the drafti. Nf.asrer Plan, development acres must be limited to no more than that outlined on the drat Nfa.ster Plkan rn,-ip A prop atel ,open areas would be found within this development pod - Urban an Residential would be adopted for the area that the State has proposed as NUxed Professional and Nbxod Residential. If ne essay u. a land e 0lan e s ory.:ld e considered a a possible rneans to i p ernent this land use direction. 'he bypass aid utili t V coy rxUM 0Uld beefed and landscape o #n3 e of -site e `ects on residential propeIes. e!c ? r ornr er '. considered For this sip: wit pprop.ri t secondary access :'oa . .,.f dire e e.'e that the DN r us* o i� the processes laid our in the " � ,� !,�odel �.:;��'S tos �•o r LV­{� kLh�i o � ova-n� �x process. ANIEPA decision must precede any reco=e.nd .t on to the PlaninszBoard on nhe ut re land uses ofthe State"s Section- Planru'_ng of the State land on r)th sides or Kig a 9 must he considered when evaluating the compati illt , of tlds ,proposal to the Master Plan. The Board than . you for initiating the el } rood lannonappma for determining the for -tems ruse of the section of State land that is adjacent to the Country Estates subdivision.. We are lookin.a. forwarders to participating in 5 � re pl a r meednors to develop a con pnsus for development o the Section. r EI S. Board of Directors ' . Darr' j u f onta a l ntin#ng Consultants P.O. Box ' ' Kalispell, " 5994 4 ' Flathead eSl � al Deve-lopment t 'ice . J S -­AvenueEast -.doom 414 Kalispell, MT 5990 1 Cifizens for a Better Flathead P.O. Box 771*Kalispell., M• 5 0- 1 (406) . FAX (406) 756-8991 . -rail: citizens@d'l'gisys.net Kal spell City -County Plaming,:', Flathead Regional development ice .{ .. 723 Avenue Fast r Room 414 Kafipeh, MT 59901 1 Q 9 � # F`6. 2, 199 'laing Board, On behalf of Citizens For a Better Flathead, I ain submitting the followWg additional comments to the draftCity- County Master Pam. These comments are speck to the School Trusts Lands mi Sermon 36 noTffi of Kalispell. Due to the on -going process that the Montana Dement of later Resources and Conservation (E)N.0 is under tag we feel it is pre ature to designate any portion of this property as highway Community Entrance —Mixed Use at this time, we would rewmmend that you leave the designation as a Fatare Urban Expansion Areaurntil a neighborhood plan for fts area is agreed upon as this would be the niost appropriate time to make a cage to the master plan. .s you are well aware, the 3 20 acres for which the DNRC is formulating a neighborhood plan, is not sub ect to mandatory compliance with county or city land use regulations. their efforts,, however to draft land usc guidelines can be a win-Mn situation for all des if it can provide: 1 predictablc development guidelines and performance standards to direct the fuMm leasing of this land so that it ruts a high quality development and so that it beets the economy of the local community as well as the state, as required by 7 -1 ol,NLC.A. reasonable phasing parameters to ensure that this development ours wig a rework that promotes compact development patterns graduaUy expanding from the city limits, as opposed to disperse low level density development across the site. ass mncc that the proposed new devclopn ent will be required to be annexed to the city and to be fully served by urban infrastructure and .municipal services, which g fen the magmtude of the poterrtm] build out of "s site, will be necessary to ensure that at each phase here is adequate protection o water duality and cost eeec delivery of sees. Additionally we feel that it will be important to encourage innovative land use regulations to accommodate the above identified creiteria. Of particular importance is a phasing mechanism that would allow for periodic re sion of the Kalispell Master flan structured wit.ffiin this neighborhood plan., To designate this entire area as n-d commercial use as is being contemplated) at this time may discourage future potential options such as a land scrap or greater emphasis on residential developmcnt. Residential development nay be more appropriate and the need more apparent for this area in the future. lnnovative land use reg ations, however would be needed to enable the IRC to achieve the predictability and ewnortk goals diey desire now, Sincerely,, Mayre Flowers, Program Director Citizens For a Better Fladicad Every voice Is Important! Or State Land Management Philosophy The disposition of state land is governed by the Board of Land Commissioners. The Board consists of the five statewide elected officials; the Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, State Auditor, and Superintendent of the office of Public Instruction. This Board provides direction to the DNRC regarding the development of state land. The Board and the DNRC act as trustees and are bound by a fiduciary responsibility to earn income for the trust beneficiaries. Land Sales The DNRC considered in the development of section 36 sale of all or a portion of section in order to provide revenue for the trust beneficiaries. Procedures established for the sale of stag land can be found in the Montana Code rotated,, Chapter 77, .dart 2. The current Board has adopted a policy of not entertaining any new land sale proposals. This policy was adopted in part because of the rapid increase in land values in Montana and the Board's perception that the sale of any portion of the core trust asset (lard base) is not in the hest long term interest of the beneficiaries. Also, the policy was adopted due to the contentious nature of state land sales and the cumbersome process established in statute for these sales. Wherefore, this