1. Council Minutes - Regular Meeting - July 17, 2006A REGULAR MEETING OF THE KALISPELL CITY COUNCIL WAS HELD AT :oo
.M., MO AY JULY 1 � oo � IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL IN
KALISPELL, MONTANA. MAYOR PAMELA B. KENNE Y PRESIDED, COUNCIL
MEMBERS JIM ATKINSON, KARI GABRIEL, BOB HERRoN, BOB RAFFER.AN
RANDY KENYON, T M KLUESN. I; , DUANE LARSoN, AND HANK o SON WERE
."RESENT.
Also present: City Manager James Patrick, City Attorney Charles Harball, City Clerk Theresa White,
Police Chief Frank Garner, Fire Operations Chief Dan Diehl, Assistant Chief of Prevention Brent
Christopherson, Finance Director Amy Robertson, Public Works Director Jim Hans , Planning
Director Tom Je t , Senior 'lancer Sean Conrad, Planner er ., . Sorenson, Community
Development Director Susan Moyer, Parks and Recreation Director Mike Baker, Airport Manager
Fred Lesti o, and Recording Secretary Judi Funk.
Mayor Kenney called the meeting to order . d led the Fledge of Allegiance.
A, AGENDA APPROVAL
Kenyon moved approval of the Agenda. The motion was seconded*
There was no discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon vote.
B. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL
1. Council M nute s — Re I ar Mee ting — Jul. 3 6
2. Award Bid — Gateway West Mail Parking Lot Project
(Moved to main agenda as Item. G.
3. Ordinance 157.8 — Initial ,lo in �Riebe anal Webster 2nd Readies
The Riebe's and Webster have requested a zoning designation of City -2, Single Family
Re.sideDtial, on approximately 13 acres located at 386 and 394 Three Mile Drive. Ordinance
1578 passed on first reading July 3.
Atkinson moved approval of the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded.
Kle.er moved to remove item 2 the Gateway West parking lot bid award, and place it o
the main Agenda as Item G . The motion on was seconded.
The motion carried unanimously upon vote*
The main motion, as amended, carried unanimously upon roll call vote.
Kalispell fit O61 MiDWeS
July 17, 2006
Page 1
C. STUDENT ISSUES
None.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Nome.
E. PUBLIC HARING — 2006 2007 FISCAL BUDGET
Patrick gave a staff report.
Mayor Kennedy opened the public hearing.
No one wished to speak.
Mayor Kennedy closed the public hearing.
[All written correspondence received prior to the public hear is attached and by this reference
made a part of the official record]
PUBLIC HEARING - GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT — HIGHWAY 93 NORTH
The City is considering amending the growth policy by expanding the boundaries of the policy
northward using the Stillwater River as the western boundary, Church and Birch Grove Drives as the
northern boundary, USale to Rose Crossing over to the Flathead River as the eastern boundary, and
Reserve Drive as the southern boundary.
Jentz gave a staff report.
Mayor Kennedy opened the public hearing.
Joe Unterr, i e ', 136 5th Avenue East, Chamber of Commerce President, spore in favor of the
growth policy amendment and praised the commercial planning in particular. He specifically
commented that the 2 % general commercial portion seems overly restrictive and inflexible, and that
the limitations and buffers along; highway systems also seem overly restrictive.
John Sonja, 111-5 1st Avenue west, stated he concurs with U terrei er's comments, adding his
business property is approximately one mile north of the Stillwater River and a 100-1.50 foot buffer
would almost cut the property in half. He reminded the Council that the buffer to the Lowe" s and
Costco property is 40 feet. Sonju concluded that he is happy the City is taking; a proactive approach
to planning north of town.
Mayre Flowers, 2770 Upper Lost Creek Road" Whitefish, distributed detailed comments from
Cites for a Better Flathead and asked the Council to continue the public hearing in order to give
the public more time to review the proposal. She said without a staff report and detailed findings of
fact, the public is handicapped on knowing what the impact will be.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
July 7, 200
Page
Howard and Mann, 3154 Parkway Lane, thanked the City Manager and the planning department for their
foresight and wisdom to bring this growth policy amendment before the City Council and the public.
He said with this amendment the City can protect the main corridors into the City,
Sharon I eMeester', 415 Chestnut Drive, spoke in favor of limiting the commercial development,
stating we don't want developer -driven planning. She stated she mould like to hear more input from
the outlying areas, not just the City, and she feels more discussion is warranted regarding the
"limited commercial" areas.
Mary Gibson, 2113 Mission Frail Road, stated she would life Council to consider the downtown's
commercial development and the traffic problems at Whitefish Stage and Reserve. She asked
Council to limit access to the commercial development to Highway 93 as much as possible.
Mike Hodges, 610 St. Andrews Drive, Columbia Falls, commented that it appears here has been
enough discussion and the time is here now to move forward.
David Mitchell, 249 Sherry Lane, said he feels the amendment is a well thought out plan and gives
us something to shoot for in the future. He said that Section 36 and Hutton Ranch Plaza were well
planned and thought out, however, the area south of town was unplanned and is not an appealing
entrance. Mitchell said he believes in downtown revitalization, but the City needs to plan for growth
to happen everywhere.
.a c Yarns, 425 Ponderosa Lane, expressed concern that the plan is premature. She said
commercial infill is not yet complete within the City and we should not annex anything else north of
torn until that is done. She said she is also concerned about traffic and we need a traffic plan for the
area
Joanne Kiernan, 735 4th Avenue East, suggested that a thoughtful approach is important in this
situation and she would like to see planning that includes the entire City, because streets and
sidewalks are deteriorating. She said she would like Council to consider all the options before
making a decision.
John Parsons, 725 9th Avenue West, spoke .in favor of the amendment, but said the plan does not go
far enough. He said it will inevitably promote leapfrog development because of the relatively low
density plan proposed. Parsons said without enough commercial property, development will still
occur 1n the County and he asked the Council to increase the intensity of uses.
Bob Parker, 6 9 ' ,farm to Market Road, Whitefish, part owner ofMajestic valley Arena, stated lie is
in Favor of the plan, but feels the 1.50 root buffer is a little excessive.
Mayor Kennedy closed the public hearing.
[All written correspondence .received prior to and during the public bearing is attached and by this
reference is made a part of the official record]
G. REPORT COMMENDATIONS AND SUBSEQUENT COUNCIL ACTION
Kalispell City Council Minutes
.duly 17, 2006
Page
G/L COUNCIL DISCUSSION —GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT —HIGHWAY 93
NORTH (ND ACT01r13
Jentz responded to one of the comments, stating that "limited on nr ial" on the map was,
essentially a housekeeping issue. He said the "limited mixed use" is the same designation that was
used for Hutton Ranch Plaza and that "'mixed use" means residential, office, and commercial. Jent
said the planning staff looked at this as a clarification.
Atkinson asked Jentz about the 1.50 foot buffer, as opposed to the normal 40 feet.
Jentz said the plan is based on traffic speeds and the : 00-150 feet is for the high speed areas of
Highway 93. He said the Planning Board feels that keeping traffic moving is very important and thi
buffer would move development away from the highway and provide an area for frontage roads,
pedestrian paths, landscaping, etc.
K esner asked if roads life Whitefish Stage and .deserve will be upgraded.
Jentz sa.ld we know that Whitefish Stage is a major corridor and the State does have funding
mechanisms in place to help upgrade the sccon.dwy roads, but he won't hold his breath until it{s
done. He said he feels the development community will be required to upgrade the roads as
development occurs. Jentz added that the City is also in the process of looking at impact fees and
roads are the next major issue we need to tackle.
Kenyon asked about the possibility of using Transfer of Development Rights T Rs and asked if
they shouldn't be included in the growth policy.
Jentz stated he would support Ts, but it will require coordination with the county and they are
years away from getting the program going. He explained it is a "banking mechanism"" to buy
development rights from a rural area to increase the density in an urban area; the rural area is then
left open space. He stated it could be a great program, but we should have a policy with the
commissioners.
Herron asked Jentz to clarify the definition o ``linear strip" developments, adding he assumes that
Spring prairie, loves, and Mountain view are not "linear trip" developments.
Jentz stated°`strip development"" is commercial development along a major highway that is one lot
deep, each lot with a. separate d.rxvea.y..le said there is no coordi.a.t.ed traffic l a, and n o ability to
develop the land behind the lots. He said the Spring Prairie development is not considered a `'iin.ea.r
strip" development because it has a coordinated traffic and pedestrian system..
Atkinson asked Jentz to comment on the statement by John 'arsons that this plan doesn't go far
enough and will promote leapfrog development.
Jentz said one way to address that concern is to allow additional development over the stated
percentages by PU . He stated he does feel that within three gears the commercial allotment in that
area will be Full. Jentz said the reality is that businesses are coning and it's up to the Council
whether they are a part of the community.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
July 17, 2006
Page
Hafferman stated he has a problem with the 150 foot setback and feels it reeds more thought.
e tz explained it's meat to provide for frontage roads, for pedestrian areas,landscaping, and
parking, but the Council can change that if it chooses.
.errors commented we can finally plan correctly on large parcels and e will be offering language
allowing for PUDs. He said we cart wait any forger to plan for growth.
Gabriel commented that she worked in Whitefish for three years, traveling back and forth. from
Kalispell, and that road is dangerous. She said a lesser setback would be dangerous.
s.
Mayor Kennedy asked that this be placed on a work session agenda. for July 24 for f irther discossi .
G2, ORDINANCE 15 —ADDITIONAL STREET ASSESSMENT RATE CATEGORY
1ST READING
Ordinance 1579 creates a fifth rate category in the street assessment rate schedule le to cover tax
exempt properties. Ordinance 1579 was tabled at the .duly 3 meeting.
Larson moved to remove ordinance 1579 from the table. The motion was seconded.
The motion to remove carried unanimously upon vote.
Larson moved to table ordinance 1579 until August 7. The motion was seconded.
The motion to table carried upon vote with Hafferman, Kenyon, Klnesner, Larson, Olson, and
Mayor Kennedy voting in favor and Atkinson Gabriel, and Herron voting against.
G13. ORDINANCE 15 — ADDITIONAL STOP DRAINAGE ,ASSESSMENT RATE
CATEGORY —1 ST READING
Ordinance 1.580 creates a fifth rate category in the storm drainage assessment rate schedule to cover
tax exempt properties. Ordinance 1580 was tabled at the July 3 meeting.
Larson moved to remove ordinance 1580 from the table. The motion was seconded.
The motion to remove carried unanimously upon vote.
Larson moved to table ordinance 1580 until August 7. The motion was seconded,
The motion to table carried upon vote with Hafferrnan., Kenyon, Kluesner, Larson., Olson, and
Mayor Kennedy voting in favor and Atkinson, Gabriel, and Herron voting against.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
July 17, 2006
Page
G * ORDINANCE 15 — DECAY U K VEHICLE, AND WEEDS ABATEMENT
ORDINANCE — 1ST" READING
Ordinance 1581 amends the City's current unk vehicle ordinance, the weed/grass ordinance, and the
community decay ordinance.
Atkinson moved first reading o Ordinance 1581, an ordinance amending portions of Chapters
1% 11 and 19 of the Kalispell Municipal Code relating to the regulation of junk vehicles,
combustible weeds and grasses and community decay and declaring an effective date. The
Motion was seconded.
entz gave a staff report.
Kluesner and Mayor Kennedy expressed concern with the language changes in the Junk vehicle
section.
Sorensen said staff feels the new language is clearer and will allow better enforcement.
Olson and Kenyon remarked that the staff should be give th
e e opportunity to work with the
ordmanee and if it doesn't work they will be back before the Council.
The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote,
G . ORDINANCE 1582 — AMENDING ORDINANCE 4 - RESIDENCY
REQUIREMENTS —1ST READING
Ordinance 1582 amends the residency requirements for City department beads and their assistants to
live within three miles or a. -minute response time from the City limits.
Larson moved first reading of Ordinance 1582, an ordinance to amend ordinance No, 847 to
require all Department .scads and their assistants to reside within three miles or 15 minutes
response time to the City and declaring an effective date. The motion was seconded.
arball gave a staff report.
Olson noted that a letter from Clarice Gates suggested the Council review each case individually and
not change the overall policy, He said he feels that may be the right idea.
Mayor Kennedy said that was actually discussed at the last work session and can still be considered.
She said after .looking over Ordinance 847 , which was adopted in 17, she feels the entire ordinance
needs to be revised. Mayor Kennedy suggested the issue be tabled until the entire ordinance can be
reviewed.
Herron moved ordinance 1582 be tabled to August 21. The motion was seconded.
The motion to table carried upon vote with Atkinson, Gabriel, Hafferrnan, Herron, Kenyon.,
Klnesner, Olson and Mayor Kennedy voting in favor, and Larson voting against.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
July 17, 2006
Page
G . RESOLUTION 51 FEE SCHEDULE FOR COPIES of PUBLIC RECORDS
Resolution 5128 sets a standard fee for copies of public records for all City offices.
Larson roved Resolution 2 , a resolution to establish a feeschedule for copies of public
records from Cy offices. The motion was seconded.
Patrick gave a staff report and answered questions.
Hafferman stated he feels information should be ive . to the public as a free service and the fees are
too high.
Herron said he feels the fees are very adequate because the departments are willing to provide
documents free of charge electronically or through the web site.
Hafferman reiterate d this is too expensive and it's our duty to provide information to the citizens of
Kalispell.
The motion carried upon roll call vote with Atkinson, Gabriel, Herron, Kenyon., Kl es er,
Larson, Olson and Mayor Kennedy voting in favor, and Hafferman voting against.
G 7* AWARD BID — GATEWAY WEST MALL PARKING LOT PROJECT Moved from
Consent agenda)
Three bids were received for the reconstruction of the Clty's portion of the Gateway West parking
lot, JTL Group submitted a hl d of 280,25 .70, Settle Contracting hid 2 3,33 1.75, and Schelfinger
Construction bid 33,510.30. Staff is recommending the bid be awarded to JTL Group.
Atkinson moved the Council award the bid for the Gateway West Mall Parking Lot Project to
JTL Group for $280,258.70. The motion was seconded.
Hafferman said he drives by Gateway West Mall daily and there is " ea eo " parking. He asked
why we are doing this.
Patrick stated this is a contractual obligation that the Council agreed to with Teletech quite some
time ago. He said once TeIeTech reached a certain number of employees the City agreed to provide
additional. parking because America. Capital does not allow Teletech to have access to the sed
part of the parking lot.
Moyer explained the City and the Port Authority will share the cost of the paving; 50150.
