Loading...
6. Resolution of Intent & Call for PH - Growth Policy Amendment - Hwy 93 NorthCity of Kalispell Planning Department 2"d Sued East, Suite 11, Kalispell, Montana 990 Telephone: (406) 751-1850 .fax: 4 6) 75 1-1 5 Webs ter kalispellplanning.com REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council FROM: Thomas R. Jen.t, Director James H. Patrick, City Manager SUBJECT Notice of Intent to adopt, amend or deny a Groff Policy Amendment request for the staff initiated Highway 3 North Groff Amendment and scheduling of said public hearing FETING DATE: July 3, ,boo BACKGROUND: The Kalispell City Planning Board met on. June 13, 2006 and held a. public hearing to consider a significant amendment .t to the Kahs ell Groff Policy 2020. The attached. Highway 93 forth Amendment serves as a significant update to the Kahs ell Growth Policy reap for areas now of Reserve Drive, east of the Stillwater River, south of Church and Birch Drives and merest of LaSalle Road/ Rose Crossing/ Flathead River. The board unanimously moved., by Resolution KPG -o -2 to recommend to the city council that the attached groom policy ma.p amendment and policies for the Highway 3 Now Growth Policy Amendment be adopted. This information as well as the minutes and staff report map are also attached for your review. Note that state statutes require the city Council to pass a Resolution of Intent to Adopt, Revise or Reject a Groff Policy Amendment prior to actually taking action on the proposed amendment. In addition, it has been the policy of the city to hold a public hearing on. any Groff Policy Amendment. ment. Therefore, in order to take action on the requested groom pohcy amendment, the City Council will need to approve -the Resolution of Intent t at the July 3 meeting. This s ro .d. then set the stage for the public .ear*ng and council action at the July 17 councfl meeting. RM BEVIEN A ' N: approval of the Resolution. of Intent, Amend or Deny the Highway 3 North. Growth Policy Amendment request and setting the piiblic hearing to act on the amendment for July 17 would be in order, ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the city Council. Respectfully submitted, Thomas R. Jentz Director Report compiled: June 22 7 2006 c: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk ---- - ----- Al A James a 'ck City Manager RESOLUTION No. 5127 A RESOLUTION of INTENTION TO ADOPT, REVISE OR REJECT A RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT TO THE KALISPELL GROWTH POLICY 2020. WHEREAS, the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020 was originally adopted by the Kalispell City Council on ebiruaf-y 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, 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 w stem boundary, Church and Birch Drives 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, 25, and 25 in Township 2 North, Range 22 west, and Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, and 30 in Township 29 North, Range 21 west, .M.M., Flathead County, Montana, and WHEREAS, on June 13, Zoo , the Kalispell City Planning Board held a public hearing, after due and proper notice, received public comment upon, and reviewed Kalispell Planning Department report KGPA-05 -2, which evaluated the proposal based upon the goals and objectives of the Growth Policy, the purpose of zoning and current circumstances n the planning jurisdiction, and. WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said public healing and after consideration of the proposed amendment, the Kalispell City Planning Board adopted report #KG A-o -2, as the findings of fact and recommended approval of the proposed Growth Volley amendment, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell considers it advisable that they consider the proposed Growth Policy Amendment and the recommendations of the Kalispell City Planning Board., and adopt a Resolution of Intention to Adopt, Revise or Reject a Proposed Amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of KA ISPEL , AS FOLLOWS. SECTION 1. That pursuant to Section 76-1-0 , MCA, the City Council of the City o Kalispell intends to consider a proposed amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy Zoo, and a recommendation by the Kalispell City Planning Board to grant said amendment, said amendment consisting of including approximately acres in the Potential Utility Service Area and assigning an approp .a .e land use upon annexation to the city. SECTION It. At the next regular meeting of July 17,, 2006, the City Council w.1.11 consider Resolutions o Adopt, Revise, or Reject said proposed amendment. SECTION 1, The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give notice of said meeting in accordance with Section 7-1-4 27, MCA. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCEL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL,, THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2006. Pamela B. Kennedy Mayor ATTEST: Theresa White City Clerk CI*tY of Kalispell Planning Department 2"j Street East, Suite .2.11, Kalispell, Montana 59901 Telephone-. (406) 5 -. 5 Fax: 4751-1858 We s te; ka s pe an Mg. c M June 23, 2006 James H. Patrick, city Manager City f Kalispell P.O. Box 199 Kalispell, , MT 59903 Re: Growth Policy Amendment - Highway 93 Now KG - -2 DearJim: The Kalispell. City Planm'ng Board met on June 13, 2006 and held a pubhe hearing t consider a sl ra cant amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020. The attached Highway 93 North Amendment serves as a s gm'cant update to the Kalispell Groff Policy map for areas north of Reserve r e, east of the Stillwater River, south of Church and Birch Drives Ives and west of Lasalle Road Rose Cr ssin Flathead River. m Jentz, with. the Kalispell Planning Department, presented staff report KGp - - 2 reviewing the development processunder-taken by staff and the planning board during the previous 6 months. Tom Jentz, Planning Director also answered questions from the board specific to the proposed growth policy amendment. During the public hearing there were 3 people who spoke to the amendments. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. The pla.nrir g board discussed the proposal at great length. Tom Dent.z proposed a series of rumor amendments ents to the associated ponces for the Highway 93 North Amendments based on public comment that night as well as comments received previously, both at the open house and in personal contacts tacts with the public. The pla..n.r .g board discussed those issues and made appropriate modifications as necessary. The board then unam'mously moved, y Resolution KPG- - 2 t recommend to the city council that the attached groom policy map amendment and policies for the Highway 93 North Groff Policy Amendment be adopted. Please schedule this matter for action at your earliest convenience. Note that a. resolution of intent to adopt, amend or deny an amendment to the Groff Policy by the council is required prior to any final action are the part of the Council* You may contact this .r . or Tom Jentz at the Kalispell Planning Department if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely Kalispell City Planning Boar. Tam thy Norton President Attachments: Staff report KG -- 2 Growth. Policy map and poheles for the Highway 93 North Amendment Minutes from the 13 planning board meeting e w Att* Theresa White, KalispeR City Clerk HIGHWAY 93 NORTH GROWTH POLICY AMIENMIEN KG-o-2 JUNE SIP 2006 A report to the Ka.lis e . City Planning Board and the Kahs elf. City Council regarding a, major effort on the part of the Kalispell Planing Stall` to update the Kalispell Groff Policy Map and ad.d appropriate policies to address growth and development in the northerly portion of the greater KalispeH community. A public hearing on this proposal has been scheduled before the planning board for June 13, 2006. The planning board. will forward a. recommendation to the city council for second subsequent public bearing and final action. BACKGROUND: The Kalispell Groff Policy was adopted on February 18, 2003. Page 62 of the Growth. Policy states that the Groff Policy should be reviewed a minimum of every 5 years M order to maintain n.tain relevance with existin.g conditions and trends. The planning board has begun a regular program of revie�n major geographic areas of the community on a systematic basis to keep the Groff Policy updated in light of the significant groom occurring n the community. This past fall. the Planni-ng Board. and City Council completed a su' nilar process on the south side of the city. Upon completion of those amendments, the Planning Board turned their direction north. The Board focused on this area in fight of the recently adopted County Two Rivers Plan and because of continued interest voiced by large property owners in this area who are interested in extending utihti.es and annexing into the erty. The Planning Board has been studying this area since December, 2005. During that time they have held approximately work sessions on this topic. In addition, the l n4 g board has twice discussed this issue with. the County Planning Board one of which was held approximately a year and a. half ago in preparation of this effort. On May 16 an open house was held.. In antic'1P ation of that open house individual invitations were sent to all property owners of 10 acres or larger owners total) . The Ponderosa Subdivision Homeowners Association circulated the invitation to the o or so owners of Ponderosa Estates as well. In addition a. block aid in the Day Inter bake and a significant