plan was developed with a primary emphasis on long term lease ar-rangements rather than land sales. However, future Boards are not bound by the currentBoard's policy and may elect to sell all or a portion of the subject state land, This plan seeks to provide direction for any ftre land use decisions that are made thro gh either lease arrangements or sale_ Land Exchange After review of the informal nal proposals for land exchange which have been suggested to the r'C, none could meet NRC's land exchange criteria. The current state ownership 41s ll positioned for future development and income generation, Land exchanges are time consuming and expensive. It was determined not to be in the trust beneficiaries best interest to exchange this parcel. Easements The .board has the ability to issue easements for a variety of uses identified in the Montana Code Annotated} Chapter 7 7, Part I and Chapter 70, Part o. The Board will retain the right to issue easements for these purposes regardless of the development of'this plan. Specifically, the Board and Department have looked favorably on application of school districts for location of public schools, Easements are sold at the fair market value of the underlying land. Listed below (or attached) are some suggested changes to the Plan based an recent public comment (prepared by the DNRC for public hearing on 3/9/99): statement will be added to the Introduction (page i) or Plan Development Process (page concerning the "lease" philosophy on school trust lands, See attachment. policy will be added to page 8 concerning the provision of city services. Language would be as follows: • City services, including water and sewer, are expected to be extended to the commercial pod as soon as practical based upon considerations of demand, type of use, and land use density. policy will be added to page 10 concerning scattered development patterns within a land use pod. Language would be as follows: The development pattern of nonagricultural uses will be from east to west t encourage the maximum amount of i~nfrll via clustering of uses, (2) prevent scattered development patterns within the pod, and 3 maximize the amount of continuous area available for agricultural practices at any given time. It will be suggested that policy number 4 on page 10 be deleted. A policy will be added to page 10 concerning provision of city water and sewer services. Language would be as follows: • City services, including water and sewer, are expected to be extended to the mined professional pod as soon as practical based upon considerations of demand, type of use, and land use density. It is suggested that the 5 th sentence on page 11 be reworded as follows: The development priority and intensity will be from east to west and south to north, with the lowest priority of development on the west side of the proposed by pass alignment. It will be suggested that policy number 3 on page 12 be deleted. A policy will be added to page 12 concerning scfterd development patterns within a land use pod. Language would be as follows: The development pattern of nonagricultural uses will be from east to west or south to north to 1 encourage the maximum amount of infill via clustering of uses, 2 prevent scattered development p fterns within the pod, and 3 maximize the amount of continuous area available for agricultural practices at any given time. A policy will be added to page �concerning provision of city water and sewer services. Language would be as fellers: • City services, including water and sewer, are expected to be extended to the mixed residential pod as soon as practical based upon considerations of demand, type of use, and land use density_ Edit policy 3 on page 17 by adding the word "primarily" after the word promoting, PNF4 NeI&IiI3P09Vi00D PLAN S£GTtON 3(0 rI\LII$PeLL, tAONTMN A proposed amendment to the: Kalispell City -County Master Plan ........... prepared by: The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation in cooperation with: Montana Planning Consultants Prof Box o Kalispell, Montana 59904 April 20, 1999 INT2aPucTioN Thi document i a Land use pL.an to guide the future use and deveL.op ent of 05ch oL Trust Lind generaLLY de,scribed as being Located wifhin .section 36. Township 29N. Zange 22V P.M.M. The Montana Department of NafuraL Zesources and C n5ervation HI,O i a -state agency re ponsibLe. in park for the management ement f chooL. Tru5f L -and, . Section 36 i Located adjacent to the northerLy city Limits of 6U.5peLL The PNPC has prepared this pL n in consideration of 2 primary objectives: 1 to achieve a pubLric mandate to generate revenue for the state school system and 2 con ider i55ues of neighborhood compatibiL,i .y and reLation hi to LacaL. Land use PLan5 and reguLation . It is the intent of this pL~anning proce5,5 to integrate with the 4.Ai5peLL City County Master Plan. This wiL be accor pL.i hed by incorporating the plan for 6ection 56 into the f�.aLli pALY Master PLan via the master PLanning proce55 identified under,5ection 7 -1-6i et eq} MC4, hi AL~ invoL~ve puRic hearings and approval. by the flathead board of Cvunty Cam m i55ioners and the City CounciL. of Va b peL .. tate" pL.anning proce invokiin chooL< trust Land that 5eeb to integrate info the LocaL pLanning proce55 i5 a new concept. Under Montana Statute . the I NZC i mandated to . "seek the highest development of state-owned Land in order that they might be pLaced to their hi het and best use and thereby derive greater revenue for the support of the coon 5chooL5. the university ytern. and other in-5titAion5 benefit±inq therefrom, and that in o doing the economy of the LocaL community as weLL a5 the