3. Resolutions 5129A, B or C - Adopting, Revising or Rejecting Growth Policy Amendment - NorthCity of Kalispell
Charles A. Har all Office of City Attorney Tel 406.758,7708
City Attomey 312First Avenue East Fax 4G6,758.7771
P.O. Box 1997 charball,l lisp ll.
Kalispell, MT 59903-1997
MEMORANDUM
Mayor Pamela B. Kennedy
and Kalispell. City Council
FROM: Charles Hai ball, City Attorney
James H. Patrick, City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution 5129(A)(B)(C) —Resolution Regarding Growth
Policy Amendment —North Kalispell
MEETING ATE: Monday, august 7, 2006 — Regular Meeting
BACKGROUND: Pursuant to state statute, the City of Kalispell is to review and
amend, if appropriate, its adopted growth policy at least every two years. Because
of the rate of growth that the Flathead valley is experiencing, the City has been
continually reviewing and amending its growth policy. The last amendment was
made earlier this year and looked to the growth on the southern periphery of the
City. The resolution of amendment currently before Council scrutinizes the growth
that is taking place or is being discussed to the north of the C .ty.
The City Planning Board, in conjunction with the City Planning Office,
worked over a period of some months examining the growth of development and
land uses in the neighborhoods to the north of t.e City. This detail involved many
work sessions and drew on public input. The Board passed its recommendation on
to the City Council (now in form Resolution 29(A.)) after holding a formal public
hearing.
The City Council reviewed and considered the recommendation of the
Planning Board in work session and, after due notice, held its own public hearing
and considered all other appropriate evidence provided by the .ic.
Resolution. 5 29 is in the form of a revision to the Growth. Policy
Amendment as recommended by the City Planning Board. The revisions are
derived from discussions of Council at its work session. If Council wishes to
consider these proposed revisions, a council member should move this re o ution
*
forward. Upon receiving a second, even trough appropriate proposed findings of
fact have been incorporated into the resolution., each revision should be discussed
regarding the findings of fact that support such revision.
Growth Policy Amendment North
August 2, Zoo
Page - 2
RECOMMENDATION: That Council consider and. pass Resolution 5129(A) or
5129(B) or 5129(C)-
FISCAL EFFECTS The fiscal effect of maintaining a suitable growth policy
should be to ultimately reduce costs to the City and its taxpayers by providing the
legislators with cogent map for f'.o growth so that prudent decisions can be
made.
Janes H. Patrick., City Manager
Office of City ,attorney
City of Kalispell
Return .
Theresa White
Kalispell City Clerk
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
RESOLUTION No. 5129A
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE KALISPELL GROWTH
POLICY 20209 O BE KNOWN AS THE HIGHWAY NORTH GROWTH POLICY
WHEREAS, the Kalispell Growth policy 2020 was originally adopted by the Kalispell City
Council on February 18, 2003, and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell Planning Board has been reviewing land use information, traffic
patterns, environmental constraints, and growth trends in the area north ofKalispell,
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that it would be appropriate to expand the Growth
Policy boundaries northerly to address increased development pressure and the need
to promote orderly growth and development in this area, and
WHEREAS, the area to be included in the amendment utilizes the Stillwater River as the western
boundary, Church and Birch Grove Drives es as the northern boundary, LaSalle to Rose
Crossing over to the Flathead River as the eastern boundary, and Reserve Drive as
the southern boundary, and generally includes Sections 13, 24, and 25 in Township
unship
9 North, Range 2 2 west, and Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 2 8, 29, and 30
in Township 29 North, Range 21 west, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2006, the Kalispell City planning Board held a public hearing, after due
and proper notice, received public comment upon, and reviewed Kalispell Planning
Department report #KG B.- -2, which evaluated the proposal based. upon the goals
and objectives of the Growth Policy, the purpose of zoning and current circumstances
in the planning jurisdiction, and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said public bearing and after consideration of the proposed
amendment, the Kalispell City Planning Board adopted report KGPA-0 -2, as the
findings of fact and recommended approval of the proposed Growth Policy
amendment, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell, on July 3, 2006, passed Resolution 5127, a
Resolution of Intention to Adopt, Revise or Reject a Proposed Amendment to the
Kalispell Growth Policy 2020 and called for a public hearing to he held on July 17,
2006, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell, after due and proper notice, held a public
hearing on July 17, 2006, and received public comment on the recommendations o
the City Planning Board and the Kalispell Planning Department report KGPA-5-2,
which evaluated the proposal based upon the goals and objectives of the Growth
Policy, the purpose of zoningand current circumstances in the planning Jurisdietion
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell finds that It is in the hest interest of the City
to amend the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020, pursuant to the recommendations nations of the
City Planning Board and adopts as its findings Kalispell Planning Department report
KGPA-- -2, said amendment as set Forth in the attached Exhibit "A"' consisting o
teat and map and including approximately 8,227 acres in the Potential Utility Service
Area.
NOW, THEREFORE9 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of
KALISPELL, ASFOLLOWS:
SECTION 1* That pursuant to Section 76-1-604, MCA, the City Council of the City o
:Kalispell hereby adopts an amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020,
said amendment as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A." consisting of text and
snap and including approximately 8,227 acres in the Potential Utility Service
Area and with appropriate land use assigned upon annexation to the city.
SECTION 11, This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage by the
City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR P THE
CITY P KALISP LL, HIS 7th DAB AUGUST, 2006.
Pamela B. Kennedy
Mayor
ATTEST:
Theresa White
City C l erl
Return t .
Theresa White
Kalispell City Clerk
P.O. Boy 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
RESOLUTION NO. 5129B
.A RESOLUTION REVISING AN AMENDMENT TO THE KALISPELL GROWTH POLIO' 2020,
TO BE KNOWN AS THE HIGHWAY 93 NORTH GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT.
