Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PH - Resolution 4480 - Adopt a Recommended Neighborhood Plan Amendment to Master Plan
-Flathead Regional Development Office 7n 5th Avenue East - Room 414 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 758-5980 Fax: (406) 758-5781 REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council FROM: Narda A. Wilson, Senior Planner Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT DNRC Neighborhood Plan for School Section 36 - An Amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan STING DATE: June 7, 1999 BACKGROUND: The DNRC is proposing a neighborhood plan for the purpose of establishing guidelines for the lease and development of approximately 600 acres of school trust land. The planning board held a public hearing on March 9, 1999 on this matter and then held a special meeting on April 20, 1999 for further consideration and action. -The planning board recommended, on a vote of six in favor and one opposed, that the county commissioners and city council approve the master plan amendment. The county commissioners adopted a final resolution adopting the plan amendment on May 20, 1999. Because this is an amendment to the Kalispell City - County Master Plan, this plan also required approval by the city council in order for the plan to be formally and finally adopted. RECOMMENDATION: A motion to adopt the resolution amending the master plan by adding the DNRC Neighborhood Plan as an addendum to the Kalispell City County Master Plan would be in order. FISCAL EFFECTS: Unknown. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the city council. Narda A. ilson Chris A. Kukulski Senior Planner City Manager Report compiled: June 3, 1999 Attachments: (previously forwarded) Letter of transmittal Draft plan and map Staff report KMPA-99-1 and back-up materials Draft planning board minutes Providing Community Planning Assistance To: • Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish • I_ - • � . • fff Me A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A RECOMMENDED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY MASTER PLAN. WHEREAS, on April 7`h, 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 application to amend said Master Plan by changing the designation of approximately 600 acres of state school trust land located in Section 36, Township 28N, Range 22W, P.M.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 #KNP-99-1 which evaluated the proposal based upon the goals and objectives of the Master Plan, the purpose of 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 #KNP-99-1, as 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 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 of Intention to Adopt, Revise or Reject a Recommended Neighborhood Plan Amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan (Resolution No. 4471), and WHEREAS, on June 7"', 1999, the City Council met, held a public hearing and considered Resolution No. 4480, and H:\attsect\wp\res\DNRCFINALRES.wpd WHEREAS, based upon the report (#KNP 99-1), the Minutes and recommendations of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and the input received at the hearing of March 9, 1999, the Council may, under § 76-1-604, MCA, adopt a resolution either adopting, revising or rejecting the requested amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. WHEREAS, the City Council hereby adopts as the findings of fact #KNP 99-1, as adopted by the Kalispell City -County Planning Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. That pursuant to Section 76-1-604, MCA, the City Council of the City of Kalispell hereby adopts #KNP 99-1 as the findings of fact contained herein and adopts the requested amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan to change the land use designation of the property described as Section 36, Township 28 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 7th DAY OF JUNE, 1999. Wm. E. Boharski Mayor Attest: Theresa White City Clerk H:\attsect\wp\res\DNRCFINALRES.wpd Flathead Regional Development Office '723 5th Avenue East - Room 414 Kalispell, Montana 59"1 Phone: (406) 758-5980 Fax: (406) 758-5781 April 23, 1999 Al Thelen, Interim City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Drawer 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Master Plan Amendment Request from Montana Department of Natural Resources for School Section 36 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 comer of Four Mile Drive 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 March 9, 1999. Tom Jentz, Director of the Flathead Regional Development Office, made a brief presentation to the board at the public hearing and recommended they adopt staff report KMPA-99-1 as findings of fact and resolution KMPA-99-1 which includes a copy of the draft plan and map as an amendment to the master plan. The development plan outlines goals and polices for the proposed development of the site with a mix of commercial, office and high density residential uses. The development plan anticipates drafting a memorandum of understanding with the City and County and using a performance based zoning proposal after 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 for this proposal should be scheduled for city council consideration. A transmittal is also being sent to the county commissioners for their consideration which will be scheduled to coincide with the city council's timetable. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact me or Tom Jentz at the Flathead Regional Development Office at (406)758-5980. Si n cerely. JJ/NW/ Board Providing Community Planning Assistance To: • Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish • KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY COUNTY MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION KNP-99-1 WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County Master Plan was adopted by the Kalispell City Council on April 7, 1986 by Resolution #3641 and by the Flathead County Board of Commissioners by Resolution #578A 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 (DNRC) owns approximately 600 acres of State Section 36 in Township 29 North, Range 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; WHREAS, the DNRC is desirous of developing a plan for this land that would give them a greater degree of guidance for future development, and WHEREAS, the DNRC Neighborhood planning 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 DNRC; and WHEREAS, the DNRC Neighborhood planning effort continued throughout the remainder of 1998 and into early 1999 resulting in the preparation of a draft neighborhood plan; and WHEREAS, on January 12, 1999 the Kalispell City -County County Planning Board held a study session to review