State i benefitted a5 a re uL~t of the impact of uch deveLropr en " erection 77-1-6 , MC6, Other Montana code es ent'IALy exempt fate properties from b'eing ubject to most zoning 76-2-42, MCA) and divi ion 6e ian 76--5-2 5. MCA)pro iwn . e pite the apparent advantage that ore of the e exemption may offer, this Plan 15 pr po ins that AL development propo a s in ,'-)ec�ion 56 adhere to LocaLpLanninq and zoning re uL.ation . y fALo ,ring thi pL.an. the long term objective to generate revenue for the school. trust fund and promotion of neighborhood compatibility can be achieved. The PNPC considered. in the development of section 56, the 5aLe of AL or a portion of the ec-Lion in order to provide revenue for the trust beneficiaries. Pro ed ure estabb hed for the 5aLe of state Land can be found in the Montana Fade Annotated. Chapter �7 Part 2.. The current 5vard has adopted a poLricy of not entertaining any new Land sale proposal-s. This poLicy wa adopted, in part, because of the rapid increase in land values in Montana and the board's perception that the .saL_e of any portion of the core tru,t as.et (Land bae i not in the best Long term interest of the be of iciarie . AL5o, the paLicy Was adopted due to the contention nature of state Land saLes and the cumbersome process e5tabb5hed in statute for these saL.es.Therefore. this pLan was developed with a primary empha i on Long tern Lease arrangements rather than Land saL.es. llo ever. future boards are not bound by the current board's poL.iey and max Aect to 5AL AL or a portion of the ubiect state Land, This plan seeL5 to provide direction for any future Land use. deci fon5 that are made through either .ease arranger ents r Sale. "state" neighborhood plan aL o differ.5 in other re -sped from other neighborhood pL.an5. Not onL.y doe the pLan invoL.ve Land. in .state onerhip but the pLan ado anticipate a Long term deveL.oprent ,scenario. based on a number of considerations and circumstance , this pL.an i5 Li keLy to have application over a period of decades as opposed to a traditionaL~ time period of L.e s than 10 years. Integra. components of the plan include identification of land u-se pods. phasing of devetopment. and performance iandar-d for de eopment. NRC Neighborhood Flan o/M Plan Development Process stiation Section 36 is located on the north side of Kalispell. The S of the Section is within the city limits of Kalispell. All but approximately 20 acres of Section 36 is State-owned and managed as school trust land. The property is within the northerly growth pattern of the City. Consideration of this property for future development and expansion of the city limits is essential for a variety of reasons, among which is to minimize leap frog development beyond this property to less desirable locations. The DNRC has long recognized the need for a land use plan for the property. The north side of Kalispell is e pedencing rapid change and development pressures. In the absence of a comprehensive land use plan for the property, decisions on use proposals can be made without understanding the cumulative affects of incremental decision -mad i n g relative to such fundamental considerations as transportation, extension of services, and compatibility of uses. Had a plan been in place several years ago, more informed decisions may have been possible concerning such proposals as the city sports complex and routing of the vest side bypass, which now greatly influence how the remaining property can be effectively utilized. In an effort to wisely plan for future growth in Section 36, the DNRC decided to undertake a neighborhood planning process. Although this process was not formerly underway until the spring of 1998, an initial proposal to "rrnasterplan" the property was made by the DNRC in 1991 and a formal request for funding was made in 1997 Then the west Valley Neighborhood planning process was underway. s suggested in the Introduction)' section of this Ran, the development of a neighborhood ood plan on state-owned lands is unique. Why subject state property to specific lard use goals and policies when it is exempt fora most planning regulations? Section 36 is somewhat unique among state-owned lards. Factors favoring the development of a plan for this particular section include the following: Portion of the property(25%)is already inside the city limits; One mile of frontage (east side) along U.S. Highway g3; ■ Bisection of the property by the proposed West Side Bypass; One mile of frontage (north side) along blest Reserve Drive, a minor arterial; One mile of frontage (south side) along Four Mile Drive; One mile of frontage (vest side) along Stillwater Road; Industrial and neighborhood commercial uses on the east side of U.S. Highway 93; Moderate to dense residential development to the north of property, Urban scale development to the south of property, Community college on the east side of U.S. Highway 93; and City utility services available for extension to property. Based upon these and other characteristics, the property can no longer be labeled a DNRC Neighborhood Plan 04/20199 "fringe" lands. The property is best described as "urban -interface" and should be planned accordingly. The difficulty with this label is public perception. state-owned lands are perceived by many as being held in perpetuity as forest or agricultural lands, when in fact, school trust lands, such as Section 36, were granted by the federal government to Montana for the sole purpose of generating revenue for the Montana school system. Section 36 retains an agricultural `# appearance" but revenue from the lease of land for agricultural purposes is modest compared to other revenue