WHEREAS, the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020 was originally adopted by the Kalispell City Council on
February 18, 2003, and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell Planning Board has been reviewing land use information, traffic patterns,
environmental constraints, and growth trends in the area north of Kalispell , and
WH SAS, the Planning Board has detern fined that it would be appropriate to expand the Grow is Policy
bo-undan'es northerly to address increased development pressure and the need to promote
orderly growth and development in this area, and
WHEREAS., the area to be included in the amendment utilizes the Stillwater River as t.he western
boundary, Ohreh and birch Grove Drives as the nort.em boundary, LaSalle to Rose
Crossing over to the Flathead River as the eastern boundary, and Reserve Drive as the
southern boundary, and generally includes Sections 13, 24, and 25 in Township 29 North,
Range 22 West, and Sections 15, 16, 17, f , 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 291, and 30 in Township 29
:forth, Range 21 west, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, and
WHEREAS, REAS, on June 13, 2006, the Kalispell City Planning Board held a public hearing, after due and
proper notice, received public comment upon, and reviewed Kalispell Planning Department
.report ##K PA -05 - , which evaluated the proposal based upon the goals and objectives of t .e
Growth Policy, the purpose of zoning and current circumstances in the planning Jurisdiction,
and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said public hearing and after consideration of the proposed amendment,
the Kalispell City Planning Board adopted report ##KGPA-0 -2, as the findings of fact and
reeonunended approval of the proposed Growth Policy amendment, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell, on July 3, 2006, passed Resolut.io . 5127, a
Resolution of Intention to Adopt, Revise or Reject a Proposed Amendment to the Kalispell
Growth Policy 2020 and called for a public hearing to be held on July 17, 2006, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City ofKalispell, after due and proper notice; held a public hearing on
July 17, 2006, and received public comment on the recommendations of the City Planning
Board and the Kalispell Planning Department report ##KGPA.- 5- , which evaluated the
proposal based upon the goals and objectives of the Growth Policy, the purpose of zoning and
current circumstances in the planning jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell finds that it is in the best interest of the City to amend
the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020, and reprise the recommendations of the City Planning
Board by adopting as its findings the following:
t used upon evidence and testimony provided, the current inventory of commercial use
property within the growth policy area is inadequate to meet the demand for such property
over the next fifteen years. Therefore, the area designated as KN- I should allow for up to
% general commercial use to meet this demand.
ii based upon. evidence and testimony provided, the area designated as KN- i is appropriately
located for such general commercial uses as it is situated within close proximity to other
existing general commercial uses, thereby meeting the purpose of focusing these commercial
uses to a specific area, and is also located in close proximity to the essential transportation
routes that support such commercial uses.
iii used upon evidence and testimony provided, because the area designated as KIN -1. is
located along the gateway entrance of the Highway 93 corridor, it should he developed as
planned unit developments consistent with city ordinances so that the City may maintain the
maximum mount of oversight of the land uses and the landowners may have some degree of
flexibility to address the particularities of their projects.
WHEREAS, in all other respects, not inconsistent with the above, the Council adopts the Kalispell
Planning Department report KGPA - -2 as its findings of fact., and further finds that it is In
the best interests of the City to adopt said revised amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy
2020 as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A"" consisting of text and neap and including
approximately 8,227 acres in the Potential Utility Service Area.
NOW, ' H REFoR 9 BE IT RESOLVEDY THE CITY COUNCIL C of THE CITY of
KA ISPEL , ASFOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to Section 7 -1- o , MCA, the City Council of the City of Kalispell
hereby adopts the revised amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020, said
amendment more particularly set forth in attached Exhibit "A"" consisting of text and
.neap and including approximately 8,227 acres in the Potential 'Utility Service Area
and assigning an appropriate land use upon annexation to the city.
SECTION 11. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage by the City
Council,
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR of THE CITY
OF KALISPELL, THIS 7TH DAY of AUGUST,, 2006.
Pamela B. Kennedy
Mayor
ATTEST:
Theresa White
City Clerk
EEXHII A.
REVISE? ATTACHMENT
HIGHWAY 93 NORTH GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT
GOAL - 1: Gateway entrances to Kalispell that enhance the community through improved
design.
POLICIES:
Gateway Entrance Corridors (areas of special concern) would extend up to 150 feet of either
side of the existing W for primary highways and up to 50 feet for secondary highways.
2. The following roadway corridors are identified as gateway entrances to Kalispell.
a. Highway 93 forth corridor north of Four Mile to the County Landfill.
b. US Highway 2 LaSaffe from Reserve Drive to Birch Grove
c. Whitefish Stage from Reserve Drive to Birch Grove. (minor entrance way)
3. The following design standards are intended to enhance the gateway entrances to Kalispell
a. Access control is important along the gateway entrance roads.
b. Access should be coordinated so as to allow only collector or arterial streets to intersect.
The judicious use of right -ire right -out approaches, frontage roads and good internal
development street design should be the rule to reduce or eliminate the need for direct
access onto major gateway roads.
c. With the construction of the Church Drive overpass on US 93, every effort must he
taken to fully utilize this interchange and conversely limit direct access onto US 93 for at
least 4 mile along areas north and south of this facility to avoid congestion points and
the need for future traffic signals. The judicious use of right -in right -out approaches,
frontage roads and good internal development street design will mitigate the need for
direct access out,
d. Extra setbacks, buffering and landscaping along US Highway 93 North and US Highway
and to a lesser degree along Whitefish Stage Road are the norm.
e. In those areas planned for general commercial development on a gateway entrance, it
should occur as an integrated development utilizing and enhancing the property back
from the gateway as opposed to occurring as a shallow linear strip. Significant
individual business highway exposure, individual access points, and pole signage would
not be the norm. Outjpqrcels of commercial bu-sinesseswould be anticipated hi
the !mRroved design of a PUD along..the corridors.
