Loading...
1. Growth Policy Amendment - Highway 93 NorthCity of Kalispell Post Office Box 1.997 - Kalispell, Montana 990- t 9 - Telephone 40758-7756 Fax - 406 8- r754 Greetings, t our regular meeting on July 17th, the Mayor asked me to suggest some wording for the Growth Policy Amendment. Commercial Development is something in that I have long been interested in, and I Dave followed this issue closely for the past few years. am suggesting the wording in the modified document that I are sending you. I am asking for 10 minutes on Monday night (July 2 to make my case for the suggested charges. I will explain ray rationale on Monday. For now I am just sending you the document ........ will indicate where the changes are from the original document. Goal 1. #3 (e) bottom of page 1 last sentence added Goal 1. #3 1 page 2 L "minimum" deleted in front of 10- o ii* "limited" deleted in front of parking) Goal 2. - Policies w page 3 Changes in #1 1 3� #5 Added Thanks for reading and considering this document before Monday right, We are the legislative body that is elected to rake this document work for the voters and taxpayers of the City of Kalispell. See you Monday. Bob Herron July 21-Suggested Wording from Councilman Herron ATTACHMENT B HIGIffWAY 93 NORTH GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT GOAL - 1: Gateway entrances to Ka .is eR that enhance the community through improved design. POLICIES: .. Gateway Entrance Corridors (areas of special co .cer-n) 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. Highway 93 North corridor north of Four Mile to the County Landfill. . US Highway 2 (Lasalle) from Reserve e Drive e to Birch Grove c. Whitefish Stage from Reserve Drive to Birch. Grove. minor entrance moray) 3. The following .esign standards are intended to enhance the gateway entrances to Kalispell a.. 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 intern al development street design should e the rule to reduce or eliminate the creed for direct access onto major gateway roads. c. With the construction of the Church Drive e overpass on US 93, e 7cry effort must be 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 intemal development street design w-Rmitigate the need for direct 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 gcrr ra . commercial dcvclo mcnt 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 signa. e would not be the norm. Out parcels of commercial businesses would be anticipated within the improved design of a PUD along the corridors. f. Additional design standards should be developed to ensure that signage enhances development,, not detracts from it. Wadi 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 ce signage or monument ent signage is proposed, it should ld e done so as part of a unified planned unit development concept. . Whcre the adjacent gateway road speed is posted at 35 mph or lover: i. 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 trai.i 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 5 rn 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 area. 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 100 - 150 Foot impact area should be provided for major entrances and a 50 foot entrance for mirror entrances. ii. Within this impact area, a combination of berming, landscaping using lure materials and trees as well as grass, a. pedestrian trail system, parking and frontage roads should be incorporated. i 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 silts would be anticipated to occur in the rear portion f the impacted area, other free standing signs would not. vi. Whenever parking or signage is proposed in the impact area, it shall on r 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 shopping area.. 5. 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 should e 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 KN- 1 on Growth Policy Map) between Us 3-Reserve Drive and. Whitefish stage. POLICIES 1. Development will be mixed use in nature creating an overall integrated neighborhood 2. Access onto the major Gateway roads would be limited. 3. Development in this boo acre site would typically be: a. Up to % general commercial, Up to 25% urban mixed use area. e. Up to 20% in various residential configurations. d, . o% open space uses -. 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 City Council in the form of a Planned Unit Development so that th'Impactso this development can be planned for and if necessary mitigated through improv d design. ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT TO THE KALISPELL GROWTH POLICY M" That the definition of the Urban Mixed. Use Area Category on the Kalispell Growth Policy Map be amended to remove the terra "limited" in reference to commercial while keeping it in reference to industrial uses so that it reads, "Urban. Mixed Use Area - Office, Residential, Commercial and Limited Industrial". Note: This amendment was to address the entire planning jurisdiction map and not just the Highway 3 North. Amendments. City of Kalispell Planning Department 1 Street East, S t 21 , Kali p l, Mo a � 1 Telephone: (406) 5 - 85 Fax: (406) 751-1858 W : kalispellplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Patrick, City Manager FROM: Tom Jentz, Director REAmended Language for the Highway 3 North Growth Policy amendments. DATE: July 19, 2006 At the July 17 public hearing concerning the 93 North growth policy amendment, council requested two modifications to attachment B, the policy statements. The first suggested amendment concerned changes to Goal 2, Policy 3 adding additional language to clarify that if any of the percentages for development are exceeded for the KN- I neighborhood site, it could only be done by PUD. Suggested wording is provided below: GOAL - 2, POLICY 3; 3. Development In this boo acre site would typically e; a. Up to 25% general commercial, . Up to 25% office and high density residential and associated uses, c. A minimum of o n various residential configurations. d. o open space uses e. If a developme.nt prqposes to exceed the -percentages provided for in a - e above the project must be submitted a PUD so that the imaots of these actions can be planned for and if necessary mitigated through