options so the transition to non- g uses can and should be expected in the near future. How that transition occurs will be guided by this plan. Process The Kalispell DNRC office hired a consultant in May 1998 to initiate a planning process for section 36. The role of the consultant also included representing the interests of the DNRC in the ongoing process by the Kalispell city county Planning Board to update the Kalispell city -county Master Plan. Neighborhood Planning process was selected as the preferred strategy for preparing land use plan for section 36. This process encourages an active participation by the public, especially those owning property in the immediate vicinity. The planning effort was not constrained or otherwise affected by any preconceived or preferred outcome by DNRC nor was the planning effort spearheaded by any pending actions o r proposals on the land. n overall guiding premise was to seek neighborhood compatibility of uses within the constraints of the NRC's role as a land manager responsible for generating the largest legitimate return of revenue from the leasing of school trust lends. Other underlying premises of the planning effort were that no lands would be sold or conveyed as separate lots, and 2 the DNRC would not directly participate in the development of the land. In other words, all proposed uses would be developed on leased lots and the DNRC could not participate in the development of any structures, roads, infrastructure, or any other improvements, Public Involvement Public involvement was encouraged via several avenues. Initially, a list of potentially interested parties was prepared by the consultant and DNRC personnel, including names of adjoining landowners and/or homeowner associations and public officials. This initial list was used to announce the first in a series of 4 general public meetings, The mailing list was expanded to include all meeting attendees and others shoving an interest in the process. Another effort to gain public exposure and input into the process was to attend various homeowner association meetings, meet individually with interested parties, and speak at various club meetings. All public meetings held by the DNRC concerning the planning process were held at the Summit in Kalispell. The scope of each public meeting is briefly outlined below. Meeting I. This meeting was held on August 19, 1998. The purpose of this initial meeting 2 DN C Neighborhood Plan 04120/99 was to introduce the planning concept to the public and seek public involvement in the process. A. base map of the property and surrounding area was presented. Meeting 2. This meeting was held on September 3$ 1998. The purpose of this meeting was to present a draft land use map that depicted 4 land use pods. A list of land uses associated with each POD was handed out to the audience and discussed. Attendees were asked to send any comments or suggestions to the consultant. The participants discouraged such uses as the fairgrounds, strip commercial, and casinos. Meeting 3. This meeting was held on November 1, 9g : The purpose of this m eting was to present the goals and policies of the plan and the draft transportation plan. Overheads were used to discuss the goals and policies. All attendees received copies of the land use map, transportation map, and goals and policies. Meeting 4. This meeting was held on December 14,1998. The purpose of this meeting was to address all the issues raised by the public since the Mart of the process. This was facilitated by handing out an issue/response form. The format of the meeting was question/response. A time schedule for adoption of the plan was also presented. As noted previously, various agencyofficials were also invited to participate in the process. Among those was the chair of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board, City Manager and Mayor of Kalispell, and Flathead County Board of Commissioners. In an effort to more adequately inform these governing bodies of the process and progress, work sessions were held with the Commissioners and with the Planning Board in January 1999, DNRC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 State School Section 36 Kalispell, Montana . . . .. ..... PLANNING STATEMENT: It is in the best interest and to the great advantage of the state of Montana to seek the highest development of state-owned lands in order that they might be placed to their highest and best use and thereby derive grea ter reven ue for the support of the common schools, the university system, and other institutions benefitiing therefrom, and that in so doing the economy of the local community as well as the state is benefitted as a result of the impact of s 'Ch development(77-1-601,WC_ . . NEIGHBORHOOD GOALS: OO To establish a framework for the review of land use options and proposals ZTo provide for a systematic and logical development pattern by considering phasing and priority of development between land use pods and within fared use pods OTo recognize the preference of the State of Montana to "lease" rather than to "sell" land 4 DC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 OTo maintain a pleasing highway corridor entrance to the city of Kalispell OTo consider issues related to the proposed west side bypass alignment and power line corridor that bisect the properly OTo seek a compatible mix of land uses within the property and with that of the surrounding area 'o identify are integrated internal transportation system that serves to link land use pods and minimize approaches onto public roads o seek a 'level of servicesit consistent with b the rate, amount, type, and location of development QTo