Additional design standards should be developed to ensure that signage enhances
development, not detracts from it. Wail signage integrated into the overall building
design is preferred over free standing signage. Monument signs are preferred over other
types of free standing signage. Where development entrance signage or monument
signage is proposed, it should be done so as part of a unified planned unit development
concept.
g. Where the adjacent gateway road speed is posted at 35 mph or lower:
A minimum 20 foot landscape buffer should be provided abutting the
gateway road..
ii. Street trees should be incorporated into the landscape buffer.
iii. A pedestrian trail or sidewalk should be incorporated into the landscaped
buffer area.
iv, Four sided architecture would be the norm adjacent to gateway entrances,
h. where the adjacent gateway road speed is posted from 3 - 45 rnph:
i. A minimum of 40 feet of landscaped buffer area should be provided.
ii. Street trees and berming should be incorporated into the landscaping.
iii. A pedestrian trail or sidewalk should be incorporated into the landscaped
buffer aea.
iv. Four sided architecture would be the norm adjacent to gateway entrances
i, where the adjacent gateway road speed is posted above 45 mph:
i. A minimum l - 150 foot impact area should be provided for major
entrances and a 50 foot entrance for minor entrances.
H. Within this impact area, a combination of berming, landscaping using live
materials and trees as well as grass, a pedestrian trail system., limiteel
parking and frontage roads should be incorporated}
iii. Primary buildings should not be located in this impact area., unless
specifically approved in a PU .
iv, Four sided architecture should be the norm for development adjacent to
the impacted area..
V. Monument signs would be anticipated to occur in the rear portion of the
impacted area, other free standing signs would not.
i. whenever parking or signage is proposed in the impact area, it shall only
be done under a PUD process where the impacts of these actions are
anticipated and provided. for.
. Neighborhood commercial should be used as a means to buffer key intersections and to meet
immediate local needs, not to serve as a. destination slopping area.
. Neighborhood connmercial areas would in turn be buffered from lower density and intensity
residential areas through the use of higher density residential uses and office uses.
. pedestrian and trail systems should be incorporated. into berming, landscaping, greenbelts}
park areas and setback standards along gateway entrances to enhance or maintain the
scenic value of the entrance corridor from public facilities, neighborhoods, schools and
commercial services.
GOAL - 2: The development of an integrated residential commercial neighborhood (Designated
ignated
N- I on Growth. policy Map) between US 9 3 -Reserve Drive and Whitefish Stage.
POLICIES
1. Development will be mixed use in nature creating an overall integrated neighborhood
town center as t04-1 --linear- strip. ffenliqqg the Gateway
. Access onto the major Gateway roads would be limited.
3. Development in this 600 acre site would typically be:
a. Up t % �°� general commercial,
b. Up to 25% urban mixed use area.
e. Up to 20% in various residential eonfirat .ons.4044 in
d. % open space uses
4. Commercial activity would be generally distributed throughout the development designed to
serve both the adjacent neighborhood as well as the greater community.
. It is anticipated that development within the KN-1 area will be presented to the
Planning Board and the Cit Council in the form of a Planned Unit Development so
that the impacts of thisdevelo ment can be pjanned for and if necessgry mitigated
through.irn roved deal n.
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT TO THE KALISPELLGROWTH POLICY MAP
That the definition of the Urban Mixed Use Area Category on the Kalispell Growth Policy Map be
amended to remove the term `limited" in reference to commercial while keeping it in reference to
industrial uses so that it reads, "Urban. ,waxed Use Area - Office, Residential, Commercial and Limited
Industrial". Note: This amendment was to address the entire planning jurisdiction map and not just
the Highway 93 North Amendments.
RESOLUTION NO. 5129C
. RESOLUTION REJECTING AN AMENDMENT NDMEN THE KALISPELL GROWTH
POLICY 2020.
WHEREAS, the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020 was originally adopted by the Kalispell City
Council on February 18, 2003, and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell planning Board has been reviewing land use information, traffic
patterns, environmental constraints, and growth trends in the area north of Kalispell,
and
WHEREAS,, S, the Planning Board has deterr lned that it would be appropriate to expand the Growth
Policy boundan'es northerly to address increased development pressure and the need
to promote orderly growth and development in this area, and
WH R-ES, the area to be included in the amendment utilizes the Stillwater River as the western
boundary, Church and Birch grove Drives as the northem boundary, LaSalle to Rose
Crossing over to the Flathead River as the eastern boundary, and Reserve Drive a
the southem boundary, and generally includes Sections 13, 24, and 25 in Township
9 North, lane 22 west, and Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 2, 21, 2, 2, 2, and 3 0
in Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Q.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, and
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2006, the Kalispell City Planning Board held a public hearing, after due
and proper notice, received public comment upon, and reviewed Kalispell Planning
Department report #KG B.-o - 2, which evaluated the proposal based upon the goals
and objectives of the Growth. Policy, the purpose of zoning and current circumstances
in the planning jurisdiction, and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said public hearing and after consideration of the proposed
amendment, the Kalispell City Plying :Board adopted report #KG -- 5-2, as the
in -m s of fact and recommended approval of the proposed Growth policy
amendment., and
WHEREAS, the City Council ofthe City off'Kalispell, on July 3, 2006, passed Resolution 5127, a
Resolution of Intention to adopt, Revise or Reject a Proposed Amendment to the
Kalispell Growth Policy 2020 and called for a public hearing to be held on July 17,
2006, a-nd
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell, after due and proper notice, held a public
hearing on July 17, Zoo , and received public comment on the recommendations datlon.s o
the City P I anning Board and the Kalispell Planning Department report #KGP -o 5 -2,
whIch evaluated the proposal based upon the goals and objectives of the Growth
Polley, the purpose of zoning and current circurn.sta c es in the planning j urisdicti n;
and.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell finds that it is not in the best interest of the
City to amend the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020, said amendment consisting of
including approximately 8,227 acres in the Potential Utility Service .Area and
ass.g an appropriate land use upon annexation to the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of
KALISPELL, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to Section -1 -o , MCA., the City Co nc-1l of the City of Kalispell
hereby rejects the amendment that was the subject of the Kalispell Planning
epartment report #KGPA - --2 and recommended by the City Planning B oard to the
Kalispell Growth Policy 2020.