Herron stated we agreed to do this a long time ago so let's move ahead.
affer,an said this is a "to.l" waste of natural resources and we should have been able to utilize the
whole parking lot.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
.duly 171 2006
Page
The motion carried upon vote with Atkinson, Gabriel, Herron, Kenyon, Kluesner, Larson,
Olson and Mayor Kennedy voting in favor, and Hafferman voting against.
�# NIAYo COUNCIL CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS No Actio
Patrick informed CouDcil that the City has secured a Domestic Violence grant in the amount o
$397 000.00 and Doug Overman was recognized as Police officer of the Year for the State o
Montana.
MOURN
The meeting was adjourned a : 5 p.m.
ATTEST:
:
Theresa White
City Clerk
Pamela B. Kennedy
Mayor
Kalispell City Council Minutes
.duly 17, 2006
Pagge
Theresa White
From: Clarice Gates [ a n at 9@hotr aii.co
Sent: Saturday, July 15, Zoo 1 :02 AM
o; eit cl r @)k lis ll.eom; tw its@ka is ll.cc ; eltya ager@ afi ll.co ; parry@ko bo . c -
ro n9 ontana. om; rron@b rron-com; larscr� @ r�tur rt l.n t; jc tk@r c task .n t#
kenyonocyberport. net; a ri. a ri l-1 @ho r ail . o ; t k1u s r@ ntu1 t t;
r ar of 20019 caco ; cg@cybertport,com
Subject: Public Hearing for Budget being held on July 17, Zoo
t.qm Ckrice Gates and I live and own the r)lacc at 426 7th. Ave, West. Ka is .l_ MT 59901. My phone.
is: (406) 752-1199.
MY COMMENTS ON THE BUDGET HEARING BEING HELD ON U Y 177 2006 ARE:
The plans to allow the Hockaday Museum on Art to expand by purchasing; another building without
ways to repay the loans needed is not good business sense. Giving the Hockaday Board the okay to d
what they want without making sure they have definite plans on repayment without putting the burden
on the people living in Kalispell is very important.
Fells Fargo Bank Building is another problern. According to your work shop agenda, Construction
Costs has increased by over 25 percent in the last year. 'You can have a very fancy building with
windows in the basement or just tighten the city's spending and leave the building the way it is. other
business .have used modular ar room dividers to separate different departments. In the basement full
spetrm lights could be used. t would also be cheaper to beat the building without adding
more windows.
I beard that moving the Sever and Water Department to the Wells Fargo Bank Building will cost this
Dept $10,000 each per year. Where will this extra money come from? Will the rates need to be raised to
cover this amount?
nt
In Zoo , all property will be reappraised and the new tax bills will be sent out in 2009. 1 am sure that no
one else wants the added burden of more taxes or expenses created by the city. f know I don't.
Clarice Gates
7 7 200
Theresa White
From: Clarice Gates [gardengate79@hotmaii.com
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 5*03 PM
To: t hite@ .alisp ll.eo ; city l k@ ali ll. o ; ity a a er9kali ll. m, pa g o vboy. om;
robertt@montanaxon herron@ rro . o ; far on @ t ryt t. t; atk@ o tana y. t;
r nyo 2@ju .e ; kari_ a i l-1 3@hot aii. o ; t lu r@ t ,rt 1. om;
aryolo201 @Yahoo.com
Subject: public Hearing being held on July 17,2006 on the Highway 93 North Growth Policy
I am Clarice Gates and a resident of Kalispell at 426 7-th Ave vest Kalispell, MT 59901. My phone
number is 0 752- 1.9 .
MY COMMENTS ABOUT Highway 93 North Growth Policy:
First, the facts are not in on whether Kalisp ll's sever plant will be allowed to dump more effluent into
Ashley Creek to cover all the expansion of the serer and water district. Kalispell is already commited
to helping Somers and their planned development and may need to help Lakeside, too.
Also on the agenda of Kalispell sewer and water Dept is adding more subdivisions in Evergreen as they
allow.
With this Nov North Growth Policy the Stillwater River will be the western boundary, Church alad
Birch Drives as the northern boundary and so oin. The current Growth boundary is one mile north of
Reserve Drive up to Rose Crossing.
Has the city council or the public seen any reports of the cost of providing sever and water so far out
from the city boundaries? Have the impact fees been set and how much can actually be charged towards
the cost of pumping stations, a new sewer plant to handle effuent if it must be sent to a bigger grater
source; such as the Flathead River or the costs of pipe lines and pumping stations to to take the e f ent
to a different river instead of Askley Creek?
I heard the comment at the Planning Board Meeting that the developers will be paying the cost of
extending the lines to their property, but ghat about the costs I mentioned above. Who will pay for
them? What will be done about hauling the solid waste to a treatment plant to make compost, what will
be the extra cost there?
How much more water will be needed and what will the source and cost be
Maybe it .s time that Flathead County do research on a regional sewer plant.
If the properties listed in the Highway North Growth Policy are annexed into Kalispell City limits,
the cost of providing police, fire protection and maintaining roads and streets in each subdivisions will
be very expensive. Studies show that the cost is more than the 'income from taxes.
Clarice Gates
7 7 200
Theresa white
From; Cechy McNeil crmc eil@mac.cor ]
Sent* Sunday, July 1, 2006 9:17 AM
twhite@lalisei.cor
Subject: Glacier Mail
I urge you NOT to accept the Kalispell Growth Policy Amendment, which would bypass voter opposition to the Glacier
Mall.
o we really need MORE MALLS?
The true value of Flathead County is its attractiveness. Yet we are depleting that capital fast. For example, the
commercial enclave at
Reserve and 93 is a nightmare. I know a fair number of well-to-do
retirees who avoid going here, afraid of the inhumanity, the
vastness, the unregulated traffic, the general inconvenience of
that environment. Not one person likes that area!
Building another mail wifi not lei .eve don't need it. We need to keep what is left of our open space. We need to think
of average citizens, not just the big guys, the developers,
Otherwise the Flathead will be a hell of screaming traffic with a view of mountains blurred by pollution. Where re is its value
there?
Steve Herbaly, who was once chief county planner, wrote recently that the present status of Flathead County is as it we
had never had any planning at all.
If we spend down the value of this County, we will all lose out in the long run. Not everyone could or would pocket real
estate earnings and rove to Sea island, GA, or the Bahamas. It is time to put the brakes on greedy humongous
development in the Flathead. And what goes for the county does for the city of K, as well.
From
Cechy P. McNeil, resident since 1990. Summer resident since 1959.
agree with the work done by Citizens for Better Flathead
We don't have people for all the commercial development now everyone is looking
for workers to hire. Young people are still leaving for better pay and benefits.
We need to slow down and make sure what has been constructed has been done
to standard and won't contribute to global warming.
K l's p z %x flit a fll c H ea r
1. The City of Kalispell is proposing to add another super mega -mail of commercial development
surrounded high density office and residential uses covering some 600 acres. This is the same
Site as the formerly proposed Glacier Mall; If the county falls to prove its case regarding public comment
for the Glacier- Mail County Growth Policy amendment, the approval of this mail will be null and void. If
the City approves this groom policy amendment,, however, the Glacier Mail or any mix of big
x stones 'Including a super Walmart could built at this site despite the final outcome from
the court decision.
• Table 3ndera.-mmeLciaffigped. site
Glacier Mall KNA on the map) for five years. This action would encourage vital redevelopment in
the downtown ;end other existing commercial areas of Kalispell that are not yet built out. (The city
rugs, by law, consider the need to revise and amend its growth policy every five years,)
• Establish baseline information to demonstrate the need for additional general commercial and office
space in the K i p ) plann)*ng area in keeping with Kalispell Growth Porky K , , Goal 9, Page 15
which calls for this baseline information. The City of Kalispell should join a growing number of
communities around the country who are requiring economic impact reviews of the addition of new
acres of general commercial and other- land uses.
• Change the progosed na and groAth pQLtcy_text amendment to del nate the KN-1 or Glacier MI
area lrrar residertial with lei her densi residential aln i prematrre to add
the proposed scale of general commercial and office development at the proposed Glacier Mall site
now.
• Whitefish Stage and Reserve Drive are inadequate to handle this scale of development at this time.
Adequate infrastructure to ensure safe roads should be in place p r to increased development In
this area.
not delete the term "'limited.. as proposed in the definition of a "'mined use"' land use
designation* This would allow any general commercial in mixed use areas, including big box stores
that may not be appropriate in most mixed use areas throughout the planning area.
2. In a move towards excellence, the City of Kalispell is proposing to establish an overlay zone
along Hwy 93 from Four Mile Drive north to Church Dn*ve which will establish a 100-150 foot
setback for all new development with landscaping, a pedestrian trail or sidewalk, and four-
si d architecture. This overlay zone will also apply to US Hwy 2 from Reserve to Birch Grove. Similar
but smaller setbacks in an overlay zone are proposed for Whitefish Stage Road.
Support the creation of an overlay zone as proposed for the major highway corridors in Flathead
County.
0 Support the use of Planned Unit Development applications for properties that adjoin these corridors
to ensure development that enhances the character of the neighborhoods along this corridor and
the city.
3. With the exception of the 600 acre mega -mall,, office and high density residential development
discussed in point #1 above, the city map suggests that no other commercial will be permitted
along Hwy 93 and Whitefish Stage except for what they are calling "neighborhood commercial"
t the proposed intersections of church and Hwy 93, Whitefish Stage and Tronstad Road, and
Whitefish Stage and Rose Crossing.
Support limiting the continued extension of general commercial development into neighborhoods north of
Kalispell and along Hwy 93.
Call for phasing guidelines to ensure that neighborhood commercial areas only be built when there
is reasonable growth in residential uses to justify them, and that they be phased in development
from the city outward.
Comment specifically on if you think these proposed "neighborhood commercial"" areas are
appropriate for your neighborhood now or In the future. The Kalispell Growth Policy currently
defines "neighborhood commercial{' as being generally lots 3-5 acres in size and spaced one-half t
one mile apart; Gig page 16)
. Encourage {"great neighborhoods" as the city grows. These r ar north of Kalispell are currently
populated by low density residential development, The city should have policies as part of this
amendment to encourage the development of ""'great neighborhoods" and to buffer existing
usesO
Include a goal for this area that encourages the use of transfer of development rights as a
planning tool to help retain river corridor areas, create regional public parks and access to these
F
rivers.
Work with Flathead County to establish a joint plan for this area that includes a TDR program.
TDR program in conjunctionwith the county can a)so help preserve important farmland resources
that define the character of the Flathead Malley while helping the city better plan for growing areas
around the city.
In1e a goal for the city to develop and adopt an ordinance that establishes guidelines for new
large-scale residential developments. Such ordinances are often called Master Plan Development
Proposals 1 P and can help ensure that large scale developments t milli rent existing uses and
the character of the a ra .
Please don't add to global warming rethink what we are doing in the valley
Earmarks were given to all mall developers over the last Four years Wolford probably got
one Largest number of earmarks when to mall developers.T t"s why he wants a huge mall
to match the money he received from our government.
Sorry I can't be present this evening Thanks for accepting my comments
Pauline Sjordal 234 Third Ave West Kalispell
f
Page I of 3
Theresa white
From: Sally Janover dui@ertlini.net
Sent; Monday, Jufy 171 2006 3:31 PM
To: twhitegkalispell.com
Subject; Mega mall
Dear City of Kalispell,
The proposed super mega -mall of commercial development with high density office and
residential components over close to 600 acres in north Kalispell.
This could become a back door for the Glacier Mali to enter, which I am against, just as I am to the
introduction of Super Stores in that area, like wlart, we don't need more shopping areas that
we have to drive distances to; Especially considering fuel prices and global warming.
Wait to see how the revitalization of downtown Kalispell is accomplished before even considering
such a huge development. If we want a city center, and a city with character, build up the
downtown first as a place to go, lie in Boulder Colorado, It will make Kalispell distinctive, and
destination point for unique shopping (versus the same as everywhere else) and a place for quality
wining, dining and entertainment, versus fast food and low priced. unhealthy, monotonous fare.
Keep north Kalispell around Reserve and Whitefish Stage Road easy to travel on, and low density.
The open space currently there may come in for much better use later o, once we see the benefits
of the new growth policy and the way in which all of Klipell is developing* 1 mega mall such as i
being discussed may turn out to be a future blight on the city, a huge expense, and a snarl that
doesn't suit our Montana lifestyle.. It might also make people thinly twice before coming to such a
poorly thought out city.
I agree with the points Citizens for a Better Flathead have made. I am copying their well worded
points below. Please take this into consideration before taking another step toward approving this
development
Sally Jnover
1. The City of Kalispell is proposing to add another super mega -mall of commerclW
development surrounded by high density office and residential uses covering some boo
acmes. This is the same site as the formerly proposed Glacier Mall. If the county fails to prove its
case regarding public comment for the Glacier Mall ll County Growth Policy amendment, the approval
of this mall will be null and void. If the city approves this growth policy amendment,,
however,, the Glacier Mall or any mix of big box stores including a super Wa lm rf could
be built at this site despite the final outcome from the court decision.
Table considerationyof Qeneralycommercial and office development at the proposed site of the
Glacier Mall KN-1 on the reap) for five years. This action would encourage vital
redevelopment in the downtown and other existing commercial areas of Kalispell that are not
yet built out. (The city must, by lair, consider the need to revise and amend its growth policy
every five years;
Establish baseline information to demonstrate the need for additional general commercial and
office space in the Kalispell planning area in keeping with Kalispell Growth Policy 1, Goal
, Page 15 which calls for this baseline information. The City of Kalispell should join
growing number of communities around the country who are requiring economic impact
7/17/2006
Page 2 of 3
reviews of the addition of new acres of general commercial and other land uses.
Cha c t .v.. vv growthy text yamendment d Ig the HIV-1 or
Glacier Mall area t v suburban residential with r density l al rr -- �r y_Mr , It i
- - - ---------------------- %--premature to add the proposed scale of general commercial and office development at the
proposed Glacier Mall site now.
Whitefish Stage and Reserve Drive are inadequate to handle this c I of development at thi
time. Adequate infrastructure to ensure safe roads should be in place prior to increased
development in this area.
Do not delete the term OlimitedO as proposed in the definition of a Arid use[] land use
designation. This would allow any general commercial in rid use areas, including big box
stores that may not be appropriate in most mixed use areas throughout the planning area.
w In a move towards excellence, the City of Kalispell is proposing to establish an overlay
zone along Hwy 93 from lour Mlle Drive north to Church Drive which will establish a
100-150 foot setback for all new development with landscaping, a pedestrian trail or
sidewalk,. and four-sided architecture* This overlay zone will also apply to US Hwy 2 from
Reserve to Birch Grove. Similar but smaller setbacks in an overlay zone are proposed for whitefish
Stage Road.