identify acceptable criteria for development The land use plan for Section 36 is guided by these general Neighborhood goals and by the goals and policies of four (4) distinct land use PODS. The land use pods were identified based on a variety of parameters including scale, type, and density of nearby lard uses; associated transportation network; compatibility of uses; and other considerations, such as public comment. For example, the mixed residential pod is located away from the highway, abuts other residential areas, and is more 5 NRC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 "remote" in Terms of access. The mixed professional pod is bounded by the alternate route for U.S. Highway 93 (bypass) on the south and by West Reserve Drive on the north, a minor arterial. Most types of retail commercial uses in this area were contrary to neighborhood opinion. The proposed uses in the professions[ pod provide an excellent transition of uses between the proposed highway uses and the "suburban" area located on the north side of West Reserve Drive. The identification of the mixed commercial pod adjacent to the highway is appropriate given the highway and bypass influences. Phasing policies of this plan establish additional safeguards to the logical development pa#tern of the property. Refer to the hand Use Map (MAP Exhibit A) for the locations of the PODS. Uses appropriate to each POD are listed in Text Exhibit A. 0 DNRC Neighborhood Plan 04120/919 MIXED COMMERCIAL The Mixed Commercial POD is located on the west side of U.S. Highway 93. The development strategy for this POD is to provide a suitable location for commercial uses at an urban scale density without creasing a strip commercial appearance. Certain commercial uses are restricted and highway adjacent landscaping is required. This area is expected to be annexed and provided with a full range of city services. Development of this POD has priority over the development of the other land use PODS. GOAL: (DTelde ti ythe appropriate location for commercial uses O e minimize the appearance of highway strip development Z e identify appropriate commercial uses e identify appropriate development standards Policies: I. Retail commercial development should have convenient access onto U.S. Highway 93 via no more than 2 controlled access intersections; 2. Individual commercial uses should not have direct access onto the highway but should be served by a secondary internal road system; 3. Uses should not have a highway orientation and lease lot boundaries should rA DN-RC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 be setback from the highway right-of-way to provide for a continuous and commonly held highway landscape corridor; . ...... .... . 4. City services, including wader and sewer, are expected to be extended to the commercial pod as soon as practical based upon considerations of demand, type of use, and (and use density. 5. Use allowances should allow for a mix of commercial and professional office opportunities but "strip -type" uses characterized substantial outdoor storage and display of products, such as car lots and trailer sales should be voided; fi. Taverns and gaming/gambling uses are inappropriate; . A. viflage or cluster concept of development is encouraged versus a linear orientation of uses; 8. A common landscape philosophy should include street trees and plantings associated with parking lots and buildings; 9. Exterior lighting should be low profile and direct light inward and downward; 10. Signage should be [ow profile by permitting only ground and wall signs. Freestanding (poke) signs should not be permitted; 11. Exterior appearance of walls and/or roofs of commercial buildings visible from the Highway should contain architectural elements found on the "front" portions of the buildings. Walls and surface planes should be broken up in such a manner as to create a visual interest, avoiding monotony. Applied finishes of buildings should be predominantly earth tones. 12. Buildings having a footprint size greater than 60,000 sq ft shall be located a minimum of 300 feed from the highway right of way; and 13. All portions of the lot area lying outside the building footprints and parking lot(s) shah be landscaped and irrigated. 8 DNRC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 MIXED PROFESSIONAL The Mixed Professional POD is generally located between the alternate route for U.S. Highway 93 (bypass) and West Reserve Drive. The land use theme is more "office" rather than retail commercial. Development priority and intensity of use is from east to west to provide a gradual transition into the more rural landscape to the west. Development is expected to be at a "suburban" density. The need for city services and annexation will be evaluated as development interests become more apparent. This POD is identified for Phase 11 development priority. GOALS: OO To identify an area suitable for transitional commercial uses, such as offices and other similar and compatible rases OO To establish use priorities and phasing of development To seek neighborhood compatibility via establishment of performance criteria for all new development Policies: 1. Offices are preferred uses. Retail commercial uses should be discouraged except for small convenience retail as normally permitted in a neighborhood business zoning classification; 2. Restrict development of non-agricultural uses to less than 20% of the pod until DNRC Neighborhood Plan 20/99 at least 50°/g of the Mixed Commercial pod is leased for development. This 20°/n allowance shah not permit freestanding retail or convenience commercial uses. This limitation would not apply to school or equestrian facilities. 