PASSED AND APPROVED Y THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE
CITY OF KALISPE L, THIS 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, , 2006.
Pamela B. Kennedy
Mayor
ATTEST:
Theresa White
City Clergy.
HIGHWAY 93 NORTH GROWTH POLICY AMEN M `
KGA#o-2
JUNE 5, 2006
.. report to the Ka.sl. City Planning Board and the KahsPeE Cif Councii rarer
a major oar fort on the part of the Kali el Plying Staff to update the Kalispefl
Groff Policy Map and add pro n'ate policies to address ra ts. and development
in the northerly portion of the greater Kalispell comm.unit `. A public hearing on this
proposal has been scheduled before the plannmg board for June 13, 2006, The
planning board wiU forward a recommendation to the city council for second
subsequent public hearing and al actor.
BACKGROUND: The Kalispell Groff Policy was adopted on February 18, 2003.
Page 62 of the Groff Policy states that -the Growth Policy should be reviewed a
minirnum of every 5 years M order to maintain relevance with existing conditions and
trends. The plannmg board has begun a regular program of reviewing naajor
geographic areas of the comraur ty. on a sy5temadc basis to keep the Growth Pohcy
updated in light of the significant growth, occurring in the comunit, . This past fall
the ' arnng Board and City Council completed a similar process on the south side o
the city. Upon completion of those amendments, the Plannffig Board wed their
direction norms* The Board focused on this area in light of the recently adopted
County T\vo Rivers Plan and because of continued interest voiced by large property
owners M
this area who are interested in extending udfities and a . emng into the
city,
The Planning Board has been studying this area since December, 2005. During that
time they have held approutely 8 work sessions on this topic, In addition, t .
lan m g board has twice discussed this issue with. the County Planning Board one o
which was held approximately a ,year and a half ago in preparation of this effort. On
May 16 an open house was held. In anticipation that open house individual
invitations were sent to all propel owners of 10 acres or larger owners total) .
The Ponderosa. Subdivision Homeowners Association circulated the invitation to the
90 or so owners of Ponderosa Estates as well. In addition a block ad in the Daily
Inter Lake and a significant story in the Daily later Lake were published M
anticipation ation of this meeting, It is estimated that between 50 - 60 people attended the
open house* Comments were overwhelming in support of the city efforts to plain on
their fringes. The 89 property ownem who own 10 acres or more were again notified
of the public hearing and legal notice was placed in the newspaper. Letters of support
are attached for your formation*
E
Growth PoUy Amendment Boundary
The area under consideration uses the SdHwa.ter River as the westem boundarv,
Church and Birch Drives as the northern boundary, LaSaue to Rose Crossing over to
the Flathead River as the eastern bounder and Reserve Drive as the southern
boundary. The current Groff Policy extends a ro-%='ately one mile now o
Reserve Drive up to Rose Cr ss g. The proposed amer mment effectively extends the
bounder 2 miles further to the north. The amendments vAll replace this portion of
the Growth. Policy Map,
Proposed Growth PoUcy eat,
The attached Amended Groff Policy Map - Kalispell Highway 93 North - visuaUy
portrays the policies that have been developed by the plug board for this area.
The extended map area stfll uses the policies of the dent Groff Policy, The
core concepts include ainta' m' our major entrance ways into Kalispell (Highway
3, Whitefish Stage and LaSalle) as entrance conidors and supports developing
criteria to enhance them. This would include Erniting access in order to keep traffic
moving,, designing deveJopment along these corridors to limit unnecessary - roc
nights, utihzing extra setbacks, landscaping, etc., and to visually create are. entrance
corridor by limiting major commercial development to a few key locations and not
d s gru'ng a commercial stomp between Kalispell and Whitefish. Neighborhood
conmercial would be focused at several key intersects, typically a mile apart. Two
dire station sites were identified based on research by the Fire Department. The
primary use in a majority of this area is intended to be residential With a significant
mixed use development (commercial, office and residential between Whitefish Stage
and Highwa
y 93 north of Reserve Drive.
In addition to the rnap, .Attachment B - Polies .Articulated by Plying Board
conceming Kalispell North 93 Neighborhood are included in the adoption process.
These policies help articulate some of the issues discussed above.
Recommendation:
7he Kalispell City Planning Board should take public comment at the public hearing.
Based on that comment and additional board discussion., the board should make
changes as they feel appropriate. staff recommends at that point the planning board
should, by resolution (sample provided) resolve to recommend the North 93
Neighborhood Groff Policy Amendments to the City Council for fmal action and
adoption.
The council wffl also hold a public hearing on the Groff Micy Amendments poor to
taking final action on the proposed amendments.
2
ATTACHMENT
HIGHWAY 93 NORTH GROWTH POLIO bWNT
GOAL - .- Gateway entrances to Kahell that enhance the community dough
improved design.