Support the creation of an overlay zone as proposed for the major highway corridors in
Flathead County.
Support the use of Planned Unit Development applications for properties that adjoin these
corridors to ensure development that enhances the character of the neighborhoods along this
corridor and the city.
* With the exception of the 600 acre mega -mall, office and high density residential development
discussed in point #1 above, the city neap suggests that no other commercial will be
permitted along v and Whitefish Stage except for what they are calling
n l h aorhood commerciallO at the proposed intersections of Church and Hwy 93,
''whitefish Stage and Tron tard Road, and Whitefish Stage and Rose Crossing, Qick here for
map*
Support limiting the continued extension of general commercial development into
neighborhoods north of Kalispell and along Hwy .
Call for phasing guidelines to ensure that neighborhood commercial areas only be built when
there is reasonable growth in residential uses to justify thorn, and that they be phased in
development from the city outward
. Comment specifically on if you thinly these proposed Elneighborhood cornmercialEl areas are
appropriate for your neighborhood now or in the future. The Kalispell ll Growth Policy currently
defines Onaihbr-hd commercialD as being generally lots 3-5 acres in size and spaced
one-half to one mile apart. (KGP page 16)
. Encourage Elgreat neighborhoodsEl as the city grows. These areas north of Kalispell are
currently populated by low density residential development, The city should have
policies as part of this amendment to encourage the development of ❑great
7 7 200
neighborhoodsO and to buffer exilsting uses,
• Include a goal for this area that encourages the use of transfer of development rights D
as a planning tool to help retain river corridor areas, create regional public parks and access
to these rivers.
Mork with Flathead County to establish a joint plan for this area that includes a TDR
program. A TDR program in conjunction with the county can also help preserve important
farmland resources that define the character of the Flathead Malley while helping the city
better plan for grooving areas around the city.
Include a goal for the city to develop and adopt an ordinance that establishes guidelines for
new large-scale residential developments, such ordinances are often called Master Plan
Development Proposals PDP) and can help ensure that large scale developments
compliment existing uses and the character of the area.
/. 2006
Page 1 of
Theresa White
vn�.v....v.�.... ��.x�.�..�.Y.w.Yv..��� � .�..�.��.�r..... �..� w��....w.� � r�,....r., �..�.v.�..�.YY.�..�..�.� .�...n.�_...�w...�...�....�.....�.�.�..�.��...���.�._ . �...�...x �.�.�._..��..w�..��....�.v.��, �.�.�.x�.�..�....�.�..Yv.....m.wM�..w....N.w.......�.....�...,.,ry n..wvnv.
From: Julieart Oufieartgbigsky.net]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 200 ` : 1 PM
To: twhite@kalispell.com
Subject: Monday meeting gCi y Hall
Dear City Council,
am writing for my husband and myself to ask that you consider our concerns when
you review the proposed Kalispell Growth Policy.
First we strongly support the creation of an overlay as proposed .for the major Hwy
o -r' ors i . the Flathead Valley. We also support e use of Planned Unit Development applications
for properties that adjoin thes corridors. Thirdly we support 11miti g the cominued extension
sion
of General Commer lal Development into neighborhoods north of Kalispell and along Hwy 93.
We ask that you table consideration of commercial and office development at the proposed
site of the Glacier Mall knIOD. the Map for the minimums of 5 years. Change the proposed map and
gromb policy text to designate the knI. or the Glacier Mall. area to suburban resIdential along .Wy
3.
Please help us grow smartly to preserve the reasons this has been our home for 30 years
plus. Thank you for all. that you are doing for the good of all concerned.
Sincerely, Julie Howard and Art Danner
SCOTT & II(ALVIG,, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Duncan Scott Southfield Tower
Duncan@scottkalviglaw.com
Kerr A. Kalvig 10 3rd Avenue East, Suite 301
.o tkailw. cost Kalispell, MT 59901
Angela M. Le.c
Sure K. Scott
of counsel)
July 1, 2006
Honorable Pamela B. Kennedy, and
Meyers of the Kalispell City Council
City of Kalispell
312 1 st Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: Highway.93...Noirth Growth Policy Amendment
Dear Mayor Kennedy and City Council Members:
MAIL;
Box 1678
Kalispell, MT 59903
FAX: 0 -257- 0 2
PHONE: 0 -2 7- 00
I am writing to you on behalf of Janes L. " ucky" Wol ord and Wol ord Development
regarding your proposed Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment, an amendment to the
Kalispell Growth Policy 2020. Since January 2003, Wol ord has held options to purchase 485 acres
of property in the area identified as KN- 1 on your Highway 93 North Proposed Growth Policy
Amendment neap.
W01ford's property Fronts 2,500 Feet of Highway 93 starting at the north end o 'the Memorial
Gardens Cemetery, fronts West Reserver rive west of Ser itool, and also fronts Whitefish. Stage
Road. Since 1999, W 1 ' rd has planned and attempted to develop a large-scale shopping mall and
retail project. The project would include national and locally owned businesses, such as department
stores, box retailers, out -parcel development such as restaurants and service businesses, office
buildings, and residences. The general commercial component Wolford's project has been
anticipated to require more than 20 acres at full build out. The main component of the general
commerc aI aspect of the project Is the retal l center, which, alone, 1 s anticipated to cover more than
100 acres including internal roads, parking and conrnon areas, and landscaping. This retail center
will be located several hundred feet off Highway 93. Significant out -parcel development is planned
between the retail center and Highway 93. out -parcel development t is contemplated on other sides
of the retail center as well. Wolford's plan also includes substantial acreage to accommodate future
July 1 . 2006
Page 2
expansion for the anchor businesses that locate in the development.
Wolford is pleased that the City of Kalis ell's planning policy may now contemplate
significant commercial and retail development in the KN- f area, and views this as a significant
advancement in City planning policy. Bucky Wolford has always been willing g to have his project
be a part of the City of Kalispell. However, Wolford was disappointed in February 2003 when the
City adopted its growth policy because it left the old Stillwater neighborhood (golf course resort)
Plan in Place on Wolford's property ratbe.r than plan for S'Ignifi cant general commercial development,
even though Wolford had announced in January 2003 that he was moving his project to Highway
3 just north of Reserve Drive.
For that and other reasons, Wolford has worked with Flathead County since 2003 to move
his Project Forward. In that time, Wolford has had to endure numerous public and legal challenges,
but has made significant progress. ,lust last month, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the Co . .ty's
decision to rezone 274 acres of Wolford's property to -2 Commercial. Although the Supreme
Court remanded a narrow aspect of the case involving the Counter's amendment to its master plan,
we believe the outcome of the remand has no legal impact on the approved zone change. Wo ford's
next step with the County would be to subdivide the property.
Over the last two months, Wolford has met withJim Patrick and City staff about the
possibility of annexing its 485 acres. Wolford does not anticipate making any decision about
annexation until your growth policy update is complete. Wolford has some concerns about the
Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment that it would like the Council to address.
Wolford has two primary areas of concern. Wolford does not support(I)any policy that
prevents general commercial development ent along and fronting U.S. Highway 93, and 2 limiting the
ttgeneral commercial" componeiit to only a maximum of 150 acres in the KN-1 area. I will address
each of these issues in greater detail.
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FRONTING HIGHWAY 93
Policy 4 under Goal 2 states that "Commercial activity would be zenerally-centered within
the development [in K.- . " Wolford believes that commercial activity needs to be oriented toward
the road systems and not in the middle of a 60.cre area away from the roads. The types of
businesses and development that will fill 150 acres or more of general commercial property will
need to be located along and have exposure to the main arterial road --Hwy 93. Mountain View
Plaza and Spring Prairie Center have been successful because businesses have the necessary
exposure to the highway. As stated earlier in this letter, Wolfordfs primary retail center will be
located several hundred feet off' Highway 93, but the out -parcel development is critical to the
economic feasibility of such a project.
Policy 1 under Goal 2 calls for the KN- 1 area to be a `'town center as opposed to a linear
strip commercial development fronting U.S. Highway 93]. " Wolford plans commercial
July 17, 2006
Page 3
development along the highway --similar in nature to what you see in Mountain View Plaza and
Spring Prairie Center, and what you will see in Hutton Ranch. Wolford wants clarification and
definition that those types of developments are not deemed "strip commercial deve[opment. f.
Policy 3 1 under Goal 1 calls for a fcminimum 100 - 150foot impact area " along Hwy 93
north of the Stillwater River. Wol ford believes that 1 5f 1 s too much, when compared to policy that
requires only a forty foot landscape buffer for property south of Reserve Drive. The commercial
areas south of Reserve Drive are similar in nature and scale to what Wolford proposes to build. It
is disparate treatment for the City to require a buffer zone that is nearly four tines the depth of that
required .for these similar, nearby developments.
if the City is going to require a 100 - 150 foot impact area, then it should f strike the word
,,minimum'{ f'rorn this policy, and 2 allow the property owner to use the impact area for parking--
notjustlimited parting. While Wolford understands that the traveling public is interested in view
shod along its roadways, those portions of real property tend to have the most value to the landowner
because of their proximity to the road system.. Wolford is willing to keep buildings out of a
reasonable impact area, but, because the impact area is so deep, the businesses developed there must
be able to utilize that portion of them- property to accommodate the people coming to their
businesses.
"GENERAL COMMERCIAL" DEVELOPMENT LIMITED To 1.50 AcR s IN IC'+'44 AREA
Policy 3 under Goal 2 limits "general commercial" development in the boo acre KN-1 area
to pp. to 150 acres. Wolforc 's problems withthis are 1 the KN-1 area covers more than just the
5 acres Wolford would develop; consequently, there may not be 150 acres available to him for
his development f his retai I project - 2 Wolf'o d's general commercial project will exceed 15 0 acres
at fu11 build -out; and 3 the County has approved 274 acres of f -2 General Commercial zoning on
this same property.
One hundred fifty acres can fill up fast in our growing market. 0-100 acres of general
commercial have already been built and occupied in Mountain view Plaza (Hone Depot., etc.) and
Spring Prairie (Loves, etc.) in only -7 years. Development plans are already in place to fill up
another 100-120 acres in these pro uct s and the Hutton Ranch Project. To better plan its future
commercial property inventory, the City should identify now adequate general commercial acreage
that can be used "after" Wolford has built his project.
Wolford supports changing the allowed amount of"general commercial" property from 2 5%
to 0%. Wolford also supports putting flexibility into the plan that would allow the stated
percentages to be exceeded if a proposal is brought aught forward as a planned unit development. PUl s
can he an effective way to create flexibility for the developer while providing the public with better
assurance about the end product.
July 17, 200
Page
MISCELLANEOUS COMMENT
Both Policy 1 and Policy 4 under Goal 2 use the term "town center". Wol 'ord would like
greater elarlfieation as to what this term encompasses. He is familiar with the concept of a "lie style
center" and wonders if life style centers fit within the meaning o "town enter".
Beky Wol.ord and Wolord Development thank the Mayor and City Council for the
opportunity to comment on the Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment.
Sincerely,
Ken A. Kalvig �
e: Jinn Patrick
Toni Jentz
Charlie Har,ll
Janes L. "Bucky" Wol ord
July 17, 2006
The Honorable Pam Kennedy
the Kalispell City Council
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: Gogh Policy Flan Amendment -for Highway 93 -North
Dear Mayor Kennedy and Councilors:
On ebalf of Citizens for a Better Flathead,, I am subrnitting the Following
comments regarding the proposed Kalispell Groff Policy Amendment .t for ffighway 93
North.. The purpose of this letter is to s man e Citizens for a Better Flathead's
significant concerns as well as support for some elements of thiproposal regarding the
proposed truster plan amendment.
Process for amendina the Kalispell Growth c:
Criteria on page 62-63 of the Kalispell Growth Policy to be followed when amending the
growth policy include
Evidence o a major change in the socio-econon c conditions of the corm r tv
Identification of factLialerrors or contradictions
• Cons stenev with the goals and policies of the growth policy, state law, and other
policies adopted by the city council
Demonstration of the public reed and support for the change
Evidence that the proposed change is the most effective means of meeting the
need
• Benefit oft amendment should be to the public rather than beiriefiting one or a
few property mvners at the expense of others
Our comments will follow and be based on these criteria, but not necessariLy in the order
listed above as some criteria are more slifiant in this pTqposal.
Comments and R nested ts;
I
Criteria: Amendment and. Public Process
Under section 3 e, page 63 of the KGp it calls for the planning hoard to provide a
description of the proposed changes as has been done, but it also calls for the planning
board to Provide rationale for these changes, and implementation strategies
needed to accomplish these changes* No written report has been prepared by the
planning board covering these Items. Failure to provide this report and a written
review of the criteria under which this recommendation is hefrig made by the plying
hoard makes it very difficult for the public to comment on this proposal. The cover letter
provided on the city web site for this amendment notes that the Two Rivers
Neighborhood plan approval to the north by the county and inquiries to the city from
parties interested in developing in this area were the factors that staffed this review
process, but these do not equate to a rationale and review of amendment criteria for the
public or a review of proposed implementation strategies.
e jested Action to be taken LY the City of Kalispell: A findings of fat staff report
should he developed for public review prior to a public hearing on the proposed
amendment. This action would require you to continue this hearing to a future cute,
Additionally a significant last minute change to the recommendations was
not made public prior to the open house or planning board hearing on this
amendment. Thus the public was not able to comment on this change or understand
its implications prior to the planning board bearing. This change is the recent
proposal to remo-%T "limited commercial" from all mixed use zoning districts i .the
cite and planincr area. This one change opens the door to the boo acre mixed use area
proposed in this North 9.3 brow-th policy amendment. Additionally, si r fl ant areas
along US Hwy 2 and a portion of Section 36 state lards that abut residential uses would
now he open to general commercial uses including big box stores and other high 'impact
conu-nercial uses. Mixed use defined as "limited commercial"" appears to currently
correspond to - I Neighborhood Buffer District in the Kalispell zoning regulations.
There is no zoning district by the name of mixed use district in the Kalispell zoning
re u at o s, the r with policy, map, however,, uses the term '"limited commercial" for
mixed use areas on the map. The growth police text, map and zordng regulations should
he consistent.
Requested Action to be taken by tfindings Cl*ty of Kalis ell: A din s of fact/staff report
should he developed for public review prior to a public hearing on the proposal to change
the definition of mixed use areas, including the rationale and implications of this
proposed. change, which would require you to continue this hearing to a future date.
2. Criteria: Consistence vs-f ith the goals and policies of the growth policy, state law,
and other policies adopted y the city council.