3. The development pattern of nonagricultural uses will be from east to west to (1) encourage the maximum amount of infill via clustering of uses, (2) prevent scattered development patterns within the pod, and (3) maximize the amount of continuous area available for agricultural practices at any given time. 4. Promote a generous green space requirement around all structures, including the provision of common pedestrian trails; 5. City services} including grater and serer, are expected to be extended to the mixed professional pod as soon as practical based upon considerations of demand, type of use, and land use density. 6. Structures should not exceed 35 feet in height and should have natural earth tones as the primary exterior color; '. Uses should have an inward orientation with no direct frontage onto any public road; . Agricultural uses and activities are acceptable; 9. Exterior lighting should be low profile and direct light inward and downward; 10. Signage should be low profile by specifically excluding freestanding signs other than ground signs; and 11. Landscaping adjacent to roadways and parking lots will be encouraged. All portions of lots lying outside the building footprints or paved surfaces steal[ be landscaped and irrigated. 10 NC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 MIXED RESIDENTIAL The Mixed Residential POD is generally described as being located in the SW1/4 of Section 36. The transportation plan suggests a realignment of Four Mile Drive to improve traffic circulation in the area. The primary land use theme is "residential" but other compatible uses are also permitted. This POD is identified as Phase l(( in terms of development Priority. The development priority and intensity will be from east to west and south to north, with the lowest priority of development on the west side of the proposed by pass alignment. The need for city services will depend on the type and intensity of uses that develop within the POD. Apartments, dormitories, or a large once complex are examples of uses that would benefit from city services. GOALS: OO To identify an area for transitional residential Uses that may include a mix of residential}quasi- residential, and ogee uses Zo recognize roadway access limitations from Four Mile Drive QTo seek neighborhood compatibility through establishment of performance criteria, development priorities, and phasing Policies: 7 . Restrict development of non-residential and non-agricultural uses to less than DNRC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 20°l0 of the pod until at least 50% of the Mixed professional pod is leased for development or 50% of this pod is occupied by residential uses, whichever comes first. This limitation would not apply to public facilities. 2. Promote a generous green space requirement around all structures, including the provision of common pedestrian trails; 3. The development pattern of nonagricultural uses will be from east to west or south to north to (1) encourage the maximum amount of infill via clustering of uses, (2) prevent scattered development patterns within the pod, and (3) maximize the amount of continuous area available for agricultural practices at any given time. 4. City services, including water and sorer, are expected to be extended to the mixed residential pod as soon as practical based upon considerations s o demand, typo of use, and land use density. 5. Structures should not exceed 35 feet in height and should have natural earth tones as the primary exterior color; 6. Uses should have an inward orientation with no direct frontage onto any public road; . Agricultural uses are acceptable; 8. Exterior lighting shoed be low profile and direct light inward and downward; 9. Signage should be !ow profile by specifically excluding freestanding signs other than ground signs; and 10. Landscaping adjacent to roadways and parking lots will be encouraed. All portions of lots lying outside the building footprints or paved surfaces shall be landscaped and irrigated. 12 DNRC Neighborhood Flan 04120/99 SPORT FIELDS The City of Kalispell has entered into a 40 year lase with the DNRC for most of the SE1f4 of Section 36. The property is being developed as a sport field complex. This plan recognizes this existing lease and does not intend to modify any provisions of that existing lease. Any change to the lease agreement that would anticipate alternative land uses or mode of operation would be subject to an amendment to the Kalispell City County Master Plan. GOADS: OTo recognize an existing lease arrangement with the City of Kalispell for a sports field complex OTo provide linkages to the sports fields from otter land use pods (1To consider appropriate land uses adjacent to the sport fields Policies: . Consider opportunities to provide pedestrian pathway and roadway connections between the sports fields and other land use pods; 2. Provide lard use transition buffer, if appropriate, between the sports complex and other land use pods; and 3. Encourage the development of support services for tourists and visitors to the sports fields, primarily in the adjoining Mixed Commercial pod. DNRC Neighborhood Plan 04/20191 TRANSPORTATOIV The State..s.cho.ol trust section is approximately 1 mile square. The properly is bordered on the east by U.S. -Highway 93, on the north by West Reserve Drive, on the west by Stillwater Road, and on the south by Four Mile Drive. The proposed alternate route (bypass) of U.S, Highway 93 bisects much of the property. It is the intent of this plan to minimize the number of new approaches onto these existing transportation corridors. Map Exhibit A identifies a primary