the neighborhood plan; and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County County Planning Board then held a public hearing on said neighborhood plan on March 9, 1999, and then continued discussion on the neighborhood plan until April 20, 1999, taking all comments received at the public hearing both written 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 Plan and that the plan as described in Attachment B be adopted as an addendum to the Kalispell City -County County Master Plan Year 2010. Signed on this day of April, 1999. KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MSTRPLAN \KCCMP \ DNRC \ PLAN-RES.DOC MINUTES MEETING March 9, 1999 CALL TO ORDER AND The meeting was called to order by Jean Johnson at ROLL CALL approximately 7:02 p.m. Members present were: Donald Garberg, Rob Heinecke, Greg Stevens, Jean Johnson, Don Hines, 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. APPROVAL OF It was noted by the Board President, Jean Johnson, that a vote of ACENUTES abstention still requires a majority vote of the members present, thereby rendering that vote the equivalent of a negative vote. But with a member excusing himself 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. On a motion by Stevens and seconded by Mann, the minutes of the meeting of February 9, 1999 were approved with the following amendments: Unicore - Board Discussion - Page 11, comments made by Jean Johnson: There was no technical information available as to the bore holes and it had to be available to make a determination on setback. The board had reviewed a similar subdivision with similar soils and minimum setbacks based on analyses was 35, therefore that would negate their proposal. It is physically impossible to back a car out of the parking areas (as shown on the preliminary plat) without hitting someone. They had an onsite drain system design that would totally undermine the formation and it is totally unacceptable in his mind. On a vote by acclamation the motion passed unanimously. DNRC NEIGHBORHOOD A request by the Department of Natural Resources and PLAN Conservation for consideration of Neighborhood Plan to assist the DNRC in their long range planning efforts to meet both the State and community goals. STAFF REPORT Tom Jentz introduced David Greer, Land Use Consultant to the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation who gave a presentation on the DNRC Neighborhood Plan. Greer explained the property boundaries of the proposed plan. He noted that the State School Trust Lands are designated as property held in perpetuity by the State 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 the 4 pods within the property and the different phases of the plan. He highlighted the plans designations and roadways. He stated that the DNRC is asking for an official amendment to the Kalispell Master Plan and want to adopt zoning regulations, both of which will be followed in the development of the property. A Memorandum of Agreement with Kalispcll,City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting March 9, 1999 Page I 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 property involved in the proposed neighborhood plan. Any use of these lands must 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 trust land is in the production of revenue, no other use is constitutional. DNRC has clear direction to manage the states School Trust Lands for economic gain, without impairing the long-term productivity of the land, and within the bounds of the Montana Environmental Policy Act. In summary, we are directed to maximize 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 will be in a position of having to accept whatever comes along in order to meet their directives. They would like to see a plan implemented that would allow for direction in the development of this property. Tom Jentz gave a presentation of staff report #KNP-99-1 in which staff recommended that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board adopt, by resolution, the DNRC Neighborhood Plan as an addendum to the Kalispell City County Master Plan Year 2010 with the conditions as stated in the report. He explained that the Board's responsibility is to determine whether the plan complies with the Master Plan and if it does not then whether it warrants an addendum to the Plan. 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 planning process before going to the Land Board. PUBLIC E1EARING The public hearing was opened 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 2 of 9 like to have planned growth and development on the property. Bryce Haden, who lives nearby the property in 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 concerns that the plan may drain the value of the current commercial properties in the county, and phasing concerns. Two suggested changes: Page 9; and Page 11 change to 75 % developed prior to development of the next phase. Dale Luman, 169 Trail Ridge Road, agrees with the planned OPPONENTS development process but believes a reasonable range of alternatives has not been considered. He noted concerns over non- compliance with the current, 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 making determinations, therefore the board could not consider any comments in regard to compliance with the proposed revised Master Plan.) Luman stated in closing that he chooses to live in within the jurisdiction of the Master Plan and associated zoning so that he can have a reasonable expectation of retaining 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 want as well 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 impact for the planning jurisdiction and would seriously impact the current commercial areas. No one else spoke against the plan and the public hearing was closed. BOARD DISCUSSION Tom explained that the handouts given by Mr.- Greer should 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 make recommendations, or if the plans should be through the DNRC, the Land Board and the state processes before coming to the planning board or the city. Tom Jentz explained to the board members that the DNRC is setting up a relationship with the board the city and the county and is asking that the master plan be amended in respect to the land so that they would be able to plan developmentally and then there would not be incremental development. Stevens asked who has the final authority on plan and development of the trust land. Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting March 9, 1999 Page 3 of 9 Dahlberg 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 intent is to work toward a better system for the use of trust lands that will give the community a plan that they are in agreement with and meets as much as possible the Master Plan for the area and yet 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 moved and Sipe seconded to continue this process for 30 days (to the next regular meeting). On a roll call vote: Hines, Stevens, Mann, Sipe and Johnson voted Aye. Heinecke and Garberg voted No. The motion passed on a vote of 5-2 in favor of continuation. The staff was directed to prepare a resolution to be presented at the next regular meeting. HANCHE:TT ZONE A request by Michael Hanchett for an amendment to the Kalispell AMENDMENT Zoning Ordinance, to allow single family, duplex and multi -family residential uses as permitted uses in the B-4, Central Business District. 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 as a permitted use in the B-4, Central Business. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the petition. PROPONENTS Randy Snyder, representing the petitioner, spoke in favor of the application, citing that the petitioner has owned the property for a number of years and has used it as a rental property. He noted that the rental is in 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 improvements to current residences in 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 in support of the petition and outlined the comments in the letter. OPPONENTS No one wished to speak in opposition to the petition and the hearing was closed. Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting March 9, 1999 Page 4 of 9 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 roll call vote was: Sipe, Hines, Mann, Heinecke, 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 R-2 passed on a vote of 7-2 in favor. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business presented. OLD BUSINESS CONTINUATION OF Continuation of the DNRC Plan amendment and Neighborhood DNRC PLAN Plan addendum: Jentz explained that the staff and the DNRC are recommending that the newly developed amendments be adopted and then the Neighborhood plan be adopted or denied by a resolution. MOTION After some discussion by the board, Sipe moved_ and Garberg 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 20th. By acclamation vote the motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting, May 11, 1999, will begin at 6 p.m. The meeting was adjourned by motion at approximately 1:07 a.m. Jean Johnson, President Tyricia Laske, Recording Secretary Approved as submitted/corrected: / /99 Kalispell City County Planning Board Mintsa of meeting April 13, 1999 Page 13 of 13 KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING RIL 20, 1999 CALL TO ORDER AND The special meeting was called to order by Jean Johnson at ROLL CALL approximately 7:10 p.m. He noted the sole purpose of the meeting was to consider the Montana Department of Natural Resources Members Neighborhood Plan for Section 36. Members present were: Rob Heinecke, Greg Stevens, Jean Johnson, Don Hines, Keith Brian Sipe, Joe Brenneman and Bill Rice. Don Garberg and Don Mann were absent. The Flathead Regional Development Office was represented by Narda Wilson. There were approximately three people in the audience. DNRC A request by DNRC for approval of a proposed neighborhood plan NEIGHBORHOOD known as DNRC Neighborhood Plan, Section 36, property located PLAN, SCHOOL on the west side of Highway 93 between Four Mile Drive and West SECTION 36 Reserve Drive, north of Kalispell. STAFF REPORT The chairman noted that this matter was continued from the regular April 13, 1999 meeting where a staff report was presented by Tom Jentz, FRDO Director, with a recommendation that the board adopt the KNP-99-1 staff report with the changes attached to his memorandum to the board dated April 6, 1999. Additionally, the board should adopt Resolution KMPA-99-1 and forward the plan to the Kalispell City Council and the Board of County Commissioners for consideration. Once adopted the plan would serve 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 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 term 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 land use decisions such as the transmission easement, the Kalispell Bypass and the location of the City ballfields 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 corner of the property rather than where is was located, but since there was not guiding document for land uses, it ended up elsewhere. Ted Giesey, Trust Lands Program Manager with the DNRC, also noted that the lease negotiated with the City for the ballfield Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 20, 1999 Page 1 of 3 property was based upon the AG-80 zoning and he does not believe was an equitable assessment. This fact let to the State not 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. BOARD DISCUSSION Chairman Johnson noted that this was the first time that the DNRC has attempted to implement this type 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 forward 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 memorandum of understanding with the City and County which would be binding to 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 faced with a dilemma in this situation because he the emphasis of the plan is weighted in favor of the neighborhood concerns rather than the State's fiduciary responsibility to the school trust. Sipe stated that he agreed with Stevens that the State was not proposing to get the highest possible value for the property and did not understand why the State would want to bind themselves the type of plan being proposed. John Dahlberg explained the tenuous balancing of the various interest groups when making these decisions in order to avoid being taken to court, as they have in the past. He further noted _ that the Montana Environmental Act (MEPA) 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 investment to extend water, sewer and provide other services to the site. Several board members expressed skepticism about a lessee who would be willing to make that kind of investment on leased land. Others noted that there are many situations such as the Gateway West Mall who heavily invest in leased land.. MOTION Heinecke moved and Rice seconded a motion to adopt Resolution KMPA-99-1 and staff report KNP-99-1 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 C-unty Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 20, 1999 Page 2 of 3 ADJOURNMENT Having finished the business intended for the special meeting, the planning board adjourned at approximately 7:49 PM. It was noted that the next regular will start at 6:00 PM. Jean Johnson, President Narda Wilson, Recording Secretary Approved as submitted/corrected: / /99 Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 20, 1999 Page 3 of 3 DNRC NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FRDO STAFF REPORT KNP-99-1 