Note: Goal-2 of the proposed amendment states "T'he development of are integrated
residential/commercial neighborhood (Designated KN-1 on. Growth Polley Ma between
US 93 -Reserve Drive and Whitefish Stage."
2A. Goal I and 2 of the....p.roposed amendment and the policies that support them
are toa significant a ee dependent on cooperation witb Flathead Count),
Cooperation with the eo n is the rt arf Focus of the oafs and ofieies of the
first chapter of the Kalispell Growth o ey titled "Administration."
No indication is provided to show that, consistent with the goals and
policies of chapter one, the county has been invited to comment on this
final text and map amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy. Earlier
joint county and city planning board sessions open the opportunity for
d i al ogu , but the real opportunity for collaboration and Joint policy
development is at this stage of the growth policy amendment process and
should not be overlooked if this proposal is to be consistent with other
goals and policies in the KG .
Re nested action to a taken � the City o Ka.hs ell: It would be consistent with the
goals and policies of Administration Chapter of t e Kalispell Growth Policy to address
how they might be ftirth r accomplished or are being accomplished through the
amer dr. ent process proposed as the Highway 9 3 North Growth Policy Amendment. .t. This
should e doeum nt d in a set of findings before you move for final consideration of this
policy amendment, It is my understanding that the county has not been asked to comment
on this proposal. The county should be invited to comment. Continue the public comment
period to review the outcomes of 1hese discussions and input with the county.
. Policies 3 and 9 of the Ka is ell Growth Po iev 6apter on administration call
for i' it atir Cit r-Coil t r a reeme is that would coo erativeiv influence the
amount and v e of growthwithin the growth poliKy area and for mee a is s to
address la .e s a I.e. projects that bave not been antiei ated in tht-growth poliev.
Citizens for a Better Flathead submitted documents and testirr� r� s orting o cues
3 and 9 in consideration of this amendment and the policies to address them before
the city planning board calling for-
1)
The inclusion of a policy that would lead to the mediate adoption of a
Master Plan Development ordinance that would establish standards for
new large scale development, encourage creative designs, allow flexibility and
provide greater certainty for both developers and residents as growth
continues. A model ordinance from the City of Black Diamond, Washington
was provided in support of this recommendation. This ordinance is attached
to these comments again for review by the council.
3
2 The identification of the North 93 Growth Policy Amendment
(N93GPA) area as a receiving site for a Transfer of Development Rights
Program in coordination with Flathead County as a whole and to facilitate the
conservation of river corridors and opportur ties for regional parks as
v l opment proposals develop and are brought forward in the N93 GP A,
3 )) The development of a polio establishing "Town Serving Zones" o
better define future conu ercial development with the plan area and the
square foot size of appropriate commercial development was called for by
CBF. Again a model for this policy and web links to other information on this
topic were provided and are provided again for your review.
4) The implementation of a process or ordinance that establishes a k
"Community Impact Review Ordinance" or economic impact review
under which baseline mipact information would be developed prior t
consideration of a development proposal by the city. Again a review of
similar po lcies being adopted in numerous conuur t es around the country
were provided for consideration and are attached.
Reguested Action to be takes the City of Kalispell: Adopt the following goals an
policies under Goal 2 of the proposed Highway 93 North policy amendment to make the
proposed amendment consistent with key goals and policies in the Administration
Chapter of the KG ;
Goal* Develop and adopt a Master Plan Development Ordinance to more clearly define
and encourage great neighborhoods and overall quality development in the North 93 plan
area.
Policy: The city shall develop and adopt a Master plan Development Ordinance for the
Highway 9 North Gro . Policy Amendment area. Prior to this adoption major
development applications for th is area shall be made as planned unit developments.
Goad# Implement a Transfer Development Rights(TDR)�ro ram the plan area
for the Highway 9 N ortl policy icy amendment area
Policy: Seek to develop a memorandum of understanding bet veen the city and county t
establish the Highwav 93) North policy amendment area as a receiving area for a Transfer
of Development Rights program with the county and in con.unction with establishment of
an expanded plamu'rig Jurisdictional area for the city.
Policy: Establish an overlay zone for a Transfer of Development Rights program in the
North 93 plan area that is activated y and applied to development proposals in this area
for current and for future phases of development proposals.
Policy: The map density for suburban residential under at TIER program shall be
11
dwellings unit per acre for this plan area With added incentives for affordable housing
projects.
Goal: Develop a policy establishing "Town Sen7ing Zones" to better define future
commercial development will1in the plan area and the square foot size of appropriate
commercial development in this plan area.
Policy: Development proposals and redevelopment in the N93 plan area will comply
with the city's adoption of a town serving zone.
4" ��.-.`` — 1 . }AA fA .-..-. 4-rti � . r. �. A w .s-. r, � . �. ra +L tt # r. r, � n �-. � � rti �-a rY r , � � �r fs ast �►� � � �.a � r ■ �r� r-a r� rti # � �t-0 AM' A% E-E r s+ Ar � r'r �s dr% &%) I
or economic impact review process underwhich baseline impact information i
developed prior to consideration of a development proposal by the city.
ollc r: Development proposals and redevelopment in the N93 plan area will comply
with the cit e s adoption of an economic impact review process
2 . Goal- is not consistent with otl er owls and policies of the KGP l clu �
conflicts -vA-71*th the ollow issue areas. These conflicts are not overcome because
they are not-uhiporteds resented the planning.board or staff s
noted earlier u e have been rovi e! ;
Conflict* KN-1 is not identified as a "target area' for development or area for
redevelopment In the KG . See goals and policies cited below,,
. ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT ,AND REDEVELOPMENT IN TUE "TARGET
DEVELOPMENT AREAS' Land Use: Business and Industry Chapter
6. Target Development Areas
a. Target development areas are generally located in the southwest part of Kalispell,
around the City airport, the soot west area of West Reserve thrive and Highway
rirrarily the State Lands Section 6 and the Center Street area.
. Encourage evelo r. ent and redevelopment in the City"s established urban renewal
districts.
c. The target developmeni areas acre where commercial and/or light indusifial
development or redevelopment is encouracFed. lrltegration of residential uses with these
areas is also encouraged. Laud Use; Businessand Industn, Chapter
. Explore gays the City of Kalispell can create financial and other incentives
to encourage improvements that lead to the redevelopment of unusedexisting
commercial and downtown housing space. Land Use,* Business and Industry Chapter
recommendations
5
Conflict: The KGP calls for studies to guide the need for future commercial and
business development. Goal 2 of the proposed amendment does not comply with
this,
. DEVELOP A BETTER UNDRS 'ANn G of FUTURE COMMERCIAL AN
INDUSTRIAL NEEDS IN RDE TO BE RESPONSWE TO POTENTIALGROWTH. Land
Use: Business and Industry Chapter
. - l development g ay have sib ieant impacts o the community,
studies should be provided to assist in assessing impacts including analysis related t
traffic, infrastructure and the cost of Providingservices. Land Use: Business and
Industry Chapter
7. FUND AN ECONOMIC MEET STUDY ON A REGIONAL LEVEL THAT
WOULD E SPONSORED AND SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING
BODIES THAT COULD BE USED TO DEVELOP MARKET STRATEGY To
NTCOU AGE CoM MENi T . Y DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY.
The Economy Chapter
Conflict: KN-1 is not consistent with the pattern and timing of growth called for in
other policies identified in the KG . Whitefish Stage and other transportation
routes are not adequate for increased development at this time. No phasing is
proposed for the amendment proposed as Goal 2 of this amendment, thus
development proposals could be affected immediately neon passage of this
amendment. See sample of some of the goals and policies cited below.
1. Central business district:
a. Recognize do mtown Kalispell as the center of the community. Land Use: Business
and Industr T Chapter
. Expansion o commercial districts is anticipated to occur as mill and a continuation
of existing commercial areas to avoid the creation of new col=e cial districts and
eap `rocy de v � opment. Land Use: Business and Industry Chapter
111
C. Expansion of commercial areas shod be contingent upon the provision of public
services and adequate 'infrastructure with consideration given to anticipated impacts on
the neighborhood and natural environment. Land Use: Business and Industry Chapter
. Design and locate development to protect public health and safety; insure adequate
Provision of series; be compatible with the character of its s iToundin s and encourage
the most appropriate use of land. Gro-sixth Management Chapter
X
. Develop and implement are affordable housing strategy to effectively provide for the
needs of low- and moderate -income e residents. Land Use: Housing Chapter
recommendation
Reguested Action to be taken_Lvjhe CiOT of KAM,elh Adopt the goals and policies
recommended under requested action sections above. Replace Goal 2 and policies 1-4
with policies that are consistent with the growth policy and the other recommendations
within these con- .ent . Do not make changes to,the map or the tern " limited
commercial."' Present revisions for public review and hearings again.
. Criteria. -
Demonstration of the public need and support for the carnge
• Evidence that the proposed change is the most effective means of meeting the
need
• Benefit of the amendment dment should be to the public rather than benefiting one or a
few property owners at the expense others
Evidence of a ma or change i '
The socio-economic conditions o the eomm���
In regards to Goal 2 and its policies, no demonstration of public need or evidence that
this is the most effective way to meet this reed have been presented.
Requested Action to be taken by the Litt' oKis . l; The city is asked to review the
Public comment submitted as part of the public record on the Glacier Mall amendment .t by
the county as to why the scale of commercial development proposed in Goal 2 is not
desired or warranted at this time by a majority of the residents who commented. We ask
that this Public -record be made part of this ea.g record. The city should also review
the cor rnents submitted as part of this hearing. Based on this input the city should
provide for public review and comment eVi deee that supports or undermines the
proposed growth policy amendment for the N93 area. All of the criteria listed above
should be addressed in the proposed findings for this decision and provided for public
input and review.
7
Additional core .eats follow regarding conunercial baseline data for your consideration..
o acres mixed use: includes general commercial.
Methods
One method of deter -rig conu-nercial land reeds comes from the "Planner's
Estimating Guide," a tool that takes into account several factors M determining how
in ch conu-nercial lard a county needs and can support. To determine commercial space
needed, a calculation is made based on the number of employees in several types o
coimnercial eni ovment, including industrial, retail, and office employment. (See
tamer's Estimating Guide chapter on employment). Using these employment numbers
is important, because they, indicate how much commercial space workers can
accor -n dat . This particular formula rises population projections until 2020 and
dete nines how manv conunercial acres we will need. This fomlula for Flathead County
resulted in the following conu-nercial land use reeds:
` o employment
Gross acres needed
Market Factor
Planned Acres
Adjustment
needed
Industrial
564
25% . .. .....52
Retail Trade
958
V5%
1277
Office
7 39
2 %
985
The market factor adjustment above accounts for a need for choice it commercial land to
keep property values affordable for corm ercial development. The county reeds 958
acres of cone ercia . and 1277 acres of zoned commercial can provide this.
Another method that is often used is are analysis of the retail sales per capita. Flathead
County had average sales per capita of S13,232 2002. (Source: Census,
litt : tri kfacts.cens s. z- stat s 3 o 30029.htm This 's higher than the state
average, vFhic is $11,116 per capita. This is an indication that citizens in Fathead
County spend more than the average Montanan, leading to questions as to how much
more they arewilling to spend as conuncrcial spending opportunities increase.
afill
The draft county grmTAh policy currently under review states that there are 93 acres o
"business" onincy in the County, as well as Soo acres for "business resort"'. In addition.
there are 3 9 .7 71 acres of unregulated private lard that could be used for c onuner cial
development.
0
The e Flathead Basin Stewardship Index states that there are 3,514 acres zoned under either
a 4`commercial" or "business" designation. The draft growth policy, on the other hard,
does not give figures for "commercial" desigriation. The policy attributes this to different
definitions of " onu-nerclal uses."
This chart slows the current number of commercial acres In the cities:
Area
Commercial Acres
Kai spell
501
Whitefish
.304
Columbia Fall........
4
27..
for
..... .)
E er reen
Y
(Check with the chart included In the comments for the Riverdale development, page ,
March 5. 2006)
Though no exact numbers exist or the number of retail and office acres currently l use,
the numbers above indicate that the County meets the number of planned acres for 2020
already.
Results
The first method of calculating cornmercial lard use needs is a good one to e for
Flathead County, because of the high demand for employees at local businesses. With
unemployment in the County at an historical low, local employers are having trouble
finding qualified employees. The drat growth policy indicates a substantial number of
vacant positions. Therefore, the a -io rt of eormnerelal space in the County must be
proportional to the number of workers available to work in that space.
Based on the numbers from the ", 'lanner7s Estimating Guide" fonnula, Flathead County
has already designated enough acreage to accommodate for the commercial needs of the
valley. There are well over 1,277 acres of commercial lard, by any estimate, and this
number will meet the reeds of the population of the County projected for the year o o.
The second method, though not fully investigated, indicates that Flalhead County
residents are already spending more at retail establishments than their peers In other parts
of the stag, indicating a lack of disposable capital. Taker into consideration along with
the rising cosh of hovising In the galley, here might not be an economic base to support
this increase in commercial land.
I
f conu- e cial developmerit takes place beyond what both the workforce and the
economy can sustain, then businesses will not succeed. New businesses will not move
into an area that cannot sustain them. Established businesses may move to newer
conmiercial. areas, but this will result in a large increase in vacant commercial land,,
especially in dow-ntownareas.
Local businesses are already having trouble finding qualified employees. The County
simply camiol support a vast increase in commercial development. The proposed boo
acres of 1wid availablefor commercial e e me t will therefore not meet a need in the
Co T, but will rather increase strain on the existing business community, as well as o
the local economy as the County must meet the infrastructure needs for this development.
10
Page I of 5
Main�i ........ ........ [dent!I
From* For or Better Flathead" d o @flath ad l � ens. �
` oltl ns@flatheadcitizen .org
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 813 PM
Subject: Alrtll Critical Kalispell proposals could put an end to Downtown Kalispell
f
Fx_J $A ou . r ni ationNa
Citizens for a Better Flathead
Action Alert
July 1, 2006
Here are the issues:
Huge Changes Proposed for Kalispell Area. It's essential that you speak up now!!
-_Critical Kalispell Bypass Decision Wednesday, July 19
suggested Comments for Kalispell Growth Policy Hearing
Dear CFBF,
� ppgftqnitv for Excellence! -- Join your friends and neighbors in calling
on Kalispell to live up to its motto: Building a Community that Expects Excellence.
Kalispell faces two key decisions.
On Monday luly 17th a public hearing will be held regarding a major change proposed to
Kallspell's growth policy. This change Includes a provision that allows a new supermega-
mall of commercial development to be built.