POLICIES:
. Gateway Entrance Corridors (areas of special e cem) would extend to 150
feet of either side of the existing RW for pruinary highways and np to 150 feet for
secondary highways.
2. The foU0AVM'g roadway corridors are identified as gate -way entrances to Ka ispeU.
. Ffighway 93 Now corridor north of Four Mile to the County LandfiU.
S Highway 2 (LaSalle) From Reserve Drive to Birch Grove
Whitefish. Stage from Reserve Drive, to Birch Grove, (minor entrance way)
3. The following design standards are intended to enhance the gateway entrances
to Kalispell
a. Access control is important along the ateway entrance roads.
a b. Access should be coordinated so as to allow only collector or arterial streets
to intersect. The judicious use of ti t-m right -out approaches, frontage
nta
€
roads a good internal development street design should e the rule t
reduce or eliminate the need for erect access onto .major gateway roads.
c. With the -construction of the Church Drive overpass on US 93, every effort
must be taken to fully utih= this interchange and conversely hmit erect
access onto US 93 for at least mile along areas north a.d south of this
facility to avoid congestion points and the need for future traffic signals. The
judicious use of right -in right -out approaches, frontage roads and good
internal e e a.ent street esi9ri wffl mitigate the reed for direct access
out.
d. Extra setbacks, 1." r�.ng and landscapmg along S Highway 3 North and
S Highway 2 and to a lesser degree along Whitefish Stage Road are the
norm:
e. In those areas planned for general commercial development on a gateway
entrance, it should occur as an integrated developmenttilizing and
enhancing the propel back from the gateway as opposed to occurringas aL
shallow linear strip. Significant individual business highway exposure,
individual access points, are.d pole signage would not be the norm.
f* Additional design standards should be developed to ensure that, signage
enhances d eve me .t, not detracts from it. Wall signage integrated M' t
the overall dine iga is preferred over free standing silage,
Monument signs are preferred over other types of free standing signage.
Were development entrance signage or monument signa e is proposed, it
should e done so as ,dart of awed plied unit development concept,
g. Where the adjacent gateway road speed i posted at 35 rnph or lower:
i.. A nia-dmum 20 foot landscape buffer should be provided
abutting the gateway road.
. Street trees shoWd be incorporated into the landscape buffer.
w. A pedestrian trail or sidewalk should be incorporated into the
landscaped buffer area..
iv. Four sided architecture would be the norm adjacent to gateway
entrances.
. Where the adjacent gateway road speed is posted from 3 - 45 mph:
i. A minimum c t of landscaped buffer area shoWd be
provided.
11. Street trees and bermingshould be incorporated into the
.ands a g-
ii.i . A pedestrian trail r sidewalk should be m'corporated into the
landscaped buffer area..
iv. Four sided architecture would be the nor . adjacent to gateway
entrances
i. Where the adjacent gateway road speed is posted above 45 mph:
I L
A� - foot impact area s o d provided for
major entrances and a. 50 foot entrance for mar entrances.
. Within this impact area., a combination of bermm& landscapmg
using five matezials and trees as well as grass, a pedestrian trail
system, meted pang and frontage roads should be
incorporated.
i. Primary buildings should not be located in this inapact area.
iv. Four sided architecture should be the norm for development
adjacent to the impacted, area,,
. Monument sites would be anticipated to occur in the rear
portion. of the impacted area, other free standing signs would
not.
i. Whenever parking or signa e is proposed in the impact area, it
h.aU only be done under a PUD process where the impacts of
these actions are anticipated and provided for.,
Neighborhood commercial should e used as a means to buffer key
intersections and to meet immediate local needs, not to serve as a desfixiation
shopping area.
Neighborhood commercial areas would in turn be buffered from lower density
and intensity residential areas through the use of higher density residential
uses and office uses.
. Pedestrian and trail systems s should be incorporated into being, landscaping,
greenbelts, park areas and setback to dart s along gateway entrances to
enhance or mawtam the scenic value of the entrance corridor from public
facilities, neighborhoods, schools andcommercial services-
�AL The residential/ omm-cal neighborhood
(Designated KN-1 on Groff Policy Map) between US 3-Reserve Drive
and Wl-iitefish Stage.
POLIO
.. Development will be wed use in nature creating an overall integrated
neighborhood with a town center as opposed to linear sip commercial
aevelopment fronting the Gateway entrances.
2. Access onto the major Gateway roads would be dmit d.
3. Development in tEs 600 acre site would typi-CaRy be:
Up to 25% general commercial,
to 2S office and high density residential and associated uses,
A } um of 40% m various residential configurations.
d. 10% open space uses
. Commer a , activity would be generaRy centered within the development
designed to serve both, the adjacent neighborhood as well as the greater
community. It can serve as a town center as opposed to a wear stomp along the
highway.
ADDITIONAL TION ME TO THE S ELL GROWTH POLICY MAP
That the definition of the Urban Mixed Use Area Category on the KaHspell Groff
Policy Map be amended to remove the term "limited" In reference to commercial whi
keeping it in reference to industrial uses so that it .reads, 'Urban wed Use Area
Office, Residential, Commercial and Limited Indusit al . Nate: This amendment was
to address the entire planningjurisifiction map and not Jest the Highway 93 Norte
Amendments.
. ...........
1,-')3 NORTH PRORDSED GR:0'8W,.'I-,f Fl Q, Ll:(,',�Y ATOONIDIVIEN't
3INKOARY RTFA
PlIA, NlfJG JURIOD-G,77ION 601. Zt
C) GROINI'll POLCY Al E NUMEW A F.. A
YU9
n4
I GO y6lAt R"I'llAv4din
VIEW&
.M.