internal transportation system for the property. The map is meant to depict the general locations of these collector roads. The exact locations and alignments will be determined upon further review by regulatory agencies, engineering evaluations, and land development considerations. Not shown are the secondary roads that would provide more immediate access to individual developed lease sites. GOALS: GTo minimize the number of approaches auto the existing public transportation system QTo identify the general alignment of the internal collector roads OTa recognize the proposed alignment of the alternate U.S. Highway 93 (bypass) through he property Policies: 1. Attempt to limit the number of approaches onto the county goads as shown on 14 NC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 the Land Use Mai or to a spacing of no less than 1,300 feet; 2. Prohibit direct access of any individual use onto any of the perimeter public roads; 3. Attempt to coordinate approach alignments, whenever possible, with those on opposite sues of the highway/county roads; 4. Consider the realignment [and related abandonments of Four Mile Drive as shown on the Land Use Map; 5. Provide for an internal connection between hand use pods including a crossing of the highway bypass near the center of the Section and as showy on the Land Use Map; 6. Coordinate the development of the road system with phasing of development; 7. Attempt to identify opportunities for a coordinated system of pedestrian trails in conjunction with development proposals; 8. Provide landscaping adjacent to all developed roads; 9. Clearly define lessee responsibility for roadway improvements and proportionate sure of maintenance; and 10. Minimize the intrusion of structural facilities within the proposed highway bypass alignment. 15 DNRC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 IMPLEMENTATION The DNRC agrees to voluntarily adhere to the provisions of this. plan and to any zoning regulations adopted pursuant to this flan. As such, the DNRC and lease proposals will be subject to the same level of plan and zoning review as any other non -government entity. Amendments to this Plan and subsequent zoning requests will follow the procedures set forth by state statues as applicable to the private sector. The purpose of this self regulation is to enhance pubic confidence in this plan and to promote a well planned community entrance to Kalispell. GOALS: TTo use this plan by the DNRC and land use regulatory agencies as a "blueprint" forhe wise use and development of the State School Trust [and GTo seek adoption of this Plan as an official amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan OTo identify responsibilities for development of common elements by individual lease holders QTo adhere to local zoning regulations adopted pursuant to the provisions of this plan Policies: 1. Individual lease holders shall be responsible for the development of all the WV Nc Neighborhood Plan 04120/99 infrastucture, including roads, water supply, sewage treatment, electricity, telephone, and landscaping necessary to serve the use; 2. All utility extensions shall be underground; 3. Encourage orderly development by promoting a primarily east to west infill pattern in the Mixed Professional and Mixed Residential land use pods. The Land Use Map indicates a "Greer" buffer on the west side of the Section that is not intended to be developed for any non agricultural use until at feast the year 207 4; . Common or shared service and landscape elements will be subject to special assessments for the care and maintenance of those elements; 5. Lease agreements with individual l lease holders should include reference to the adopted plan and identify individual responsibilities of development, including consideration of architecture, open space, landscaping, travel gays, and extension of services; 6. The proposed west side highway bypass alignment may be considered for non-structural uses pending actual securement of the right-of-way by the appropriate federal/state authorities; 7. The DNRC should adhere to the provisions of this plan when particular uses or activities are proposed for the property; 8. A Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) review and analysis will be prepared for each proposed lease consistent with state law; 9. Seep a cooperative process between the DNRC and the Flathead Regional Development Office (FRDO) to deck compliance with the goads and policies of this plan whenever a particular use is proposed; and 10. Attempt to adopt zoning regulations as a mechanism to assist in the NC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 implementation of this plan, especially relative to such aspects as the type and location of uses. A Memorandum of Agreement shall be sought with the affected governing bodies to ensure state compliance with the adopted zoning regulations. 