On Wednesday, ly 19th a public hearing will be held to determine which section of the
Kalispell Bypass should be built first{ the south portion that most benefits the economic
vitality of downtown Kalispell and would get trucks out of downtown, or the north that
will further benefit new commercial development spreading to the north of the city.
These declslons will affect the entire Flathead Valley, Everyone should speak up, Your
__--
input can make tlj difference In encouraging the city to set a goal of excellence that will
set In motion a legacy of good planning, More information ion on both these proposals Is
below. Please be sure to note that each hearing has a different appropriate location to
send comments.
Huge changes Proposed for Kalispell Area, Itos essential that you
speak up now!!
Kalispell Is proposing to amend its growth policy to cover well over three thousand acres
north of the city and to the northwest and northeast of the city. This area Is outside of
the city limits, but this growth policy amendment will establish the future land uses that
will he permitted by Kalispell when these properties annex Into the city to hook onto city
water and sewer. Click on these links to see a map and text of the.._ g (please
ar lcularly look at Attachment of this document, page . Please he patient, the links
p fi a is the site of the
may a �t sloes. lode that the flue area labeled ���. on the p
proposed Glacier Mall,
7/15/2006
.e 2 of 5
While some key aspects of this amendment proposal are positive, there is one portion o
this amendment that is of great concern. As part of this growth policy amendment, the
city iis proposing to acid another super mega -mall of commercial development
surrounded by high density office and residential uses covering some boo
acres. This is the same site as the formerly proposed Glacier Mall, The Montana
Supreme court has recently ruled that the county must still prove that it adequately
considered public comments in reaching its decision. over 57 ID of the public comment
strongly opposed this decision and submitted extensive studies and comments to
support this opposition. Many involved in this case feel that the county will have a
difficult time proving they considered these comments.
KeY far Moa 17th a
Kalispell City. Hall,7 There are four key components of this proposal that you will
want to comment on. t"s best to show up and spear, but written comme.nts....can e
ernalled to the citv council at t he 1, alis ell.com or turned in at the Kali ell City Hall
to Theresa White ...... City.Clerk, prior to Manda } pubic earl at m. The key points on
these issues and our suggested comments are at the bottom'of this email. Please
remember that comments for the bypass should be sent to another location. See the
bypass information below for that information.
Critical Kalispell Bypass Decision Wednesday, July 19
KyKlxp f 7#oo � Wednesday,
o 8:30 pwm. The presentation at :00 p.m. is followed by questions/answers and
opportunity for public comment; at the outlaw Ballroom, Bulldog conference center at
west coast outlaw Inn, 1711 Highway 93 South, Kalispell. Comments and suggestions
can be provided at meetings or by email, telephone, fax, or in writing to these bypass
project contacts:
Dwane Kaileyj, Montana Department of Transportation, Missoula District
Administrator, 2100 West Broadway, P.O. Box 7039, Missoula, MT -` ,
Phone: o - -0, Fax: o - 2 - 01, Email: dkailey@mt.gov.
ov.
and/or
Mitch Stelling, Stelling Engineers,, Inc,,,Project Manager, 614 Park Drive South
Great Falls, MT 5,9405, Phone: - - 00, Fax: o - 2- oo,Email:
mail@stellinginc.com
If you are emailing comments we also suggest that you send a copy to the Kalispell city
Council at wi@alipeil#cony , or turn comments in at the Kalispell city Hall to
Therea White, city Clerk, prior to Mondays pubic hearing at 7pm.
Dackgrqqnd ggagrall points to keep
The KalispellBy-Pass is a proposed 8-mile ile lone bypass around the wet side of the
City of Kalispell. The original purpose of the bypass was to remove traffic
from the congested areas of downtown Kalispell y providing a direct north -
south route for truck traffic and others for whom Kalispell was not a destination. In
November 1994, the findings from the FEIS were documented in a Record o
Decision OD) with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that identified
the preferred bypass route along the western side of Kalispell. Visit this web site
for more information on the by-pass and options at
ttp: ww.kalispjallb pa . orn i r t .c
None of the current commercial development north of Kalispell, including that
south of the Reserve and Hwy 93 intersection including borne Depot, Lowes,
-26
Page 3 of 5
costeo and the other new commercial uses, as well as the high school, now filling
and lining this area were in place when this Final project design was approved.
• t this time there is only abort o million of the million needed to build this
project, Due to this situation, only half the bypass can be built now. Full traffic
relief will only come with the full project completion, but there are clear pros and
eons for which section should be built first*
. The key issue now appears to e: should the southern portion be built first, which
will more directly benefit the redevelopment and future vitality of the Kalispell
downtown, or should the northern section be built first, which will likely fuel
continued commercial development to the north.
There is legitimate concern about the safety of roads serving the new high school,
but this now appears to be a non -issue. Senator Burns" office has indicated with
almost 9% certainty that he will be able to secure the $4.5 million needed to
build a safe road to serve the new high school.funding were not received, both
options could still include a contingency provision of funding for the high school
road section.)
Citizens for a Better Flathead endorses bu*11ding the southern portion of the
Kalispell Bypass for the follow-ing followingreasons;
The original intent of this funding was to remove truck traffic from downtown
Kalispell. This is still a major problem for downtown Kalispell and building the
southern portion of the bypass first provides the only immediate relief option for
this issue. Building the northern section first provides no such benefit to downtown
Kalispell.
The downtown area of Kalispell is well recognized -as the heart of the city, It
defines Kalispell as a special place apart from "Anywhere SA". Kalispell has
tremendous potential to grow and redevelop in its continued role as the heart o
the community. This assertion was recently supported by a comprehensive study
of the Kalispell area carried oult by Hyett Palma, a nationally -recognized downtown
redevelopment firm in coordination with the National League of Cities. Building the
northern section first will undermine the revitalization of downtown by encouraging
continued development to the north. Encouraging even more growth to the north
is in direct conflict with the priorities established in the Kalispell Growth policy}
Transportation planning should follow land use plans developed for the area.
. The criteria used to rank options for the bypass sections is very subjective and
does not give reasonable Freight to the original intent of the bypass and the
important role that down town Kalispell plays in the economy of the city. This
criteria needs to be reexamined and reworked.
New growth to the north has added significant new costs and traffic impacts to the
proposed bypass, resulting in a costly redesign and amendments to the final
design for this project. Growth to the north has not paid its fair share of its
impacts on the roads in this area. The downtown Kalispell area was in line first for
these much needed transportation dollars and they should retain this priority.
Suggested Comments for Kalispell Growth Policy Hearing
of to Kai you would like, please feel free to cut and paste or modify the bullet
--
points below the numbered subjects into your written or oral comments):
1. The City of Kalispell is proposing to add another super mega -mall of commercial
development surrounded by high density office and residential uses cowering
some boo acres. This is the same site as the formerly proposed Glacier Mall. If the
' 1526
Page 4 of 5
county fails to prove its case regarding public comment for the Glacier Mall County
Growth Policy amendment, the approval of this mall will be null and void. If the city
approves this growth policy amendment, however, the Glacier Mall or any mix
of big box stores including a super Wal art could be built at this site despite
the final outcome from the court decision.
o Table consideration of general commercial and office develo.pment at the proposed
site of the Glacier Mall iN-, on the main) for five years. This action would
encourage vital redeveioprent in the downtown and other existing m-
areas of Kalispell that are not yet built out. (The city must, by law, consider the
need to revise and amend its growth policy every five years.)
• Establish baseline information to demonstrate the need for additional general
commercial and office space in the Kalispell planning area in keeping with Kalispell
Growth Policy (KG ,, Goal 9, 'age 15 which calls for this baseline information. The
City of Kalispell should join a growing number of communities around the country
who are requiring economic impact reviews of the addition of new acres of general
commercial and other land uses.
• Chap e the ro oed and q_rowth policytext amendment to del nate the
KN-1 or Glacier Mall area to suburban residential with hder denit reidentia
along . It is premature to add the proposed scale of general commercial
and office development at the proposed Glacier Mall site now.
• Whitefish Stage and Reserve Drive are inadequate to handle this scale of
development at this time. Adequate infrastructure to ensure safe roads should be
in place prior to increased development in this area.
Do not delete the terra "limited" as proposed in the definition of e ".mixed use""
land use designation. This would allow any general commercial in mixed use areas,
including big box stores that may not be appropriate in most rained use areas
throughout the planning area.
2. In a move towards excellence, the City of Kalispell is proposing to establish a
overlay zone along Hwy 93 from Four Mfle Drive north to Church Drive which
will establish a 100-1 o foot setback for all new development with
landscapina, a pedestrian trail or sidewalk, and four-sided architecture. This
overlay zone will also apply to US Hwy 2 from Reserve to Birch Grove. Similar but
smaller setbacks in an overlay zone are proposed for Whitefish Stage Road,
• Support the creation of an overlay zone as proposed for the major highway
corridors in Flathead County.
• Support the use of Manned Unit Development applications for properties that
adjoin these corridors to ensure development that enhances the character of the
neighborhoods along this corridor and the city.
. With the exception of the boo acre mega -mall, office and high density residential
development discussed in point #1 above, the city map suggests that no other
commercial will be permitted along Hwy 93 and Whitefish Stage except for
hat they are calling "'nel*ghborhood commerciallirl t the proposed intersections
of Church and Hwy 93, Whitefish Stage and Tronstad Komi, and Whitefish Stage
and Rose Crossing. Click here for neap.
• Support limiting the continued extension of general commercial development into
neighborhoods north of Kalispell and along Hwy 93.
• Cali for phasing guidelines to ensure that neighborhood commercial areas only be
built when here is reasonable growth in residential uses to Justify then, and that
1 26
Page 5 of 5
they be phased in development from the city outward.
. Comment specifically on if you think these proposed "neighborhood commercial"'
areas are appropriate for your neighborhood now or in the future. The Kalispell
Growth Policy currently defines "neighborhood commercial" as being generally lots
3-5 acres in size and spaced one-half to one mile apart. (KGP page 16)
, Encourage "great neighborhoods" as the city grows. These areas north of Kalispell
are currently populated by low density residential development. The city should
have policies as part of this amendment to encourage the development of
Algreat neighborhoods"" and to buffer existing uses.
. include a goal for this area that encourages the use of transfer of development
rights as a planning tool to help retain river corridor areas, create regional
public parks and access to these rivers.
Work with Flathead County to establish a joint plan for this area that includes a
TDR program. A TDR program in conjunction with the county can also help
preserve important farmland resources that define the character of the Flathead
Valley while helping the city better plan for growing areas around the city.
• include a goal for the city to develop and adopt an ordinance that establishes
guidelines for new large-scale residential developments. Such ordinances are often
called Master Plan Development Proposals MP and can help ensure that large
scale developments compliment ent existing uses and the character of the area.
Contact Information
l hedtinen is.or
email: ta
phone: 756-8993
citizen _--- _ .. -----
web; httpi w w-. latheadci izer-sror
OX F Powered b
Iy
This email was sent to citizens@flath ad itizen .or , by cf t , rns flat. . i i s. r Ell
Instant removal with s f su s ribe"m i Privacy.Polic. ,
Citizens For A Better Flathead I P.O. Box 771 1 Kalispell I MT 1 59903
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7. .3 Virus Database: 2 . . - ReleaseDate: 7 2 6
7 26
ORDINANCE NO. 05-779
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BLACK
A ND, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.,
CREATING MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM AND N EV. MEN' REGULATIONS
NS
AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 18.98 TO THE
BLACK DIAMOND ND CIPA CODE
WIMREAS, in 1996 King County expanded the City's urban groom area (UGA);
and
WHEREAS, the City Ms steel, as part of the UGA expansion, that a program
created to establish a public review process for MPD applications, protect and preserve
open place, allow alternative, innovative forms of development- allow flexibility in
development standards and permitted uses, identify sigm'ficant environmental impacts
and the appropriate mitigation; provide greater certainty about the character and timing o
developments, provide needed services and facififies in an orderly responsible manner,
promote economic development and job creation in the City; create vibrant mixed -use
communities with a balance of ho si'g, employment while -allowing development
to be of greater public benefit as open space, parks or community facilities; and
WBE.EAS, the City's -Comprehensive Plan contemplates the development o
such a program; and
VMREAS, r'or to the expansion of the City"s UGA. the City entered into the
Black Diamond Urban Growth Area Agreement that is dated December 31, 1996 with King
-County, Plum Creek Timber Company, L.P. and . ah er Coking Coal Company (the
C'Agreement"); ad
WHEREAS, that Agreement required that such a program be created; and
WHEREAS, since the Agreement was executed the parties to the Agreement have
worked cooperatively to assist the City in the development of the MPProgram. by
rov d' g mod* g, input and expertise; and the ,proposed MPProgram regulations have
been timely forwarded to the appropriate State agency for review and comment p or to
adoption, and
WBEREAS, the City Council, on April 21, 25 held a public hearing to consider
the MPD Program regulations, with notice of said hea.rfg having been given as required
y law, now, therefore,
Ordinance No. o-'
Page 1 of 2 .
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BLACK DIAMONDF
WASHING ON DOES ORDAIN, AS FOLLOWS
Section 1. There is hereby created a new Black Diamond Mwu'ipal Code
Chapter 18.98 which shall be entitled Master Plan Developments.
Section 2. There are hereby added to Chapter 18-98,of the Black Diamond
Munici1P al Code new sections, which shall read as set fob in Exhibit I attached hereto
and by reference incorporated herein,
Section 3. dam. If any provision of this Ordinance is determined to
be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the remaim'ng provisions of this Ordinance
shall remain in force and effect.
Section 4. Effectiveate. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
five (5) days ftom and after its passage, approval, posting and publication as provided by
later. A summary of this ordinance may be published in lieu of publishing the Ordinance
n its entirety.
Introduced the 2 1 day of April, 2005.
Passed by the City Council on the -may o 2005.
Approved by the Mayor on the ay of 37� 2005.
Ho Botts, Mayor
ATTEST.
Cris Kandior, City Clerk
APPROVED A TO �
ren Cobs, City Attorney
Published: - I b.