ADDENDUM TO THE KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY MASTER PLAN MARCH 2, 1999 A. Definition of a Neighborhood Plan 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 in order to provide clear and detailed direction. The neighborhood plan is typically developed within the overall framework of the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. While the 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 policies 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 that a neighborhood plan is not an engineering or construction document. B. Request: The Kalispell Office of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) is requesting consideration of adoption of a neighborhood plan as an addendum to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. The neighborhood plan would apply to the State School Trust Lands found in Section 36, Township 29N, Range 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 93, the south by Four Mile Drive and the west 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 Grossweiler Dairy). The purpose of the neighborhood plan is to assist the DNRC in their long range planning efforts to meet both the State 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 Plan 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 an 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 1 of 6 C. Reason for Reauest: The local DNRC Office is mandated to manage Section 36 (the subject of this neighborhood plan) in accordance with Section 77-1-601, Montana Codes Annotated which states: "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 the highest and best use and thereby derive greater revenue for the support of the common schools, the university system, and other institutions 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 viability of the section.. It is important to note that the State of Montana is exempt from direct application of local planning and zoning statutes. For example, State law section 76-2-402 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 planning process and the neighborhood plan are voluntary efforts on their part to implement a long term management plan for their lands. The DNRC is willing to be bound by the terms of the plan and any subsequent zoning developed to implement this plan. D. E2dsting land use and zoning: State Lands section 36 contains 620 acres, excluding the Grossweiller 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 P-1 within the City of Kalispell. The remainder of the site is outside the city limits of Kalispell and is zoned AG-80. 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 line corridor and by the proposed Westside Highway 93 bypass corridor which encompasses an additional 250 foot wide strip. E. Existing Master Plan Map Designation: The Kalispell City -County Master Plan map 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 (480 plus acres) is designated Agriculture/Sih-aculture on the existing City -County Plan map and described as beyond the immediate development needs of the city. This designation does 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 generally 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. F. Compliance of DNRC Neighborhood Plan with existiniz Kalispell City - County Master Plan: The primary basis of review for a neighborhood plan is its compliance or divergence with the adopted master 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 plan dated November 6, 1995. This boundary designates those areas in the next 10 - 15 years that if developed should be ultimately served or designed to be served by municipal infrastructure (sewer, water, streets, etc.). Page 9, Kalispell City -County Plan, Goal 8, Public Facilities, policy a. states, "Designate areas of future development which are already serviced or are in areas which can be economically serviced by water and sewer 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 as public sports fields and it is currently leased and utilized as such. Page 8, Kalispell City -County Plan, Goal 6, Land Use, Policy b. states, "Set standards for the designation or expansion of commercial areas based on a compact development 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 does provide a mixed use residential POD next to the Commercial POD and adjacent to the open space ball fields with convenient access o 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 Page 3 of 6 plan diverges from this designating 3 different categories of mixed commercial, mixed professional and mixed residential, all of which involve urban scale development. The proposed neighborhood plan would replace the 480 acres of agricultural designation with 100-110 acres of commercial property, 150 acres of professional office and neighborhood commercial uses and 140 acres of residential designated property. Page 11 of the Kalispell City -County Plan, Goal 12 and policies a=n speak strongly to recognizing that agriculture is an important element in the County's economic base, that highly productive lands are a finite resource, that usage of prime agricultural 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 lands and the county's agri-business support base and that creative ways need to be fostered to protect these lands. G. Public comment/involvement: The DNRC and their consultant, David Greer, held 4 community meetings from August -December, 1998. In addition, approximately a dozen additional meetings were conducted with smaller citizen groups, the Kalispell Planning Board, the County Commissioners, FRDO staff, etc. Letters were sent by FRDO to approximately 45 adjoining property owners notifying them of the March 9th Planning Board hearing while DNRC sent 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 buildout east to west. There was a concern that development within each POD may occur randomly which will prematurely limit the farmability 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 buildout before leasing and development of the other PODS occurs. The current neighborhood plan states that 50% of the site be leased before more than 20% of the mined professional POD be leased for non-agricultural uses. A 75% lease ratio has been proposed by representatives of the residential Country Estates Development immediately north of Reserve. H. Staff Concerns: While reviewing the draft plan and attending a series of neighborhood meetings, FRDO staff has raised a series of concerns to he consultant and DNRC officials. These concerns have generally been affirmatively answered. Those concerns fell into 2 categories, land use and transportatic :-i. To specifically address the transportation issues a specific transportation elemen: was added. Staff issues and how they were resolved are as