M,
av
'I 9,Ave Cx�,Odcr,, f Arw R4f
f
r. I�t':oru f1m: flSt
5
22oo
Kalispell City Council
Email: c tyco ciJ(&kali p ll.com
twhiteit Lcukalispell.com
I am writinunwith comments related to the proposed Kalispell North Growth Policy.
Now the draft map shows no commercial development proposed along Highway 93 except
the proposed Glacier Mail. I don't think the boo acres of commercial laid -for the proposed
Glacier Mall should remain as the county allowed it to be rezoned as commercial.
Kalispell should zone it as suburban residential. About 15 years ago this ground was
proposed as a golf course and houses in a Public Utility District. The project was never
built and the PUD never had a sunset clause as to what would happen if it was never built,
so Glacier Mall proponents acquired it and decided 1t should be commercial. 1. disagree.
Keep the commercial development along Highway 93 from west Reserve ive to the
south. Let all of the allowed commercial south of west Reserve i fill and build out. Let
the zoned commercial south of Ka .i.spell build out. Let mixed commercial build out along
Highway 2 from. west Reserve north since it seems to be a hodgepodge of commercial
development at present.
Highway 93 north of west Reserve is really the only entrance to Kalispell that does not
have marginally looking, strip commercial development. This area was purposely zoned
as agriculture to keep it rural and not commercial in the early 1.990s. Let's keep it that way
and keep commercial development in our urban cores — Kalispell, Whitefish, and
Columbia Falls, instead of having ship commercial development t aloe; every major
highway in the county. It decreases the Montana mountain character and setting for
residents as well as visitors to the valley. It affects our experiences every day as well as
those who come to visa our valley. If every highway has strip commercial development,
how does that differ from the concentrated urban centers that people come to visit from? It
rca.f T doesn't, and if we don 't try to protect and maintain what we have, we will despoil
our own valley, decreasing the aesthetics for ourselves and visitors alike. we will kill the
goose who lays the golden egg. who will want to come to visit and maintain our
recreation economy if the Flathead loos like everywhere else? People will. stop coming to
live and v1slt these beautiful pride open spaces.
Lets do some planning and put concentrations of people where the infrastructure of sewers
is at the city cores, and build the cities out slowly. We should not just randomly have
development across the country because somebody wants to buy land and put up Zoo acres
of commercial development because he can make a buck, or she buys too acres of land
and wants to put 200 or Soo houses out in the middle of nowhere because she can sell
them. Maybe these businesses and houses will sell, but what sloes this do to the property
rights of the people who live ,nearby today, and the overall development and atmosphere of
our valley` We need to think what we wart the valley to look like in the future and start
realistically doing something about it now,
Page 1. of 3
s all of the suburban residential is built north of west Reserve along Highway 93, focus
on .minimal neighborhood commercial at a few select areas to serve local needs, not more
major destination shopping.
The Kalispell Hwy 93 Bypass still continues to be proposed to go 8 miles from Four
Corners north and intersect Hwy 93 at west Reserve Drive. All of the new commercial
construction between the Community College and west Reserve in the last 8 to 10 years,
as well as the new Glacier High School, and hundreds of homes west of section 36 has put
a tremendous increase of traffic into this Hwy 93 and west Reserve Drive intersection.
Allowing all of the boo acres of commercial of a Glacier .mall will. just make this
horrendously unsafe intersection even worse. we seem to have a lot of underutilized
existing commercially zoned land Fn the city and county. We should in.fill and concentrate
commercial. buildup before we continue to sprawl out.
I still think MDOT, the City of Kalispell, and the local Technical Advisory Committee is
being very short sighted in insisting on building the Hwy 93 Bypass as envisioned in 1994,
12 years ago, before all. of this growth happened. The City should support the Bypass
going up Stillwater Road as planned, but instead of angling over to Hwy 93 at west
Reserve Drive, it should continue further north on Stillwater Road and head east over to
Hwy 2 on either Rose, Tronstadt, or Birch Grove. This would prevent the dumping of the
additional Bypass traffic Into the already arguably busiest intersection. in Flathead County,
if not the state. And this is before all of the currently zoned commercial, residential, high
school, Flathead Valley Community College expansion is even completed?
If this whole Bypass must be built, the city should support constructing the southern half
:from Four Corners up to Hwy 2 first. This will get the traffic away from the real Kalispell
downtown and give the core city a chance to revitalize. The 4 million dollar Senator Burns
Road could also be built from Stillwater Road across section 36 to behind Costeo. That
gives the Glacier High School kids and the hundreds of west valley hones a reasonable
way to avoid the Hwy 93 and west Reserve intersection. ThIs would then let the one mile
of eon . n.erel.ally zoned area finish being developed on both sides of Highway 93 between
the Flathead athead Community College and west Deserve give. Hopefully the city and county
will not allow commercial development to be strip developed along :Highway 9 north of
West Reserve or into a Glacier Mall. when funds :for the northern half of the Bypass
finally become available in 5, 10, or 20 years, .maybe at that time the MDOT, city, and
county will take an objective look at how the traffic has evolved and push the Bypass
connection further north. as I suggested above.
1 also strongly support that neighborhood plans, especially section 36, with its modified
mixed commercial, and mixed professional definitions. The unique definitions should be
let. The neighborhoods surrounding the state section 36 net with the state for months
coning up with areas and types of uses that were Treasonably acceptable to the neighbors.
They eluded casinos, barn car lots, truck stops and many other uses that would have
negatively affected our established 25 year old neighborhoods. It would be a lack of good
faith by the State Department on Natural Resources and Conservation as well as the City of
Kalispell if these unique mentioned zonings were just mixed in with the general -2
commercial designations as the rest of the city and county has. If the state and the
Page 2 of 3
neighbors went to the trouble of making a neighborhood plan, the city and county should
honor and reward that effort by maintaining these plans. Keep the zoning that the state
promised to its neighbors'.
hbors'.