Posted: to - _�>-
Effective Date. �-
b\182%VJpd060105-1
Ordinance N.05-779
'ae 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 1 TO ORDINANCE NO.OS-779
City of Black Diamond Zoning Code
Master Planned Development
Sections;
.9 .010
Master Planned Development (MPD) permit — Purpose
,9 ,020
MPD permit — Public Benefit Objectives
.9 .030
MPD permit — Eligibility
1 ,9 ,0 0
MPD permit — Application Requirements
8,9 ,050
MPD permit — Required Approvals
18698.060
MPD permit — Review process
.9 ,070
MPD permit — Environmental Review SEPA
,9 ,0 0
MPD p rnut - Conditions of Approval
18,981,090
MPD permit - Development Agreement
*9 1, oo
M.PD permit - Amendments to an Approvers MPD permit
1,9 ,11 o
MPD standards - Design Review Required
.9. 2 o
MPD standards - permitted Uses and Densities
,9 , 3o
MPD standards - Development Standards
18-98.140
MPD standards - Open Space Requirements
8.9 ,150
MPD standards -On-Site Recreation Requirements
1 -98,1 o
MPD standards - Transfer of Development Rights
18,98,170
MPD standards - Street Standards
18,98,180
MPD standards — Stor at r Management Standards
,9 , 90
MPD standards - Water and Sewer Standards
8,9 ..95
Vesting
1 ,9*200
Revocation of MPD permit
Exhibit I to Ordinance No. 5-779
Page I of 16
18,98-010 Master Planned Development (M. permit — Purpose. The purposes
of the Master Planned Development (MPD) permit process and standards set out in this
chapter are to:
A. Establish a public review process for MPD applications;
B. Establish a comprehensive review process for development projects occurnng
on parcels or combined parsers greater than 80 acres in size.
C. 'reserve passive open space and wildlife corridors in a eoordfatd manner
while also preserving usable open space lands for the enjoyment of the City's residents-,
r . Allow alternative, nnovative forms of development and encourage imaginative
site and building design and development layout th the intent of r tain'ng sign'fieant
features of the natural enviroiment
E. Allow flexibility in development standards and perrnitted uses;
F. Identify significant enviromrnental impacts, and ensure appropriate mitigation;
G. Provide greater cerWnty about the character and timing of residential and
commercial development and population growth within the City;
r . Encourage environmentally sustainable development,
. Provide needed services and facilities ih are orderly, fiscally responsible manner;
J. promote economic development and job creation in the City;
K. Create vibrant nixed -use neighborhoods, with a balance of housing,,
m loyment, .and recreational opportunities;
L. Promote and achieve the City's. -vision of incorporating and/or adapting the
planning and design principles regarding,mix i of uses, compact form, coordinated open
space, opportunities for casual socializing, accessible civic spaces, - and sense o
connnrty; as well as such additional design principles as may be appropriate for a
particular NT, all as identified in the book Rural Desk Randal Arendt; .
M. Implement the City's Vision Statement, Comprehensive Flan, and other
applicable Goals, Policies and Objectives set forth in the rnnr i ipal code,
18.98.020 MPD Permit- Public Benefit Objectives. A specific objective of the
MPD permit process ss and standards is to provide public benefits not typically available
throe conventional development. These public benefits shall include but are not
'limited to:
A. Preservation and enhancement of the physical characteristics (topography,
drainage, vegetation, environmentally er'tical areas, etc.) of the site;.
B. Protection of space and groundwater quality both ors -site and downstream,
through the use of innovative, low -impact and regional stormwat r management
t
technologies-,
C. Conservation of water and other resources through it .no ative approaches to.
resource and energy management including measures such as wastewater re -use;
y . Preservation and enhancement of open space and views of art* rainier;
E. Provision of employment uses to help meet the City#s economic development
objectives;.
F. Improv m nt of the City's fiscal performance;
Exhibit l to Ordinance No. 05-779
Page . 2 of f
o5 -
G. Timely provision of all necessary facilities, infrastructure and public services,
equal to or exceeding the more stringent of either existing or adopted levels of service, as
the MD develops; and
H. Development t of a coordinated system of pedestrian oriented facilities including
but not limited to trails and bike paths that provide accessibility trogbot the MPD are
provide opportunity for connectivity with the city as a whole.
18,98,030 MPD Permit — Criteria for MPD ,eligibility.
A. Where Required. An MPD pernit shall be required for any development
project where:
. Any of the property within the development is subject to an MPD' Overlay
zomng designation; or
2. The parcel or combined parcels total at least 80 gross acres. This subsection 2
shall not apply if a subdivision or site plan application issubmitted for said parcel or
combined parcels and the applicant is requesting that the project he subject to a
development agreement t pursuant to RCW 36.70B. 7o that will furt ear the Public Benefit
Objectives of Black Diamond Municipal Code section 8.98.020_ The employment use
objective of section 18.98.020 e) will only apply to properties within the proposed
deve o r ent project that have an underling business zoning classification. If the
application is denied, then an WD permit would be required.
B. lii. Where not required under 8.98,0 tie City will accept are
MPD permit application, and process a development proposal as an MPD, only for
contiguous properties that meet the following criteria:
. The proposed NIPD property shall be in a single ornersbip, or if in multiple
ownerships, specific agreements satisfactory to the City shall be signed by each
property owner that place the properties under unified control, and bind all
owners to the MPD conditions of approval,
2. All properties Within its proposed MPD are witln the City limits at ffie time o
MPD application submittak provided, however, vever, properties within a PAA. may
be included in the application so long as the proposed uses for the property not
oc ted within the City, and the conditions of MPD approval for the property
not located within the City comply with applicable County development
regulations for that parcel, and, asa condition of approval, the property owners.
are rewrd to file restrictive covenants upon the PAA property, in a fonn
acceptable to the City, that restrict its uses to those approved in the MPD
approval..
C.- Contigqih- All properties to be included in are MPD roust be contiguous.
18,98,040 MPD Permit- Application Requirements
A. AMlication Ee irement . All applications for approval of an MPD permit
shall, at a minimum,, include all of the information and documents set forth in this
section.
l . A set of master plan dra vm s, showing. -
Exhibit l to Ordinance No. 0 --779
Page 3 of l
.." 0 -
(a) Proposed open space, parks, recreation areas, trail networks,,' wildlife
corridors, and perlimeter buffers;
(b) Existing environmentally y er't cal areas and their ` `ers, together with
the reports, surveys or delineations used to identify their locations,
(c) Proposed locations and preliminary profiles of all streets having a
fimction higher than neighborhood access, and A pedestrian
eonneetons including trails;
(d) Proposed sites for schools and other public facilities r aired to serve
the development;
(e) Conceptual public utility plans (sewer, water, stornvater);
(f) Types, generalized locations, acreages, and densities of proposed
residential and non-residential development; and
(g) Proposed sites for public transit facilities.
(h) Any existing easements located upon the property.
2, A map at a scale no smaller than 1. inch = 100 Feet, showing propel
boundaries and existing topography 5 Foot contour .r intervals), areas of vegetation
y type, other natural features, and existing structures.
3. A legal deser` tion of the MPproperty, together with a title report no
more than 30 daysold disclosing all lien holders and owners of record.
. A projected phasing plan and schedule including the proposed phasing o
housing, public facilities, and services (e.g. recreational facilities, open spaces and
drainage facilities) and an estimated development timeline.
. A completed SEP . checklist, with various environmental studies and
SE A. documents. If the City and the Applicant have agreed that an Environmental
Impact Statement will be prepared for the proposal, a Checklist shall not be
required.
. A comprehensive fiscal analysis disclosing the short and long-term
financial impacts of the proposed MPD upon the City both during development. and
following project completion, including are analysis of required balance o
presidential and commercial lard uses needed to ensure a fiscal benefit to the City
aver project completion, and including an analysis of personnel demands and fiscal
short -falls anticipated ding the development phase -of the MPD together with
recommended mitigations to ensure that the WD does not negatively impact the
fiscal health of the City, nor the ability of the City to adequately serve existing
residents, provided that if are EIS Will he prepared, the fiscal analysis may he
prepared concurrently.
7. A narrative description and illustrations of the MPD ply d sign
concept, demonstrating how the proposed MPD is consistent with the City's MP
Design Standards, Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable City policies and
standards..
. Typical cross -sections of all proposed street and trail types, including
landscaping, pedestrian Facilities, and any other propos.ed improvements within the
right-of-way or trail corridors.
. A listing of all property owners of record with Soo feet of the e ter'or
boundaries of all parcels proposed to he Mcluded within the MPl , together with
tree sets of mailir labels for said property owners. (When one or more of the
Exhibit I to Ordinance No. 05-779 4 of 16
""600-
MPD property owners own property adjacent to but not included within the MP ,
the 500 feet shall bemeasured from the exterior boundary of this adjacent
property.).
. An aerial photo of the MPD area and parcels within 1000 feet of its
ho.dar"es that was taken since the time of the last development activity within fe
MPD area or surrounding properties or one year from the application date,
whichever is more recent, at a scale no -smaller than I inch = 1000 feet.
11. A narrative description and illustrations of how street a figments and land
uses in the proposed MPD will coordinate and integrate with existing adjacent
development, and add acent undeveloped properties.
2. Proposed ownership and proposed maintenance program for all lards and
acilies required to be shown on the master plan drawings by section
. .04)( a .
13. A proposed water conservation pan for the MP pursuant to section
,.1.
. If applicable, a description of any mineral or other resource) extraction
operations proposed within the MP , the timing and phasing of the proposed
operation and r clarnation of the lard for subsequent proposed uses.
15, Proof of proper -notice for the Public. Formation Meeting and the
Planning Commission.
. The City small have the authority to administratively establish additional
detailed submittal requirements.
C. The applicant shall pay all costs incurred by the City in processing the MPD
perrn,it app icati rr, i e dirg but not limited to the costs of planning and engineering staff
and cor s a t , SEPA review, fiscal experts, legal services, and overall administration.
A deposit in are amount equal to the staffs estimate of processing the MP , as
detenni ed after the pre -application conference shall he required to be paid at the time o
application, and shall he placed in separate trust account. The City shall establish
procedures for periodic billings to the- applicant of MP . review costs as such costs are
incurred by the City, and may require the maintenance of a ruini.r. urrn fund balance
through additional deposit requests.
18.98.050 MPD Permit — Refired Approvals
A. MPD Permit Required. An approved N1P. permit and development agreement
shall he required for every MPM the City..
B. Consolidated Review. The City will allow are MPD Permit to he part of a
consolidated permit action a's authorized by RCW 36.70B. Consolidation shall not he
allowed for Comprehensive Plan amendments, or annexations..
C. LmlernentM-Development Applications, A. MPD per it must be approved,
and a development agreement as authorized by RCW 36.70B completed'. signed and
recorded,,' before the City will grant approval toan application for any implementing
Exhibit l to Ordinance No. 5-779
Page 5 of 1
._rr5
development approval. An application for. a MPD permit may be processed, at the City's
discretion, with amendments to the City's Comprehensive Flan, or g code, inter -local
agreements and land development ent permits associated With the MPD permit, such asforest
practice permits, e ean'ng and grading pernits, conditional use permits, variance perrnits,,
shorelines permits, and permits required- by other public agencies. Provided, however,
the City may, in its discretion restrict the number of simultaneous applications to be
processed if they are unable to adequately consider the information contained M the
permits due to the need to have the applicable standards established by the MP
approval, due to staff tire restrictions, on the Ma ility to meet proeessmg deAdlines as a
result of the simultaneous filings. In any event,. the City shall not grant approvals to
related pets before the granting of are MPD pernit and recording of a development
agreement.
18,98,060 MPD Permit — Review Process
A. MPD Pennit — Pre:Lappfication Conference, Public Information Meeting.,and
Plannigg Commission Informational Meeting -Require
I A pre -a p ieation conference between the MPD applicant or
representative and City staff is required before the City will accept an application for
M'. permit approval..
a. The purpose of tis conference is for the applicant to familiarize
the staff with the proposed MP, and for the staff to review witthe applicant tie City's
submittal requirements, anticipated staffing reeds, and processing procedures for MP
permit approval* The goal is to identify the City's objectives and likely issues, and to
eliminate potential problems that could arise during processing of the WD permit
application prior to formal proeessmg on the MPD permit application.
.. The applicant or representativeshall present the it onnation
required aspart of the MPD applicati-on. The Guy s. intent is that the conference takes
place after site inventory and analysis has been substantially completed, but prior to the
completion of detailed survey, architectural or engineering work on the proposal..
C. A nonreftmda e . pre-appli cation conference fee in are amount
set forth in the City Fee Schedule Resolution will be paid before the pre -application
conference Will be scheduled*
2. der the pre application conference has been completed, a Public
hi`ormat on meeting shall be conducted by the applicant. A Public. Information rneefing
is required before the City will accept are .application for MPS. pest approval.
a. The applicant shall schedule and conduct a Public.
Information meefing regarding the proposed application. The Public Information
meeting shall be conducted at City Hall, or at such tuber public location wig the City
that will accommodate the anticipated attendees. The applicant shall attend the meeting
and provide information to the public regarding the proposed project, its timing, and
consistency with the City's MPD Code, the Comprehensive ensive Plan, and other applicable
city codes and regulations..
. The Public Information meeting shall not be a Public
Hearing, but shall allow for are inf'ornal exchange of comments between the applicant
and the general public. Notice of this meeting shall be provided M the newspaper o
Exhibit I to Ordinance No. o-'
Page 6 of l
Z0605.
record at least 14 days in advance- of the meeting and shall be maided to the property
owners identified in section 1 . .o (B)(7 ) above.
. der the Public In`ornation meeting ng has been completed a
Planning Commission Informational meeting shall be conducted. The Plying
Commission Information meeting is required before the City will accept an application
for MPD pennit approval.
a.. The Planning Commision Informational meeting will tale
place at a regular meeting of the Commission} At this meeting, the applicant shall
present the overall planning and design concept of the proposed MP, and the
Commission shall provide preliminary feedback to the applicant regarding the
consistency of this concept with the Cit is adopted standards, goals and policies. The
Planning Commission may bring specific issues of interest or concern to the attention o
the applicant.
. "Ie a public meeting, the purpose of the Plarming
Commission InformationalInfonnational meeting is not intended for the receipt of comments from the
public regarding the proposed MPD.
B. MPD permit Public Review .process..
. Completeness Check and SEP A: City staff shall review the NTD
application for completeness and,, once it is determined to be complete, provide the
required notice of application. Staff will then initiate the SEPA process.
2.. do al EIS. Scgping Meeting: If the City"s responsible official males
determination of environmental significance regarding MPD Application, - Staff may
schedule and conduct an EIS. Scoping meeting. The applicant shall attend the meeting
and provide information regarding the proposed project, scope, planning, tiring, and the
results of any relevant environmental studies performed by the ,applicant's consultants.
3. Staff Review* At the conclusion sion of the S pA process, Staff will conduct
its detailed review of the proposal.. This review may include requesting additional
informations or proposal revisions, from the Applicant.
. St��;. �e staff pr�are a �� �t�` deport to. �e �eang
Examiner. The completed Staff Report. shall be sent to the Hearing Examiner and to. the
Applicant at least 10 calendar days prior to the public hean'ng.