follows:: Land Use: 1. FRDO encouraged compact development extending east to west and south to north emphasizing a development pattern that could efficiently be served by the extension of municipal sewer and water and allow for orderly annexation. The addition of the south to north pattern makes good sense in the 4 Mile Drive area Page 4 of 6 because of the presence of existing municipal services abutting 4 Mile Drive. The south to north pattern is appropriate as well as the east to west in the commercial 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 agriculture on the undeveloped portions of the site. The DNRC plan provides a phasing plan that emphasizes the development of the mixed commercial phase first, the mixed professional phase second and the mixed residential phase last. Note that the plan (page 9, policy 2) limits the mixed professional site development to less than 20% of the site until at least 50% of the mixed commercial site is leased. Note that no commercial uses are allowed in the mixed professional area period until the 50% 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 north entrance way to Kalispell along Highway 93. Pages 7-8, 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 signage. 3. Stillwater Road is extremely rural and under any phasing plan is substantially removed from urban issues and should be buffered. A deferred development area designation was placed along Stillwater Road. Transportation: 1. Limit the access onto Highway 93 to no more than 2, coordinating them 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 internal access points to the Highway 93 corridor to one crossing as this is a moderate speed arterial. This has been done per policy 5, page 14. 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 focus and access per policy 1-2 on pages 14-15. Page 5 of 6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: The proposed neighborhood plan proposes a level of development substantially more intense than anticipated or planned for in the existing City -County Master Plan. The neighborhood plan will ultimately encourage the conversion of 300 plus acres of agricultural land to urban uses. The plan will impose impacts on Reserve Drive and 4 Mile Drive. At the same time, the land lies within the urban growth boundaries of the city, municipal services are available to this section of land, urban scale development abuts the site to the south, east and north; lands lying adjacent to this site were recently the subject of a plan amendment to allow a commercial civic center and shopping mall on 65 acres, the plan acknowledges the bypass route, the orderly extension of services and utilities, the need for annexation and the extension of municipal services at time of development RECOMMENDATION: Staff does recommend that the DNRC Neighborhood Plan be adopted as an addendum to the Kalispell City County Mater Plan Year 2010 with the following 2 provisions: 1. 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 utilities, to encourage the continuation of agriculture on the site as long as viable and to inhibit a pattern of sprawl. 2. The Kalispell City -County Master Plan update 2020 still in progress incorporate the DNRC Neighborhood Plan as an addendum and that the overall land use policy map 2020 acknowledge that this neighborhood plan is an overall management plan for this area with an implementation buildout of 10-50 years and that it will be phased east to west and south to north. Page 6 of 6 is 1 iPBS1' 48 VB Dt "` • Y • f, ' ..:. ....::.....'.':.'.: _ .':.:. :.•. .':.':.': .':...'.: ....: ........................ . 1 21 Bvl - - : ... : ,, I1 :x: A f.. ......... ............ _ :... L� s :. . :. :: ..............................................::::. S G-1 0 :"4:::::::: :. "a AS-1 ...................................................... , - ............. �.............. a > -10 1� . • ' R PI >y .. SAG-10NFAICINNYMAP - s DAVID GREER ON BEHALF OF MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION REQUEST FOR ADOPTION OF A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AS AN ADDENDUM TO THE KALISPELL CITY —COUNTY MASTER PLAN PLdt DATE:2/17/99 -'FILE # KMPA-99-1 SCALE 1" = 1200' H:\os\site\XMPA99_l.dw` Country Estates Homeowners Association ' P.O. Box 753 F R. Kalispell. MT 59901 January 11, 1999 Mr. John Dahlberg Deraranent of Natural Resources and Conservation 2250 Highway 93 North Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mr. Dahlberg, The Country Estates Homeowners Association (CEHA,) Board has reviewed your draft proposal for the DNRC State Section land, as well as the draft KalispeH Ciry-County Master Plan 2020 direction. We are generally supportive of the draft City -County Master Plan, and recommend that the proposed land uses on the State Section be made compatible with this direction. We do not support the State's proposal in its current form Our primary concern is the existing excessive commercial and industrial development within the City -County planning area. The CEHA Board would like for you consider the foLowing alternative to your draft proposal for future land uses on the Section: • Fazhway Community Entrance-tilixed Use 'see Draft Cin'-Courr: Master Plan) be adopted for the area that the State has proposed as Mixed Commercial. However, we believe to be consistent with the drift Master Plan, that the development acres must be limited to no more than that outlined on the draft Master Plan map Appropriately, open areas would be found within this development pod. • Urban Residential would be adopted for the area that the State has proposed as Mixed Professional and Mixed Residential. If necessary, a land exchange should be considered as a possible means to implement this land use direction. • The bypass and utility corridor would be bu: tired and landscape to minimize of site etTects on residential proper•ies. Limited Neighborhood Commercial could also be considered for this strip with appropriate secondary access roads. t; t t t F ! t a Model ,! ins ,.till rig We be:.ere that he Div?tC mus.:ol o:v he processes ,aid out in the "�� .i � ode R;. es' .,, your r _ o. cod planning process. A MEPA decision must precede any recommendation to the Planning Board on the future land uses of the State's Section. Planning of the State land on both sides of Highway 93 must be considered when evaluating the compatibility of this proposal to the Master Plan. The Board thanks you for initiating the Neighborhood Planing approach for determining the long-term use of the section of State land that is adjacent to the Country Estates subdivision. We are loolars forwarded to participating in future planning meetings to develop a concensus for development of the Section. Sincerely, Kristiekdney, Presidents CEK-k Board of