Sincerely,
Dale L.n
169 Trailridge Road
Kallspell, MT 59901.
Email: s.net
Cc:
Flathead County Cornr isslon rs-
r . l: bre n rnaxg.fl t �-mt�.Lis�
.. �o.�ahe .mt.s
.e 3 of 3
+ . + Y,Mr
' . Cam.' `K a . must-,: ,� :. `: menO , Please mmen . n. i * , . ' r r a x t M . ,�F
he r:: :. of ''fie R
Ow
revit
Xw veiopn vn. -vith" i ropo.'s ce
Some- reasons: t .: .:..:..::.:.:.....: ....... .. � � r�
Ve0 Col
.. .: existing m r i s's ue .
.......................:..
-
........................... .
.............. .
:................... . .
4
.. : . , ...
................
.. �.. a .
AM
.... ease:.'
'-' -: h, .. ::.
.�, l
.'.
:': ::::::':::':': :. .::aca :: ...
The
.. ..
:.'.:::..:.....:::...:'::' :::.'::::.::......:..::.."..":.:..........'.':'..':.:'::...'.'..::'.'.'..:
... `'::.
.......:.:...::.............
.
. .......
-:-: ::
::.::.
L.40'::::`
....... ....................:.......
............................................. .
:- ::::::
*.::. %i.-::::::::,..:
:::.
:::.
:'
:,:*.
.::...::.::::::::.::::::::.
...':':.:.:..
::
..........
......:'..:..
.
...............:'.'w *. ... .ea
:0
''
''
.:
:: lu.::
::::.U.:.
.:
':..:, -I....... - ... . .
.... .. *A� .. ': - . %Fo-h+.� - . . *-M"r . . ...rr.rr :. '...�.ur - - . '.. ' ....rv�xxr ..:.. «......w,R :. ' ':. r..».W.r� :.....:.�++.rr .. :. - -" , - -'. - - «.,x,wM... �.
...' :':::::::. -' :':':::: ::''...'.:.:::...:::':".':' .hu.'::'::.....:::.':::::':..'.::.;::' :.:::.'.:4::.::.....:."......:.:.'::...:...:..:.:.:.'.:.:.::'.'.:.::.'::.:.::.:.:.:.....'.. :........... .'.'....':..'.' .:.'.' :... ... .
...::...,. .... :....' .
on
4
..... :.
........................ .............,, .....
:.
-- ::: �:: .: :' ':::.::':.. .:...:':':::...::':':.:.:..:'...::..''. ':..
F .
.........:.........
:::s::
a
�.:.:
..........................:
:..'.........:::::::.:::::..................::.::.....:.:.' .:
:'..'....':......:..:'.::.::". ":..:'..............:'.....: .::.,:: .:: %. %::: :::'.:' ..:::::-:::::::':::
: are
-.:
. "'' - "' -,-,:,� .,.:�.,: i.:
.' .
)6"S", a
..
:::::.
:::..::..:':::'.::::.: :....:.:....................... ..............:...
%
.......................:......................:...
t.
:.:....:::':::::..:...::.:::::.::...::....:':.:...%:.:':..:.�..:.':.:::.:.:'..'..:..'::...:"...........::.:.:...:: :::::::%:'::..::...::...:::.:..::...:.:.:.:..:.:.::.::::.: ::::.......
eopm.::: '
.-%............
::: ::':: :::::::--::::':':' *.::.:.:.::.:::::.::::::::
..:::. : .
Ab
%
%
cl
......:..'............ ....'. :."::...........'.....'.'.':............ .'..............'..'.............:.....
...............
....................
...........
...........::..
:.::........::.:....:.:.:.
.....:....
:.:.....
%
r .. r :::. . ; ::: c...,:.....::'.:::.....:........::'..:...'..:...'."..:...----..'.....:.".".:':..:...-..:.................. ..'..
...........::.:.t...:.......:..::.:.:.......:.....:.......... ..
..:'
................................
0 . . .. ..:..:.......::.,: '' .. .. .. .........
............
r.
....:..:.: '......:.::......: ':..:......::.::...:.:.::...:.:.:'::'.....:............:.......:.........'..:.........:.:.....:'......:.:::..:....:.....:
..:. .. .
*.::::. _4 �:..:s:.:':.::':.::.:.. ... .:.:....:'.:'.':..'.%:: ...::.:. :.:....:
.....:....... ...........................
:.......:.........:..::.....................'.........
...........
..
..................'....:..:.:'....... .... .
:: � : � ::% mom . �:.: � .: :::. ::: :::::
*.::.
........
:'.:..':
:'::'':.'::::'....::::::.'.::' :..': .-:.:'..
:: :: .. ::
..........................
%
...........:...........%....:............
.......................................
:.....................,...%:..:.::..'.::...::........
:...:.:.:.'..:............ .......:.:. .
:.:...::.',::::...'.m.:I...::.::..::......:.'...'::.:. :. .
. . des ...
�.
%
:.
er - - -
. . : : . . .7.;..f ---� - V
:'
:-.:
::::
::::::::
:.:::
::...:..::.::':
.::..'
:' : '%..:.
............................%.....:::'
`:..::
:::
:: :: % :: M1
............
:..
.:.....:...:.......:...:.:.:..
::.:::::,::'.::..
............................:.'...'.:...:......
::::
..... ......': :.. .. - - i--,-,---%::-.- .. _ -,.-:;.,-:.,--:,.-.:.:::.-- .,.,:..%'..::,.:.,.,.. . - . .f. . . ,
:.-'
. .... ........ ...... .......:.. .... )--- .: � ,... :::.. : �:':::.' .... v .. ...:: .