story in the Daily Inter Lake were pubhshed in anticipation 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 plan on their fringes. The 89 property o mers 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 information. Growth Pollicy Amendment Boundary The area under consideration utilizes the Stillwater River as the western boundary, Church and. Birch Dr*ves as the nor -them boundary, LaSalle to Rose Crossing over to the Fathead. River as the eastern boundary and Reserve Drive as the souther . boundary. The current Growth Policy extends a roma a.tely one mile north o Reserve Drive up to Rose Crossing, The proposed a n.en.mmen.t effectively extends the boundary 2 miles further to the north.. The amendments will replace this portion o the Growth Policy Map. Proposed Growth Policy Amen * The attached Amended Growth r of cy Map - Kalispell Highway 93 Now - visually portrays the policies that have been developed by the planru'ng board for this area, The extended map area still utihzes the policies of the current Growth Policy. The core concepts include r a.nt�r� our major entrance ways r to Kalispell Highway 3, Whitefish Stage and LaSalle) as entrance corridors and supports develo mg criteria to enhance them. This would include limiting access in order to keep traffic moving, designing development along these corridors to lit unnecessary traffic lights, utill ='g extra setbacks, landscaping, etc., and to visually create are. entrance condor by biting major or commercial de elo r. ent to a few kcy locatior s and not designing a commercial strip between KahspeU and Whitefish. Neighborhood commercial would be focused at several key intersects, typically a mile apart. Two fire station sites were identified based on research by the Fire Department. artment. The rirr ark use a raj ority o this area is intended to be residential with a significant mixed use development (commercial, office and residential between Whitefish Stage and Highway 93 north of Reserve Drive. In addition to the map, Attachment B - Policies Articulated by Planning Board concerning Kalispell North 93 Neighborhood are included the adoption process. These policies help articulate some of the issues discussed above. Recommendation* The Kalispell City Planning ni Board should take public comment at the public hearing. . Based on that comment and additional board discussion, the board should make changes s as they feel appropriate. Staff recommends at that point the planning board should, by resolution. (sample provided) resole to recommend the North. 93 Neighborhood Groff Policy Amendments to the City Council for final action and adoption. The council will also hold a. public hear � on the Groff Policy Amendments prior to taking nail action on the proposed amendments. . 2 ATTCHhMNT HIGEWAY 93 NORTH GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT GOAL - 1 Gateway entrances ces to Kahspell that enhance nce the community through unproved design. POLIO Gateway Entrance Corridors (areas ' special corker. would extend up to 150 feet of either side of the existing R 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.. HIghwav 93 North corridor north of Four Mile to the County LandfiH. . US Highway 2 (LaSalle) from Reserve Drive to Birch Grove c. Whitefish Stage from Reserve Drive to Birch Grove. minor entrance way) 3. The foll.owm*g design standards are intended to enhance the gateway entrances to Kalispell . Access control is important along the gateway entrance roads, . Access should be coordinated so as to allow only collector or arterial streets to intersect. The judicious use of right -in right -out approaches, frontage roads and good internal development street design should be the rule to reduce or e .mate the need for direct access onto major gateway roads. c. with the construction of the Church Drive overpass on US 93, every effort must be taken to fuller utilize this interchange and conversely limit direct access onto US 93 for at least mile along areas north and south of this facility to avoid congestion points and the reed for future traffic signals. 'fhe judicious use of n'ght-in right -out approaches, frontage roads and good intex al development ent street design will r tigate the need for erect access out. d. Extra setbacks, buffering and landscaping along US Highway 93 North and US 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 development utilizing and enhancing the property back from the gateway as opposed to occurring as a shallow l n.ear strip. Significant individual business highway exposure, individual access points, and pole signage would not be the norm. f. Additional design standards should be developed to ensure that signage enhances development,, not detracts from. it. Wall 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 sig age is proposed, it should e done so as part of a urged planned unit development ent concept. g. .ere the adjacent gateway goad speed is posted at 35 mph or lower: i.. A um 20 foot landscape buffer should be provided abutting the gateway road. ii. street trees should be incorporated into the landscape buffer. i. 