improved .es . . second policy statement t requested by the council concerned language to encourage the city to work with Flathead County to develop and implement a transfer of development rights programs. (TDR). Staff suggests that this policy statement would be best placed. in Chapter 13 of the current Kalispell Growth Policy page 68, specifically under Section 10 Intergovernmental cooperation as follows: IntergovernmentalCooperation mplement ti n Strategy h. Cooperate with Flathead. County in the development of a transfer o development rights T R) program. The emphasis should be to provide opportunities to conserve and protect important farmlands, sensitive lands (high ground water, flood plain, wetlands,, and critical wildlife habitat) rural open space. HIGHWAY 93 NH GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT KGPA- a - 2 A report to the Kalispell City Council regarding a major effort on the part of the Kalispell Planning Board to update the Kalispell Growth. Policy Map and add appropriate polices to address groom and development in the northerly portion of the greater Kalispell community. A public hearing on this proposal was held by the Planning Boar. on June 13, 2006. The planning board has forwarded a recommendation to the city council for second subsequent public hearing and final action.. BACKGROUND: The Kalispell Growth. Policy was adopted. on Fermi 18, 2003. Page 62 of the Growth Policy states that the Growth Policy should be reviewed a minimum of every 5 years in order to maintain relevance with existing conditions and trends. The planning boars has begun a regular program of reviewing major geographic areas of the community on a systematic basis to keep the Growth, Policy updated in light of the significant growth occurring in the community. This past fall the Planning Board and City Council completed a. similar process on the south side of the city. Upon completion of those arnendments, the Planning Board turned their direction north. The Board focused on this area in light 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 utilities and annexing into the city. The Planning Board has been studying this area since December, 2005. Dufing that time they have held approximately 8 work sessions on this topic. In addition, the planning board has twice discussed this issue with the County Planning Board one of which was held approximately a year are.d a half ago in preparation of this effort, on May 1.6 an open house was held. In anticipation of that open house individual invitations were seat to all property owners of 10 acres or larger owner's total) . The Ponderosa Subdivision Homeowners Association circulated the invitation to the o or so owners of Ponderosa Estates as well. In addition a block and in the Daily later a&e and a significant story in the Daily Inter Lake were published in anticipation of this meeting. It is estimated that between 50 o people attended the open. house. Comments were overwhelming in support of the city efforts to plan on their fringes. The 89 property owners 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 Policy Amendment Boundary The area under consideration utilizes the Stillwater River as the western 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 so .tl ern boundary. ate, The current Growth Policy extends approximately one mile north of Reserve Drive up to Rose Crossing. The proposed amenmment effectively extends the bounder 2 miles further to the north. The amendments will replace this portion of the Growth Policy Map. Propose. Growth Policy Amendment: The attached Amended Growth. Policy Map - Kalispell Highway 93 North - visually portrays the policies that have been developed by the planning board for this area.. The extended map area still utilizes the policies of the current Growth Policy however attachment B - Policies Articulated by Planning Board concerning North 93 Neighborhood where also adopted to offer greater refinement for this area as well as to establish new policies for this area. The goals and Policies Provided for in attachment ent should take precedent when discussing this area, The core concepts include maintaining our major entrance ways into Kalispell (Highway 93, Whitefish stage and LaSalle) as entrance corridors and supports developing criteria to enhance them. This would include limiting access in order to keep traffic moving, designing development along these corridors to limit unnecessary traffic lights, utilizing extra setbacks, landscaping, etc., and to visually create are entrance corridor by limiting major commercial development to a fear key locations and not designing a commercial strip betweenKalispell 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. 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 Highway 93 north of Reserve Drive. Growth Policy Update Amendment Criteria The Kalispell growth policy under chapter 13 - Implementation creates 6 criteria that should be addressed when updating the groom policy. A review of each of those criteria is included below: a. Whenever here is a. major change in the socio-economic conditions s of the community such as a large increase or decrease in population, a. new industry entering or exiting the market; consideration shod be given to updating the growth. policy. Response: The city of Kalispell adopted the current Growth Policy approximately 3 11,2 years ago. The Policy was under development since 1997. During the decade of the 1. o's, which was the primary data point for projecting development trends and projections, the city grew at a rate of 19* ° or an annual average rate of 1.8 . Since 2000 the City of Kalispell has grown at an annual rate of 5.5% per year. Projecting this same rate through the end of the decade will provide a 10 year growth rate of 70%. Paige 1. oA of the Kalispell resource Documents indicated that Kalispell would grow approximately 1 % during this current decade. Our actual growth rate now is 5 times what the plan was predicated on during the 19 o's. The city has already expanded out to the plan boundaries in several areas and development pressure and requests for extension of sewer and water service continue. Flathead County has approved the Two Rivers Plan, a