Directors cc: %I;. David Greer `fcntana Pla!,Ang Consultants P 0 Box 7607 Kalispell. MT 59904 Flathead Regional Deve!opment Office 723 5t° Avenue East - Room 414 Kalispell, MT 59901 Citizens for a Better Flathead P.O. Box 771 . Kalispell, MT + 59903-0771 (406) 756-8993 . FAX (406) 756-8991 o e-mail: citizensQadigisys.net Kalispell City -County Planning Board A PP I CA T I C N ' T 2'\ L Flathead Regional Development Office - - 723 5d Avenue East Room 414 Kalispell, MT 59901 4 r $ ' d 1999 Feb. 2, 1999 On behalf of Citizens For a Better Flathead, I am submitting the following additional comments to the draft City - County Master Plan. These comments are specific to the School Trusts Lands in Section 36 north of Kalispell. Due to the on -going process that the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) is under taking we feel it is premature to designate any portion of this property as Highway Community Entrance —Mixed Use at this time. We would recommend that you leave the designation as a Future Urban Expansion Area until a neighborhood plan for this area is agreed upon as this would be the most appropriate time to make a change to the master plan. As you are well aware, the 320 acres for which the DNRC is formulating a neighborhood plan, is not subject to mandatory compliance with county or city land use regulations. Their efforts, however to draft land use guidelines can be a win -win situation for all parties, if it can provide: 1) predictable development guidelines and performance standards to direct the future leasing of this land so that it results in a high quality development and so that it benefits the economy of the local community as well as the state, as required by 77-1-601,M.C.A. 2) reasonable phasing parameters to ensure that this development occurs within a framework that promotes compact development patterns gradually expanding from the city limits, as opposed to disperse low level density development across the site. 3) assurance that the proposed new development will be required to be annexed to the city and to be fully served by urban infrastructure and municipal services, which given the magnitude of the potential build out of this site, will be necessary to ensure that at each phase there is adequate protection of water quality and cost effective delivery of services. Additionally we feel that it will be important to encourage innovative lard use regulations to accommodate the above identified creiteria. Of particular importance is a phasing mechanism that would allow for periodic revisions of the Kalispell Master Plan structured within this neighborhood plan. To designate this entire area as mix commercial use (as is being contemplated) at this time may discourage future potential options such as a land swap or greater emphasis on residential development. Residential development may be more appropriate and the need more apparent for this area in the future. Innovative lard use regulations, however would be needed to enable the DNRC to achieve the predictability and economic goals they desire now. = Mayre Flowers, Program Director Citizens For a Better Flathead Every voice Is Important! 9 r_►, 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 state land can be found in the Montana Code Annotated, Chapter 77, Part 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 (land base) is not in the best 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. Therefore, this plan was developed with a primary emphasis on long term lease arrangements rather than land sales. However, future Boards are not bound by the current Board's policy and may elect to sell all or a portion of the subject state land. This plan seeks to provide direction for any future land use decisions that are made through either lease arrangements or sale. Land Exchange After review of the informal proposals for land exchange which have been suggested to the DNRC, none could meet DNRC's land exchange criteria. The current state ownership is well 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 77, Part 1 and Chapter 70, Part 30. 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 on recent public comment (prepared by the DNRC for public hearing on 3/9/99): ► A statement will be added to the Introduction (page i) or Plan Development Process (page 1) concerning the "lease" philosophy on school trust lands. See attachment. ► A 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. ► A 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 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. ► 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 mixed professional pod as soon as practical based upon considerations of demand, type of use, and land use density. ► It is suggested that the 5ch 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 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 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. ► A policy will be added to page : 6aconcerning 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 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". SeGTION 3to KA-LVSMLL, MONTANA A proposed amendment to the: Kalispell City -County Master Plan prepared bj: The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation in cooperation with: Montana Planning Consultants P.O. Box 7607 Kalispell, Montana 59904 April 20, 1999 iNT2oPUC DON This document is a Land use plan to guide the future use and development of SchooL Trust land generaLLy described as being Located within Section 36. Township 29N. Range 22\\/. PM.M. The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNIZC) is a state agency responsible, in part for the management of School Trust Lands. Section 36 is located adjacent to the northerly city Limits of Kalispell The DNRC has prepared this plan in consideration of 2 primary objectives: (1) to achieve a public mandate to generate revenue for the state school system and (2) consider issues of neighborhood compatibility and relationships to Local Land use plans and regulations. It is the intent of this planning process to integrate with the Kal.ispeLl. City County Master Plan. This wiLL be accomplished by incorporating the plan for Section 36 into the Kalispell Master Plan via the master planning process identified under Section 76 4-601 et seq. MCA, This will involve public hearings and approval by the Flathead board of County Commissioners and the City Council- of KaLispeLL A'state' planning process involving school. trust Lands that seeks to integrate into the local planning process is a new concept Under Montana statutes, the DNRC is mandated 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 greater revenue for the support of the common schools, the university system. and other institutions benefitting 