�. '....:..� ....� '.. M.w..�
......mot �. Mir
low
mow.................... . . . . . . ....................
�... F..:.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... .................... .................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................
A.
id
:.. ir.�.[�'.{�43: �kk,.. :.4.1R� :,i y/4ffi 4F
:.... :: �. r, ......,
. .
�.
............:...
...........:....:.................
......:.......:.:.
:..'..:..::................. .
............... .
......................................... .....
, ............::...
F`-
.........:......
,.........::.::...:........ ....... ... .,
:.:...::.:.....::..............
............:....
......::::...:...
. ..... .
��.��
....,:� a
...... _.
... '.��.�'.�r'�ir':�#ix:.: ii`•i6�':'s��i iliyrtyst L:
.:........
..................
The City of KalispeU must receive all comments by j jigug 7! Please a no ent on this issue by cutting f this card and madine it bv r��.
orne reasons to support the witbdrawlof the boo acre ornmer i l e nsion north o West s rve from the Hwy 9 N?o h
Brad era `o the teasel GO Growth 'o i . This expansion:
,.As premature. A five year period of in -fill and redevelopment in existing commercial areas should be allowed to IC
I
revitalize the downtown area. —after which the proposal could be reconsidered based ed can need.
...would. create an unnecessary excess in development with the addition o f a proposed 150 acres o f office space.
,,.would lead to the destruction of Kalispell* small-town Feeling. This proposal could lead to a wide range o
commercial development, including the biggest maH in Montana or big box retail.
'h se are sore re asoy s xe fe el tbir exp an slo n p rop osca I sh oald b e wa hdrawn. Wle b op e ou agree, but above gal/ we greatill encourage the zi bllc�
involvement in this process, iphatever+ your views. Please send our comments in today!
- g,,the KalispeU City Council: Please make the foHOWIng _selection and co mments part o f the public record,
ask that the KafispeU City Councfl withdraw- the 600.acre commercial expansion north -o -West Reserve Drive
from the North 93 Growth Policy Amendment e for the reasons above,. or.. or .the e so s. .1 have -written below.
support the boo acre commercial expansion north o. ..West Reserve Drive for the reasons I have written below.
$ #
.signature Name Address pity, state, Zip
(Note: PuOc comment will jKt rid i your name and address cannotconfirmed,.)
' ' x'_
v�... ..n.x....... .� �.... .:.. .�.......�....� .� ........�..�.
�t� , . ..
The City of Kalispell must receive all comments byJaust-V Plea -se clomment on 11sis issue cutting offthis carol and alaffi- y-A
. .to - .:: � ::�'� r '.r� ' � �xx� � :: �r ion. fir : ' �' t : R �r . f the, '�i , :Ner-t
�:►:.:::':.:.::.p...'.- a.re eve .:�� orr .siuc : a��..'to.
ifah .'th 'd r a which: the p s. l o id r s* use e ..
_.P ..:.....would. cre ate.. an. n . ... :. lent w . .. . -addition' bf-'a'. pr, o � '1 . r s off`. office'' :. space. .
AR ,. #' a :° .: ... : �0 t w-.n ` ':.. ':'' r sa .' ri ram '
be se .-are :sore reaxonszvefeettbis expansionpro s .sh � hr �a ; We h ip . bit . : all ivresat en r e, the c
: i� a� �, r ibis r c ss' . -a ibk ery -x ws, is .s �'YO'r r r .s
' the Kalispell -City c� : P�� ' make the followi le o 'arid mments. pa f o. 'the.. record.
I ask that the Ka sp:eH: City -Councfl withdraw - the : }.a -re : -co mmercial .. s i - 4, t -.:,o .: Westes .r r : D
rive
. e
rm t ,fir.oil
r.'- . a 4.:
e
supp 6rf the o ` a :i' ..' 'r'1h'x is -expansion: no rth . -Ws : . ryr` r I. -. written 'J4o :. -
{Vvy
Signature - Q State, Zip
F
(Note: Public"' .= r t a - address a , t confirmed,)
ed,
A dit gajj Cow eats;
. -cutting 't �s�r�r- ra receive-allommient'byr.-The-.City. ra :
Some �reasons:.:to,-.s Upport. Ih`e' -i�ithdrai�l Of the".'... 6.60:iae'-comm�rd'al'', pgn
...e� mendz� h P jai T�i
:..:.:
we . � :tes :-6. :t1:
-revitaUze the ant w ' . �.--� t -r. r ' the - propose : rx r. . i � .
• 'V ,wool -create a xe. .: excess .i --development.W,Ith the. -i on ..off'. a: . 1:50 acres.ofofficespace.
40 WO es p .
:..
.� t
M . T os o lead ::to: " ,r : :
.. ox.
.
These -are .some reasons wefeel tb e) ansionprofiqsal xhduld he' ivithdrawn. LMe b ob e ee� ' above all e greatly ee c atr .the a 's
rx ::�s c�,,;:.: �eer�'your : e�: .: JqArrommen.T: air:6 un'��: RSC'.' d'
o
.
ask that the ahs d: CitC withdraw t:,-00,r: , ::{ .-R �r% Drive
from the North .9G ,.. '� 1 �e��e r tie - ..s. .. s 4q i v,' t ' t oter'
'. �.:. : rx:.
. opt � o . .' r � . �. . . y .R:eD. -
Sir
Si re
9n/U
re Ass , State, Zip
:
(N,. P , .. . c��ent nit be accepted -'if your
�
name d' a dr ss cannot be confirmed.)
ma Lip—
Actaress, It
Y.
:.
x:
..:..........
..............:......
�r� ... . .
�" f