neighborhood hl orhood Plan covering much of the area under consideration by the 93 North growth policy amendment. This Two River's Plan amendment increases potential densities for this rural area. but provides no mechanism .anism to insure .re adequate infrastructure is in place. In addition., the county has granted a plan amendment and zone change for significant commercial 2 development immediately north of the city between US 93 and Whitefish Stage north. of Reserve Drive. All of these factors give credence to the reed to review the cities growth policy. . The planning board should schedule a formal work session in the fall of each year to conduct a. review of the growth policy and evaluate it for relevancy. The planning board . should prepare a report to the city council as to whether or not it should be amended with consideration being given to changes in the legal frame work, factual errors or contradictions, significant changes in the community or new and relevant information that would affect specific policies and goals. The planning board and council met in joint workshop just over a year ago for the purpose of talking about joint planning in issues. Based on that meeting and several goal workshops with the city council, the Kalispell City Council has established as a goal for the Planning DepaAment for 2005 - 06 and again in 2006-07 the updating of the Kalispell Growth. Policy. Specifically the schedule was to start on the south side of Kalispell (completed in the fall of 2005 and then continue on to the north and merest skies expanding the boundaries of the Growth Plan accordingly. C. Based on the planning board's review, the council may conclude that are update or amendment to the growth policy is warranted. A report from the planning board should include a description of proposed changes and rationale, impacts of changes, necessary revisions to growth policy implementation strategies are resulting revisions to regulations if needed. The Planning board has prepared a. series of suggested amendments both to the Growth Policy Map and to the policy document as part of the Hig way 93 North Planning Process to address growth issues in one of the fastest growing quadrants of the city. 'these form the basis of the Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment. . Amendments should include a public hearing before the planning board with the level of public involvement depending on the scope of the proposed changes or amendments. The planning board has twice discussed this issue with the County Planning Board one of whichwas held approximately a year and a half ago in preparation of this effort. on May 16 an open house was held for property owners in the amendment area. In anticipation of that open house individual invitations were seat to all property owners of 10 acres or larger owner's 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 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 owners who own 10 acres or more were again notified of the public hearing and legal notice was placed in the newspaper. 3 e. Evaluation criteria should include consistency with the goals and policies of the growth policy, state law and other established policies ar o tcd by the city council as well as a demonstration of the public need and support for the change; the proposed change is the most effective means of meeting the need and there is benefit to the public rater than enefiting one or a fear property owners at the expense of others. The growth policy update was not predicated by any one property, but instead was a very broad planning process that affected properties within a. 12.8 square rile area of the cor r. unity. Note that letters were sent to property owners of 10 acres or more during the open house and hearing process. Within the proposed growth policy amendment .ment area, planning staff has been contacted by different t property owners representing 11 different projects totaling over 1,800 acres of land. All discussions involved a desire of these groups to develop their properties and the feasibility and availability of city services, A common theme has been that they have received or are applying for plan amendments ments in the county and realize that they can not build to the densities they are requesting or have been approved for with out public utilities (sewer, water, fire, etc). Public comments made at the open house by property owners within the amendment area were significantly in favor of moving forward it the plan amendments. ts. f. Additional plans .s should be initiated as recommended y the planning board to address specific areas or needs in the community such as a bike and pedestrian plan or redevelopment plan for certain areas. The city of Kalispell, in recognition of the growth that is occurring is undertaking a. series of planning efforts through gh out the community. The city is involved in a $150,000 contract jointly funded by MDT to update the 1993 Kalispell. Urban. Area Transportation Plan. The northern boundary of the plan is Church and Birch. Drives, s, the same o ndary used for the growth policy amendment. This boundary was selected for the transportation plan at the recommendation of the Kalispell. Technical Advisory Committee AC and particularly at the urging of the county commission who has representatives on the TAC. Secondly, the city is under contract with a consultant to update the greater Kalispell Parks and. Recreation Plan. This plan will include a. pedestrian trails component. This plan uses the same northerly boundary of Church and Birch Drives. es. ina l.y, the city is under contract with another consulting firm to update the 2002 Water, Sewer and Storm Drainage Systems Facility Plan for the city. Again, the planning boundaries for this plan will use Church and Birch. Drives as the northern boundaries. These planning documents all rely on the need for an accurate and updated Growth.. Policy. Recommendation. The Kalispell City Council should. schedule a public hea-ring and take public comment at the public hearing. Based on that comment and additional council discussion, the council should make changes as they feel appropriate and approve the North 93 Neighborhood Groff Policy Amendments. 4