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 such development' Section 774-601. MCA dither Montana codes essentially exempt state properties from being subject to most zoning (76-2-402 MCA) and subdivision (Section 76-3-205. MCA) provitsions. Despite the apparent advantage that some of these exemptions may offer, this Plan is proposing that aLL development proposals in Section 36 adhere to Local. planning and zoning regulations. by following this plan, the Long term objectives to generate revenue for the school. trust fund and promotion of neighborhood compatibility can be achieved. The DNIZC considered. in the development of section 36. the sale of aLL or a portion of the section in order to provide revenue for the trust beneficiaries. Procedures established for the sale of state Land can be found in the Montana Code Annotated. Chapter 77. Part 2 The current board has adopted a policy of not entertaining arty 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 (Land base) Ls not in the best 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. Therefore, this plan was developed with a primary emphasis an Long term Lease arrangements rather than Land sales. l.iowever, future boards are not bound by the current board's policy and may elect to sell aLL or a portion of the subject state Land. This plan seeks to provide direction for any future Land use decisions that are made through either Lease arrangements or sale. A'state' neighborhood plan aLso differs in other respects from other neighborhood plans. Not only does the plan involve Lands in state ownership but the plan also anticipates a Long term development scenario. based on a number of considerations and circumstances, this plan is Likely to have application over a period of decades as opposed to a traditional time period of Less than 10 years. Integral. components of the plan include identification of Land use pods, phasing of development and performance standards for development DNRC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 Plan Development Process Justification Section 36 is located on the north side of Kalispell. The SE1/4 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 experiencing 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 -making 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 west 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 "master plan" the property was made by the DNRC in 1991 and a formal request for funding was made in 1997 when the West Valley Neighborhood planning process was underway. As suggested in the "Introduction" section of this Plan, the development of a neighborhood plan on state-owned lands is unique. Why subject state property to specific land use goals and policies when it is exempt form most planning regulations? Section 36 is somewhat unique among state-owned lands. 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 93; ► Bisection of the property by the proposed West Side Bypass; ► One mile of frontage (north side) along West Reserve Drive, a minor arterial; ► One mile of frontage (south side) along Four Mile Drive; ► One mile of frontage (west 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 as DNRC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 "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- ag 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. A Neighborhood Planning process was selected as the preferred strategy for preparing a 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 or proposals on the land. An overall guiding premise was to seek neighborhood compatibility of uses within the constraints of the DNRC's role as a land manager responsible for generating the largest legitimate return of revenue from the leasing of school trust lands. Other underlying premises of the planning effort were that (1) 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 would 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 showing 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 1. This meeting was held on August 19, 1998. The purpose of this initial meeting 2 DNRC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 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 30, 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 17, 1998. The purpose of this meeting 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 start 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 agency officials 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 SchoolState • : •Montana � " �''' -"�' �',�' �.5�.--.,mot•': � -� � �„` -ty-... w �- „„.„�',�.., ,.-,.: ,.+.4`'x '' Ft x 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 greaterrevenue for the support of the common schools, the university system, and other institutions benefitting therefrom, and that in so doing the economy of the local community as well as the state is benehtted as a result of the impact of such development (77-1-601, M.C.A.). ------------------------------------ NEIGHBORHOOD GOALS: OTo establish a framework for the review of land use options and proposals ®To provide for a systematic and logical development pattern by considering phasing and priority of development between land use pods and within land use pods OTo recognize the preference of the State of Montana to "lease" rather than to "sell" land 4 DNRC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 TTo maintain a pleasing highway corridor entrance to the city of Kalispell )To consider issues related to the proposed west side bypass alignment and power line corridor that bisect the property ©To seek a compatible mix of land uses within the property and with that of the surrounding area ®To identify an integrated internal transportation system that serves to link land use pods and minimize approaches onto public roads ®To seek a "level of services" consistent with the rate, amount, type, and location of development OTo 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 land 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 DNRC 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 professional 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 pattern of the property. Refer to the Land Use Map (MAP Exhibit A) for the locations of the PODS. Uses appropriate to each POD are listed in Text Exhibit A. DNRC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 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 creating 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. GOALS: OTo identify the appropriate location for commercial uses ©To minimize the appearance of highway strip development OTo identify appropriate commercial uses ®To identify appropriate development standards 1. 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 7 DNRC 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 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. 