5. ear*n. aminer Public. He The City's. Hearing amm' er shall
hold a public healing on the MPD perirmft application, after completion of the public
information and Planning Commission meetings and conclusion of the SE A. process. At
least 14 calendar days prior to the public hearing, the City shall provide notice of the
heafing as follows:
Exhibit 1 to Ordinance No. -77
Page 7 of l
" -
a. Publication in the City's newspaper 'of record;
. posting of the proposal site, in at least 3 locations visible from
public streets or r'gts-old-ay;
C. Mailing to owners of record of properties within Soo feet of the
perimeter of the propo ed MPD (when one or more of the MPD property owners own
property adjacent to but not included within the MPD, the 500 foot measurement shall be
made from the property boundary that abuts property not owned by one or more of the
MPD property owners; and
d. Any person(s) fonnally requesting notice.
6. dear Examiner Criteria: The I ear*ng Exa r * er shall prepare recommended
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and conditions of approval or a recommendation for
denial for the City Co cil's consideration, and shall transmit these to the City Council
v*thin fourteen l calendar days of the close of the public hearing. The Examiner shall
evaluate the MPD application and other evidence submitted into the record, in order to
deternir e if the application, if appropriately conditioned, meets or exceeds the following
criteria:
(a) The City's adopted policies and regulations, including but not limited to the
Mimicipal Code,' Comprehensive Plan, Public Works Standards, CnIffical areas
Regulations, MPD Ordinance and .TD Design Standards. In event of a conflict between
the policies, standards, objectives, or regulations the most stringent shall apply unless
modifications are authorized in the NTD ordinance and Design Standards.
(b) There are no significant adverse environmental impacts;
(c) The proposed project 'Will have no adverse financial impact upon the City at
each. phase -of development, as well as. at fall build -out. This shall include co ditiom'ng
any approval- so that the fiscal analysis is updated to shove continued compliance With this
criteria, in accordance with the ollom�ng schedule;.
1. If any phase has not been completed within 5 years, a new fiscal
analysis must he done with regards to that phase before are extension can he granted; and
2. prior to commencwg a new phase.
(d) There is cone rrency for all utilities and transportation system improvements
prior to occupancy at each phase and at build -out
(e) The project, at all phasesand at W*ld;out,. will not exceed the available City
staffing or result in the lowering of City stag levels of service established by the City,
including hose related to public safety.
(f) The project, in each residential phase, provides a mix of housing types that
allows the project tomeet the percentage of affordable housing reconunen.ded under the
County -wide planning Policies.
(g) For hose portions of a proposed MPD that have Comprehensive Plan land use
designations, the ratio of residential to commercial lard uses within the MPD shall he the
see 'as designated on the Comprehensive. Lard Use Map Bless the required fiscal study
supports or requires a different ratio ofresidential to commercial land uses.
(h) If the MPD proposal Mclndes properties that are subject to the Black Diamond
Urban Groff Area Agreement December 19 then the proposal is. consistent with the
terms and conditions therein..
Exhibit l to ordinance Not 0-9
Page 8 of l
`6005 .
(i) If the MPD proposal includes properties that were sexed into the City by
ordinances 515 and 517 then the proposal must be consistent With the terns and
conditions therein.
0) The orientation of public building sites or parks shall preserve view com'dors
of Mt. Rainier or other view cor d ors identified M the City's Comprehensive Plan,
(k) The proposed MPD meets or exceeds all of the public benefit objectives of
s. .02 , and the MPD poses set forth in 18.98.010, subparagraphs raphs through (M).
(1) If the MPD project s adjacent to property already developed, or being
developed as are MIPI , or adjacent to property which i's within an MPD overlay zone,
then the project is designed so that there is connectivity of trails, open spaces and
transportation corridors, the designs of streetscape and public open space amenities are
compatible and the project will result in the functional and visual appearance of one
integrated project with the adjacent properties subject to MPI. approvals.
So long as to do so would not jeopardize the public health, safety, or welfare, the
Examiner may allow the applicant to voluntarily contribute money to the City in order to
advance pro .ects to meet the City's adopted cons rrency or level of service standards, or
to miti ate . any identified adverse fiscal impact upon the City that is caused by the
Project.
7, City . Council : At its first regular meeting followingthe receipt of the
Hean'ng Examiner's recommendations, the City Council shall schedule a time for its
consideration of the :PD. The Council may:
(a) .Accept the Examiner's recommendation; or
(b) Remand the MPD application to. the. Examiner with direction to open the
hearing and provide supplementary findings and conclusions on specific issues; or
(c) Modify the Examiner's recommendation. If modifying the Examiner's
recommendation,' the Council shall eater its own modified findings and conclusions
as needed.
S. AMeals: The Council's decision with regard to an MPD permit shall be
the City's final action for the purpose of any and all appeals.
18,98,070 MPD Permit - Environmental Review (SEPA).
A. Pursuant to the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act SE A) and
local SEPA regulations, the City shall deternine whether an E .vi'ronMental hnpact
Statement is required for the WD proposal. An application for a MPD perm shall
include, at a �nn'num, a completed Environmental Checklist. Prior to or concurrent with
application submittal, the City and the Applicant may agree to prepare afi Environmental
Impact Statement for the proposal.
B. If desired by the applicant and deemed approprate by the City, are MPD
proposal may be designated by the City as a pled action pursuant to RCW
3.21 C.03 12) and W C 197-11-164 et seq..
Exhibit I to Ordinance No. -77
Page 9 of t
- 5 ,
C. Implementing City pennits and approvals such as preliminary plats, building
permits, and design review, shall be subject to applicable SEPA requirements.
18,98-080 MPD Permit - Conditions of approval.
A. The MPD pernit shall contain such conditions as are necessary to ensure that
the approved MPD complies with all applicable policies, standards, and objectives of the
City, Mcldng the provisions of this Chapter and the criteria set forth in section
, 8.98. (B)(6)
18.98,090 MPD Permit - Development Agreement. The MPD conditions o
approval shall be incorporated into a development agreement as authorized by RCW
36.70B.170. This agreement shall -be binding on all UPD property owners and their
successors, and shall require that they develop the subject property only in accordance
with the terns of the MPD approval. This agreement shall be signed by the Mayor are
all property owners and lien holders within the MPD boundaries, and recorded, before the
City may approve any subsequent implementing permits or approvals preln'm'nar r plat,
design review, building p rrm't, etc.).
18.98,100 MPD Permit - Amendments to an Approved MPD Permit. An
applicant may request an amendment to any element or provision of an approved MP.
,All 'applications for amendments. shall be deemed either "'minor" or `gym oi" .An
amendment application 'shall be considered minor if it meets all of the following crit r" a :
l * Would not increase the total number of dwelling units in a MPD above the
maximum number set `orth Mn the approved MPpern t ,
2. Would not increase the total floor area of non-residential uses;
3. Would not decrease the minimum, or increase the maximum density for
residential areas of the MPD beyond density ranges approved in the MPD permit;
. Would not decrease the approved amount of open space or recreation space;
5. Would not significantly increase any adverse environmental impact, provided
that additional environmental review may be required to determine whether such change
s likely to occur;
. Would not adversely impact the pro ect s fiscal projections tothe dement o
the City; and
7. Would not s gmeantly impact the overall design of the approved NT .
Minor amendments may be approved adma'n*strat vely by the . City in accordance with the
procedure set forth n the UTD development agreement, where applicable. .Any
ar endment application that is not "minor" shad be deemed to be major. The final
determination regarding whether an amendment is "minor" or `�ma oi" shall rest with the
lanr ngr Commission. Applications for major or modifications shall be reviewed by the
same procedures applicable to. new MPD permit requests.. The City, through the
development agreement for the approved MP ,nay specify additional cr'teria for
determining whether a proposed modification is "major" or "minor`.
18,98.110 MPD Standards - Design Review Required.
Exhibit l to Ordinance No. 05-779
Page 10 of 16
--5-
A. Dem. Standards. The VTD master plan and each subsequent implementing
permit or approval request, including all proposed building permits, shall be consistent
with the City's WD Design Standards, Chapter 18.98 BDMC.
B. DesigLi..Review Process.
. MPD Permit: The Hearing Examiner sball evaluate the overall MPD master
plan for compliance with the City's MPD Design Standards, Chapter 18-98 BDMC,. as
part of the Examiner's recommendation to the City Council on the overall MPD permit.
2. cmcntIr Permits 1 rova Res a tia S b 'v's ons; Each
residential subdivision that is part of are approved MPD . shall be reviewed by the City's
Planning/DesignPlanning/Design Commission at the time of preliminary plat review for compliance with
the City's MPD Design Standards, Chapter 18.98 BDMC. his review shall include
typical schematic. drawings (floor plans, elevations, and exterior material samples) for the
single-family residences and other structures to be built on 'the subdivided lots. This
review sba l be merged with the planning Commission's review of the preliminary plat,
and shall take place at the same meeting at wbich the Planning Commission holds its
public berg on the. plat. The City shall merge its public notice'of the design preview
with the required public notice of the preliminary plat beaming, utilizing the notice
requirements for that being, as set Forth in Subdivisions, Title 17 BDMC. The City's
Planning/Design Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council on the
plays compliance mn'tb the MPD Design'Standards, including but not limited to the
compliance of the proposed street layout and schematic design of the proposed residential
structures. This recommendation shall be forwarded to the Council m conjunction with.
the Planning Commission's recommendation on the p e imm'ary plat. The
PlanningOesign Commission shall adopt findings, conclusionsand, where applicable,
recommended conditions of approval with respect to the proposed subdivision's
compliance with the. City's MPD Design Standards. Individual detached single-family
residential structures on lots 7,200 square feet or greater 'in size are subject to
admir strative review for compliance with the City MPD Design Standards but are
exempt from the lanm*ng/Design Commiss'ion schematic drawing review process -set
fort. above.
3.. jWlementing Permits or Approvals — Short S b ivis ons Short Plats):. Short
subdivisions (short plats) within an approve. WD shall be reviewed by the
Planning/Design Commission for compliance with the City's.' MPDesign Standards,
Chapter 18.98. C.. This review shall (elude typical schematic. drawings (floor plans,
elevations, and exterior' material samples). for the single -Family residences and other
stretres to be built on the subdivided lots. This review shall take place at a regular
pub e meeting of the Commission. The City shall provide public notice of the design
review at least 14 business days prior tothe scheduled Commission meeting, by
publishing a notice in the City's newspaper of record, and posting the site in at least
locations visible from an adjacent public street or right-of-way. Mailed notice t
individual adjacent property owners is not required. The Commission shall make a
decision on the short p at's compliance vn*tb the MPD .design Standards, including but
Exhibit I to Ordinance No. 05-779 I I of 16
roo .
not limited to the compliance of the proposers lot layout and schematic design of the
Proposed residential structures, The Commission shall adopt Endings, conclusions and,
where applicable, conditions of approval. This decision shall be final unless appealed to
the City Council within 14 days of the Cit is issuance of a notice of decision.
. Implementing Permits or Approvals — Sirs -Family......Residential Bu� r�
'ermitsin Approved Subdivisions or Short Sub viq ores: Within an approved MP , the
City shall administratively review single-family residential building permit applications
in approved and recorded subdivisions and short subdivisions for consistency with the
schematic building drawings approved in conjunction with preliminary plat or short plat
approval. No public notification is required for this administrative design review.
Applications for single-family residential structures that are found to be not consistent
with the approved schematic drawings, or for which no schematic approval took place
(other than individual detached Single-family residential structures on lots 7,200 square
feet -or greater in size), shall be referred to thePlanning/Design Comrmssion for its
review.
5. implementing pernits or AMrovals — Other Buildjqg,Permits: All other
structures(icluding but not imite . to ommercial anal multifam r buildings) with aaproved MPshall be reviewed by the Planning/Design Commission for compliance
with the City"s ll PDesign Standards, Chapter 18.98 BDMC. This review shall be
crude on schematic drawings (floor plans, elevations, and exterior material samples), site
plans, and landscape plans for the proposed structure or structures, This review shall use
the process, notice, and appeal provisions described in Subsection 3) above. The
Commission shall make a decision on the proposal's compliance ar ce with the M'D .design
Standards including but not limited to the compliance of the proposed sfte and landscape
plans, and design of the proposed str ct re s . The Commission shall adopt findings,
conclusions and, whereapplicable, conditions of approval.. Building permit applications
that are found to be not consistent with the approved schematic drawings, or for which no
schematic approval took place, shall be referred to the Planning/Design', Commission for
its review.
, Future Project Consistency: The City shall not approve a preliminary plat or
short plat, or issue a bifidn; permit or site plan review approval for a parcel located
within an W, mess. the City has. found that the proposal is consistent with applicable
MPS) Design Standards..
18.98.120 MPD standards'- Permitted Uses and Densities;
A. MPDs shall include a mix of residential and non-residential uses.. Residential
uses shall Mnc ude a variety of housing types and densities.
B. Each MPD shall contain sufficient affordable housing, in each residential phase,
in order to provide the percentage of affordable housing recommended in the County-
wide Planm'ng Policies....
C. An NTD shall contain retail, commercial, office, and/or business park uses as
these uses are defined by Title.. 18 of the BDMC, and shall contribute positively to the
C ty's job growth and achievement of fiscal balance.
Exhibit l to Ordinance No. 05-779
Page 12 of 16
60605.
D. The use mixes required to comply with the conditions of MPD approval shall
oveTiide any underlying zoning code use restrictions to the contrary}
18,98,130 MPD Standards - Development Standards
A, An approved NND pennit and development agreement may allow development
ent
standards different from those otherwise unposed under the Black Diamond M rn'c pal
Code in order to provide flexibility to achieve public benefits, responding to changing
community reeds, farther the public benefits set for the in Sections l and 2 of this code,
and encourage modifications which provide the factional equivalent or adequately
achieve the purposes of City standards.
B. Any approved development standards that differ from those in the otherwise
applicable Code shall not require any further zoning reclassification, variances, or other
City approvals apart from the MPS] permit approval.
C. Building permit applications shall he subject to the building codes in erect at
the time a building perm application is deemed complete by the City*
18,98,140 MPD Standards — open Space Requirements
A. An approved MPD shall contain at least 50% on -site open space. Open space -I*s
defined to cl de, but is not limited to, wildlife habitat areas,. pe meter buffers,
environmentally critical areas and their buffers, and trail corridors. It may also include
developed recreation areas, such as golf courses, trail corridors, and play fields. Open
space shall be calculated based on the gross acreage of the M'l. Provided, the
requirement er t shall not apply to property Within the C ty's Potential Annexation Areas as
identified in the 1996 Black Diamond Urban Growth Area Agreement so long as the open
space indentified in that agreement that is located within the project boundaries remains
permanently protected..