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 mph: 1. A mire r . of 40 feet of landscaped buffer area should e provided. ii. street trees and berming should be m cor ora.ted into the landscaping. .i,A pedestrian trail or sidewalk should be mcor orated 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 above 45 mph: i.. A mira*mum too - 150 foot impact area should e provided for major or entrances and a 50 foot entrance for minor entrances. ii. With his impact area, a combination of berrmng, landscaping sing live materials and trees as well as grass, a. pedestrian trail system, limed parking and frontage roads should be incorporated. iii. Primary i.ldir gs should not be Located in this impact area.. iv. Four sided architecture should be the no= for development adjacent to the impacted area, v. Monument t signs would be anticipated to occur in the rear portion of the impacted area, other free standing signs would not. vi. 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. 4. Neighborhood commercial should be used as a means to buffer key intersections and to -meet immediate local reeds, not to serve as a destination shopping area, 5. Neighborhood orhood commercial areas would in turn e 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. 2: The development of an integrated residential/ commercial neighborhood (Designated. KN-1 on Groff Policy Map) between US 3-Reserve Drive and Whitefish Stage. POLIO . Development will be mixed use in nature creating an overall Mtegrated neighborhood with a town center as opposed to linear sip commercial development fronting the Gateway entrances. 2. Access onto the major Gateway roads would be limited. 3. Development in this acre site would typically e: a.. Up to 2 5% general commercial, w Up to 25% ogee and high density residential and associated uses, c. A minimum o % in a o s residential configurations. d.. 1. % open space uses . Commercial activity would e generally centered within the development designed to serve both the adjacent neighborhood as well as the g-eater commty. It can sure as a town center as opposed to near stripalong the highway. ADDITIONAL AMEN MIET TO THE KALISPELL GROWTH POLICY MAP That the defmition of the Urban Mixed. Use Area Category on the Kalispell Growth Polley Map be amended to remove the term "limited" M reference to commercial while keeping it in reference to industrial uses so that. it Breads, "Urban Mixed Use Area Office, Residential, Commercial and LimitedIndustrial". Note: This amendment dent was to address the entire planning jun'sdiction map and not just the Highway 93 Now Amendments. June 13,2006. TO: Kalispell City Planning Board FROM: Sharon DeMeester 5 Chestnut Drive Kalispell, M arm confused Who makes the decisions in the N. 93 Zoning District You; the, Kalispell City Planning Board or the Flathead County Planning Board? Both boards have requested my input on the 93 North zoninor district. It seem to me the time has come for the City and. County to jointly sit down with all., concerneparties and het everyone s ideas an- concerns and come to a joint dec.ision on the area north of Reserve. We need to discuss - 1 . The .current zoning o 3 North 2. TDB. 3. What is a nelahborhoodbusiness and where is the best place' to put it -. Roads - when will they be built and where will they e built 5. Sewer/ Water and what it means to -the people living in that area . A discussion on Phasing In the growth on. -the North as the -city grocers You, the City or Kalispell Planning Board, need to hold more then just one show and tell meeting. Mary people will be effected by your decision and these people need. to be involved so that there is a .buy -in on Planning t the north. Please address ray concerns, for many folks grant this information and it is your job as a planning board- to address the citizens eonerns. Sincerely Sharon DeMeester SEENJ No i 11 1.j 12111IMMEMA, . P1 ■L him sohm 400 da■ ISERE 11112:� NO ON IgNNNM Milo !40000100111 V 'Al"EMMPA40 01 i k, OFFINSIONK 41111, 14001 ME MMOMI 1�r.r E LE �a Elm :M1111■Nil Alit WIN IME1 /A Still MM = W PRO CaMU -ij ORAPpoAI I WA "WwAio I 7" A, jme• P._u -RN,ili"WUi a I is? is zul-11No 1[7 Y�:.�, 11111 k �1i iR: iw�-R I ENV. MIS h0i — I NUM 7 FIF IIIF ma WRLql E IN lot j4111 11F 140 4 Sol Ona ;jog r... Nis IOWA Will! *�Ui; —t;.- ME so. ■ MCM --■��•ifi■.Y A� 1���� " Ar al IIWIV­- It Al We P."T 9 —7— "k K Fir -1, 000111MI111jr-_ All 0 F ­11, is 10 MEW % a , I Ilia Mob— t. p