5. Use allowances should allow for a mix of commercial and professional office opportunities but "strip -type" uses characterized by substantial outdoor storage and display of products, such as car lots and trailer sales should be avoided; - 6. Taverns and gaming/gambling uses are inappropriate; 7. A village 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 low profile by permitting only ground and wall signs. Freestanding (pole) 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. Builis-ACha°ping a footprint size greater than 60,000 sq ft shall be located a minimum of 300 feet from the highway right of way; and 13. All portions of the lot area lying outside the building footprints and parking lot(s) shall 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 Il development priority. GOALS: OTo identify an area suitable for transitional commercial uses, such as offices and other similar and compatible uses Oa To establish use priorities and phasing of development Os 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 0 DNRC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 at least 50% of the Mixed Commercial pod is leased for development. This 20% allowance shall 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 water and sewer, 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; 7. Uses should have an inward orientation with no direct frontage onto any public road; 8. 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 shall be landscaped and irrigated. 10 DNRC 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 III 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 office complex are examples of uses that would benefit from city services. GOALS: OTo identify an area for transitional residential uses that may include a mix of residential, quasi - residential, and office uses ®To recognize roadway access limitations from Four Mile Drive OTo seek neighborhood compatibility through establishment of performance criteria, development priorities, and phasing Policies: 1. Restrict development of non-residential and non-agricultural uses to less than IN DNRC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 20% 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 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. 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; 7. Agricultural uses are acceptable; 8. Exterior lighting should be low profile and direct light inward and downward; 9. Signage should be low profile by specifically excluding freestanding signs other than ground signs; and 10. Landscaping adjacent to roadways and parking lots will be encouraged. All portions of lots lying outside the building footprints or paved surfaces shall be landscaped and irrigated. 12 DNRC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 SPORT FIELDS The City of Kalispell has entered into a 40 year lease with the DNRC for most of the SE1/4 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. GOALS: OTo recognize an existing lease arrangement with the City of Kalispell for a sports field complex ©To provide linkages to the sports fields from other land use pods OTo consider appropriate land uses adjacent to the sport fields Policies: 1. Consider opportunities to provide pedestrian pathway and roadway connections between the sports fields and other land use pods; 2. Provide a land 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. 13 DNRC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 TRANSPORTATION The State school trust section is approximately 1 mile square. The property 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: OTo minimize the number of approaches onto the existing public transportation system ©To identify the general alignment of the internal collector roads Os To 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 roads as shown on 14 DNRC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 the Land Use Map 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 sides of the highway/county roads; 4. Consider the realignment [and related abandonment] of Four Mile Drive as shown on the Land Use Map; 5. Provide for an internal connection between land use pods including a crossing of the highway bypass near the center of the Section and as shown 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 share 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 plan. 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 statutes as applicable to the private sector. The purpose of this self regulation is to enhance public confidence in this plan and to promote a well planned community entrance to Kalispell. GOALS: OO To use this plan by the DNRC and land use regulatory agencies as a "blueprint" forthe wise use and development of the State School Trust land OTo seek adoption of this Plan as an official amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan 30To identify responsibilities for development of common elements by individual lease holders TTo 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 12 DNRC Neighborhood Plan 04/20/99 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 "Green" buffer on the west side of the Section that is not intended to be developed for any non agricultural use until at least the year 2010; 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 lease holders should include reference to the adopted plan and identify individual responsibilities of development, including consideration of architecture, open space, landscaping, travel ways, 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. Seek a cooperative process between the DNRC and the Flathead Regional Development Office (FRDO) to check compliance with the goals 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 17 DNRC 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. m TEXT EXHIBIT A MIXED COMMERCIAL Assembly halls, coliseums, stadiums Beverage shops, coffee or wine Car wash Churches Community meeting hails 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 dental facilities 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 alley, golf course, ice skating arenas, swimming pool, etc) Recreational theme parks (zoos, aquariums) Recreational vehicle parks Retail facilities (e.g., baked goods, clothing, gifts, drug, pharmacies, furniture, hobby, 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 shops, coffee or wine 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 facilities, outdoor or indoor (tennis courts, bowling alley, 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 A -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 home 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, golf 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 A -3