B. Open space shall be.. located and designed to form a coordinated open
space network resulting in continuous greenbelt areas and buffers to minimize the visual
impacts of development within -the MP , and provide connections to existing or pled
open space networks, wildlife corridors, and trail corridors on adjacent properties.
C. The open space shall be located and designed to mM' I'r 'ze the adverse impacts
on wildlife resources and achieve a high degree of compatibility with wildlife habitat
areas where identified,
D. The approved MPD permit and development agreement shall establish specific
uses for open space within the approved MP .
E.. The approved MPD pernut and development agreement shall establish which
open space shall be dedicated to the City, which shall he protected by conservation
easements, and which shall be protected and maintained by other mechar sms.
18,98,150 MPD Standards — -Site Recreation and Trail Requirements.
Exhibit l to Ordinance No. o - '
Page 13 of 16
160605.
A. An MPD shall provide on -site recreation areas and facilities sufficient to meet
the needs of MPD residents, exceeding or at a minimum consistent with levels of service
adopted by the City where applicable} This shall include providing for a coordinated
system of trails and pedestrian linkages both within, and correcting to existing or
planned re91
ional or local trail systems outside of the W.
. . 'be approved MPD permit and development agreement shall establish the sizes,
locations, and types of recreation facilities and trails to be built as part of the MPD. The
approved MPD permit and development agreement also shall establish which recreation
and trail areas shall be dedicated to the City, and which shall be owned and maintained
y other mechanisms
18,98,160 MPD standards Transfer of Development Rights. All proposed
transfers of development rights shall he consistent with the C ty's adopted TDR program
(Chapter 19.24). An approved MPD pennit and development agreement shall establish
the 'DR requirements for a specific MIP. Maximum alto. al le MPD residential
densities can only e achieved through participation the City .s 'fDR program as a
receiving site.
18,98.170 MPD standards — street Standards*
A* The City may consider street standards that modify those standards that apply
generally within the City.
B. The WD application shall include street standards consistent with the MP.
design guidelines. These standards may deviate from typical City-wide street standards i
order to incorporate "low 'Impact -development" concepts such as narrower pavement
cross- sections, enhanced pedestrian features, low impact storm water facilities,, and
increased connectivity* Cul-de-sacs are to he discouraged. Standards incorporating
" "green streef" or "'low impact development" storm water drainage features (such asgrass-
lined swats) shall he encouraged where their implementation does not result in a nonna.l
long -terms maintenance costs.
C. The street layout shall he - designed to preserve view corridors of Mt. Rainier or
other view corridors'Identified M the Cit-y's Comprehensive Plan..
D. The City shall review the proposed street standards as part of the MPD permit
review process. The ' approved street standards shall become part of the NTD permit
approval, and shall apply to. public and private streets in all subsequent implementing
projects within the MPD except when new or different standards are specifically
detemined by the City Council to he necessary for public safety.
. . -1 o MPD standards — s or wa er Management Sta darrds.
Exhibit 1 to Ordinance No, 05-779 14 of 16
-65
A. The MPD applicant shall, at a minimum, abide by the adopted store water
management regulations of the City at the time of a complete application. The City may
consider the application of storrnater management standards that fiance those
standards. that apply generally within the City, in order to implement the design concepts
in the MPD design standards, provided that it can be determined to the City"s satisfaction
that the fimetional requirements of the citywide stonnwater management standards are
met.
B. The City shall review the proposed standards as part of the MPD permit review
process. The approved standards shall become part of the MPD penm't approval, and
shall apply to public and p vate stornwater management t systems in all subsequent
implementing projects within the MP , except when new or different standards are
specifically determined by the City Council to be necessary for public health' or safety,
C. Where conditions allow, oppodunities tinfiltrate stormater to the benefit o
the aquifer, icing opportunities for re -use, shall be implemented as part of the
tonneater management plan for the MP .
18,98,190 MPD Standards - Water and Sewer Standards.
A. Ain MPD shall he served with public water and sever systems that:
Employ innovative. water conservation measures including metenng
technologies, irrigation technologies, landscaping and soil amendment techogies, and
re -use technologies to reduce and/or discourage the reliance upon potable grater for non -
potable uses Melding 6utdoor watering.
2. Are designed in such a way as to ehmm' ate or at a minimum reduce to the
greatest degree possible .the reliance upon pumps, lift stations, and other meeham*cal
devices and their associated costs to provide service to the NIP.
.. Each MTD shall develop and implement a water conservation plan to he
approved as part of the development agreement that targetsa maximum water
consumption of no greater than 2 0 .gallons of water per day per equivalent residential
unit, and sets forth - UT -vide strategies for achieving water conservation ddun'; and
after project completion to achieve consumption gates of less than 230 gallons of water
per day per equivalent residential Wit.
18,98,195 Vesting
A. Except to the extent earlier terminated, modified by the provisions o
this Chapter, or as otherwise specified in the conditions of approval, the MP
Pert approval vests the applicant for 15 years to all conditions of approval and to
the development regulations In effect on the date of approval.
Vesting as to storwaer regulations shall be on a phase by phase
basis.
C, vesting as to conditions necessary to meet the fiscal impacts analysis
criteria required by section .9 .o o(B)(6)C shall only he for such period of time
as is ,justified by the required updated analysis.
Exhibit 1 to Ordinance No.05-779
age 15 of 16
,..-o
18.98.200 Revocation of MPD Permit. The City Council may amend or revoke any
or all conditions of MPD approval, after pubic hears and' notice under the following
circumstances:
A. If the development was phased, and a phase has not been
approved within five years of the approval of the previous
phase or the ori91
al MP. approval and an extension of said
phase has not been previously granted. An extension may be
granted for up to are additional two years on such additional
conditions as the Council determines are necessary in order
to assure that the extension does not adversely impact the
intent and pose of the initial MPD approval.
B. A condition of the MPD approval has been violated and the
violation has not been corrected after sixty days notice
of the violation mess said violation can be corrected through
the use of a duly posted performance or maintenance bond
provided at the time of MPD approval.
C. A violation of an MPD condition of approval that cannot be
corrected, such asthe destruction of wetlands or removal o
trees and vegetation that was specifically prohibited and
cannot be restored to their oral state within 60 days. .
D. The MPD permit has been approved for more than five (5)
years and the City Council fords that further development
will present a heat to the public health, safety and welfare
unless the amendment or revocation is implemented.
Provided,, however, the City shall list determine that the
condition camot be amended in order to eliminate the heat
to the public health, safety or welfare before it revokes the
pest approval.
The above provisions not withstanding, the vacation and/or amendment of the MPD
approval shall not affect previously approved building permits.
Exhibit I to Ordinance No.05-779
Pa e 16 of 16.
Town Serving Zone, Palm Beach Florida
Residents of Palm Beach, an island off the coast of Florida, have converted their main
commercial district into a "town -serving �one�t which caps its stores at 2,000 square ,feet
and impels them to serve primarily "town persons;" those living, or working in Palm
Beach. Businesses larger than 2,000 square feet can apply for a special exception use
permit provided they can convince the City Council that not less than. 50% of their
anticipated customers will be "town persons": The zoning law was upheld in a 1991 court
ease, which concluded that the restrictions served legitimate public interests and reflected
the town's desire to limit the displacement of its local businesses by larger, regional
establishments.
Schedule of Use Regulations
Palm Beach
Purpose. -
It is the intent of this district to create, preserve and enhance areas of attractive, small-
scale,, retail, personal and professional/business services to he developed either as a umt
or in individual parcels, providing for the frequently recurring needs of Townpersons: To
enhance the general character of the district and its compatibility with its .residential
surroundings, signs are limited to those accessory to businesses conducted on the
premises, including the number, area and types; and retail drive-in facilities are not
permitted. Further, in order to maintain the Town -serving nature of the district,
limitations on gross leasable floor (GLA) area are imposed.
Permitted Uses
Maximum of 2,000 square Feet of Gross Leasable Area GLA)-
1. Retail and service establishments, such as: restaurants and drinking establishments,
hardware stores, food stores, clothing stores, drug stores, barber shops, beauty salons and
a
jewelry stores.
1 Ogee and Professional Services and Business Services
. Banks and financial institutions
. Non -Profit Cultural Centers
5. Professional or Studio -type Schools
. Essential Services
Accessory Uses:
. Off-street parking and loading
. Signs
_ One -family dwellings located above the first floor
. Accessory uses customarily incident to the permitted or approved Special Exception
Uses
Special Exception Uses:
_ hlk T - . a narking lots r storage ac es
T - -, - -�- r r ... -- - - F --�- _ ---_� - - _ -- -� - m _ - - --p -- ; - - C_r - -
. Auto rental lots
. Multi -family dwellings
. Private social, swimming, golf, tennis and yacht clubs
. Service stations
. Public structures
Supplemental parking
. Public or private academic schools
. Drive-in business service facilities
10. Churches., Synagogues, or other ]Houses of Worship
. Any Commercial Establishment with greater than 2, 000 s . ft. of GL , provided the
Town Council has found, as a fact, that the proposed use is Town serving,
Torn -Serving: Establishments principally oriented to serving the needs of Town Persons
which would not substantially rely upon the patronage of persons not defined as Town
Persons. Town -serving establishments, by definition, would typically contain 2,000 or
less square feet of interior Gross Leasable Area G . and wouldnot engage in
advertising designed to attract other than Town Persons.
Copyright 1999-2 - Institute for LeaLReia e. _-____._....._--�� .��
The New Rules Project - h4pl/www.newrules.org/
Economic & Community Impact Review
A number of communities now require a comprehensive economic and comet r ty
impact review before approving any new retail construction. Typically, the review is
triggered when the proposed development exceeds a certain size e.g., a retail store larger
than 2 ,000 square feet or that will generate more than Soo vehicle trips per day).
In order to pass, -the proposed project must -meet certain criteria outlined n the ordinance.
These vary from place to place, but may include impact on the downtown business
district, employment oyment Gobs gained versus jobs lost), wages, tax revenue,, roads and other*
public services, historic resources', air and water pollution, and traffic. As part of this
process, cities typically require that economic and fiscal tax impact studies be
conducted by independent dent con rtants chosen by the city council and paid for by a fee
assessed on the developer. In most cases, there's also a public hearing to gather citizen
input. In the end, if the city council or planning board) determines that the pro ect's
over-all costs outweigh the benefits, then the developer is denied a permit to proceed.
n some areas, neighboring communities ties have worked together to establish a Regional
Impact Review process for very large developments. Many corporate retailers are large
g
enough to have impacts that will be Felt well beyond the borders of their host town. Cities
and towns often have difficulty rejecting unwanted retail development for fear that the
store will simply locate in a adjacent town, generating many of the same harmful impacts
but none of the tax revenue, Regional cooperation offers .a solution to this problem,
handful of regions have taken this approach, creating joint planning agencies charged
with reviewing applications for developments that exceed a certain size, or developments
of regional impact (DRIs). This is in addition to any review and permitting required by
the host municipality.
Some states are considering legislation that would require all communities to conduct
economic impact reviews of proposed big -box development. See our rules -covering
Mandatory Impact Reviews.
_-e� i u ili u i imui nrrr rirra.r.Yrrir.r�i.r'.r
RULES*
e nr ony
n unu uu uY i ■��nur.i iYiIYYYYYti.YiYF
n January ary 2005,, the town of Bennington, home to 9,200 people and located in the
southwest comer of Vermont, enacted the following ordinance. It bans stores over 75,000
square feet in one commercial district and 50,000 square feet in the rest of the town, it
requires proposals for stores over 30,000 square Feet to submit to- a community impact
review conducted by an independent consultant chosen by the city. The cost of the
review is to be paid by the developer.
Carbondale Colorado
In -November 2003, after three years of debate and a voter referendum that demonstrated
strong opposition to sprawling shopping centers, Carbondale, Colorado, enacted an
ordinance that requires the town's planning staff and Board of Trustees to weigh the
community and fiscal impacts of a large-scale retail proposal before deciding whether to
approve or deny the project.
Greenfield, Massachusetts
+. a nr rr rir• rr wrrrrrirw........... ...
Greenfield, Massachusetts requires new retail stores to undergo a special review if they
exceed 20,000 square feet or generate more than 500 vehicle trips per day. Impact studies
are 'd for by the developer and consider the project#s impact on traffic,, municipal
services, public revenue, the environment, the local economy, and the community. The
community component includes potential impact on historic and scenic sites, the
character of the town,, and the downtown business district.
Homer, Alaska
wr. rwr•r•rr•. ..o•
After two years of consideration ---including a review by a city council -appointed task
force, numerous public hearings, and a voter referendum ---the city of Homer, Alaska, has
capped the size of retail stores at 25,000- 5,0 o square Feet and adopted a community
impact review process for proposed retail developments over 15,000 square Feet.
Los Angeles Communily Impact Review ordinance
In October Zoo , after months of debate on the consequences of big -box development,
the Los Angeles City Council enacted a law that requires proposed superstores to pass an
econon is impact revi e r in order to obtain approval to build. The later applies to retail
stores larger than 100, 000 square feet that devote more than 10 percent of their floor
space to food and that are seeking to locate in economic assistance zones.
Middletown, Rhode Ism
n determining whether to approve or deny proposals for large-scale development, the
Middletown Planning Board evaluates the roject's impact on trade, municipal services,
the environment, and the character of the community, The town requires that developers
submit detailed impact statements and pad' a fee to cover the town's cost of hiring
consultants to review the impact statements and offer independent analyses. For shopping
centers and other commercial development, the fee is $ oo per 1,000 square feet of gross
floor space.
Mtn Shasta,
n March 2005, the City Council of Mount Shasta, California, voted 3-2 to enact the
following ordinance, which caps stores at 50,000 square feet and requires proposals for
stores over 20,000 square Feet to undergo an economic 'impact review and obtain a
conditional use permit.
Santa Cruz California
In October 2000,, the Santa. Cruz City Council voted a imou y to adopt an ordinance
requiring new retail stores over 16,000 square feet to obtain a special permit. only stores
that add to a balanced and diverse mix of downtown businesses are allowed. "The
continued establishment of lare square footage retail businesses in the Downtown, if not
monitored and regulated, may frustrate the Downtown Recover Plan goal of establishing
and maintaining a diverse retail base with a'unique retailing personality,"' the ordinance
states,
More:
• Also see Regional mact Review
Protecting Locally owned Retail: Planning --Tools for Curbing Chains and
Nurtudng Homearown Businesses...by Stacy Mit he 1, Main Street News,
February Zoo . (c)National Main Street Center, National Trust for FEstor e
Preservation. All rights reserved.
Copyright l 9 -2 oo - Institute for Local Self -Reliance
The New Rules Project - http:://www.newrules.or