18 TEXT EXHIBIT A MIXED COMMERCIAL Assembly hails, coliseums, stadiums Beverage shops, coffee or vine Car wash Churches Community meeting halls Convenience stores Convention center Cultural facilities museums, theaters, libraries, etc) Day care homes or centers Delicatessens Educational facilities (private and public schools , colleges, and universities; trade schools, music, dance, theater lessons) Equestrian facilities Farming of crops Financial services and institutions Food stores Gardens and horticultural facilities including nurseries Gas stations Health clubs Light Industrial No outside storage or outside assembly, no stack emissions) Medical and enta fa ci sties Motels Offices, private or public Parks, private or public Personal care facilities (massage, barber/beauty, tanning) Public or quasi public buildings (fire stations, chamber of commerce facilities, etc) Radio or television broadcast stations Recreational facilities, outdoor or indoor (tennis courts, bowling a)ley, golf course ice skating arenas, swimming pool, etc) Recreational theme parks (zoos, aquariums) Recreational vehicle parks Retail facilities a,., baked goods, clothing, gifts, drug, pharmacies, furniture, Lobby, flowers, art, music, shoes, antiques, candy, sporting goods) Restaurants no liquor sales - beer and wine only) Travel agencies Exhibit A -1 Veterinary services and facilities Warehouse retail MIXED PROFESSIONAL Beverage sops, coffee or wing Car wash Churches Community meeting halls Convenience stores Cultural facilities (museums, theaters, libraries, etc) Day care homes or centers Delicatessens Educational facilities (private and public schools , colleges, and universities; trade schools, music, dance, theater lessons) Equestrian facilities Farming of crops Financial services and institutions Gardens and horticultural facilities including nurseries Health clubs Medical (including nursing homes and elder care) and dental facilities Offices, private or public Parks, private or public Personal care facilities(massage, barber/beauty, tanning) Public or quasi public buildings (fire stations, chamber of commerce facilities, etc) Recreational faculties, outdoor or indoor tennis courts, bowling alloy, golf course, ice skating arenas, swimming pool, etc) Recreational theme parks (zoos, aquariums) Residential care facilities nursing, assisted living, retirement) Travel agencies Veterinary services and facilities MIXED RESIDENTIAL Churches Community meeting halls Exhibit --2 Day care homes or centers Dormitories (college) Dwellings, single or multifamily Educational facilities (private and public schools , colleges, and universities; trade schools, music, dance, theater lessons) Equestrian facilities Farming of crops Gardens and horticultural facilities including nurseries Manufactured hone park (class `A" only) Nursing homes and elder care Offices, professional Parks, private or public Public or quasi public buildings (fire stations, chamber of commerce facilities, etc) Recreational facilities, outdoor or indoor (tennis courts, gaff course, ice skating arenas, swimming pool, etc) Residential care facilities (nursing, assisted care: independent, retirement) SPORTS FIELDS Ball fields (e.g. soccer, football, baseball, softball, tennis, volleyball) Skating rink (public only) Concession stands (accessory only) Exhibit Map Exhibit A ,ands Neighborhood Plan Land Use Map February 6, 1999 RESOLUTION NO, 4-41-Q A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A RECOMMENDED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY MASTER PLAN. WHEREAS, on April 71 ,1986,, the City Council adopted the Kalispell City -County Master Plan by Resolution No. 3641, and WHEREAS, the Montana Department of Natural Resources, in 1997, made an appli ation to amend said Master Phan by changing the designation of approximately boo acres of state school. trust land located in Section 36, Township 21%N. Range 22W, . M . M . , Flathead County, Montana, and WHEREAS, on March 9, 1999, the Kalispell City -Counter Planning Board held a. public hearing, after due and proper notice, received public comment upon, and received FRDO report #KNP-99-1 which evaluated the proposal based upon the goals and objectives of the Master Plan, the purpose o zoning and current circumstances in the planning jurisdiction, and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said public hearing and after consideration of the proposed amendment, the Kalispell City -County Planning Board adopted report KN - 99 -1, as the findings of fact and recommended that the Kalispell City -County Ia. ter Plan be amended through the adoption of a Neighborhood Plan to serve as basis for future development of the property encompassing said School Trust Land, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell considered it advisable that they consider the proposed Neighborhood Plan amendment and the recommendations of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board, and adopted a. Resolution o Intention to Adopt, Revise or Reject a. Recommended Neighborhood Plan Amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan (Resolution No. , and WHEREAS, on June 7 th , 1999, the City Council met, held a public hearing and considered Resolution No. 4480, and :atewpeN.INL.wpd WHEREAS, based upon the report (#KNP9 9 - r he Minutes and recommendations of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and the input received at the hearing of March 1999, the Council may, under § -1- 0 , MCA, adopt a resolution either adopting, revising or rejectingthe requested amendment to the Kalispell City -Counter faster Plan. WHEREAS, the City Council hereby adopts as the findings of fact #K` 9 -, as adopted by the Kalispell City -County Planning Board. NOW, THEREFORE, , T RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I, That pursuant to Section - - o , MCA, the City Council of the City of Kalispell hereby adopts #KNP 9 9- 1 as the findings of fact contained herein and adopts the geese amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan o change the land s e designation of the property described as Section 36, Township 29 North, Range 22 West,P.M.M. Flathead County, Montana, as set forth in the DNRC Neighborhood Plan for said land. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR of THE CITY OF KALISPELL, THIS 7thDAY of JUNE , 1999. w .101 Wm. E. Boharski Mayor Attest: Theresa White city Clerk H:\attsect\wp\res\DNRCFINALRES.wpd