Loading...
2. City-County Growth Policy Plan UpdateREPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT City of Kalispell Post Office Box 1997 • Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 • Telephone (406) 758-7700 • FAX (406) 758-7758 Kalispell Mayor and City Council Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager Kalispell City -County Growth Policy Plan Update MEETING DATE: May 8, 2000 BACKGROUND: As you are aware, a joint work session was held between the Kalispell City Council, Board of County Commissioners and the Kalispell City -County Planning Board on February 21, 2000 to discuss the proposed Kalispell City -County Growth Policy Plan. At that meeting, the Council and Commissioners agreed to have the legal staff review the plan for compliance with recently adopted state law outlining the required contents of a growth policy plan. In discussion with the Kalispell City Attorney, he believes that the plan is complete with regard to the required technical aspects of the plan, many of which are contained in Appendix A, the Resource and Analysis Section. It maybe more understandable in a comprehensive manner to include portions of this appendix in the body of the document, particularly the sections that relate to population and demographic trends, economic trends as well as an inventory of existing services. In consideration of review and adoption of the growth policy plan, the governing bodies have not clearly outlined a process for review. In part the state statutes declare that "The Planning Board shall prepare and propose a growth policy for the entire jurisdiction area. The plan may propose ordinances or resolutions for possible adoption by the appropriate governing body." The statutes also state that prior to forwarding the plan to the governing bodies, the board shall hold a public hearing. A public hearing was held on the proposed growth policy plan before the Kalispell City County Planning Board on November 9, 2000. A work session was held by the Planning Board on November 16, 2000 to consider the comments from the public hearing. On December 14, 2000 the Planning Board passed a resolution recommending the draft Kalispell City -County Growth Policy Plan dated November 23, 1999. The statutes further state (in part) that "The governing bodies shall adopt a resolution of intention to adopt, revise or reject the proposed growth policy or any of its parts." In essence, the Planning Board is charged with preparing the plan, and the governing bodies with reviewing the plan and either adopt it, amend it or reject it in whole or in part. During our Spring Priority Session, the City Council expressed a desire to accept the Growth Policy as presented by the Planning Board and handle any amendments to the document between the City Council and County Commissioners. In following the direction presented at the priority session, there are several alternatives that the City and County could implement for considering the adoption of the growth policy plan. A suggestion of the alternatives which might be available are summarized below: Alternative 1: Adopt Draft Plan - Without further significant discussion or changes, adopt the Kalispell City County Growth Policy Plan as proposed by the Kalispell City -County Planning Board with few if any revisions. As a consideration to the public, a joint public hearing between the City Council and County Commissioners should be held. This process would be the most expeditious process and would take less than one month to accomplish provided that there were few revisions to the document. In reviewing the discussions surrounding this issue, it seems obvious that this alternative is not acceptable to the majority of the City Council. Alternative 2: Series of Neighborhood Meetings - In order to encourage a broader participation within the planning jurisdiction, neighborhood meetings could be held at locations within the community to provide the opportunity to review and make comments on the plan. Locations such as the Evergreen Jr. High, the Justice Center, the State Lands Office or elsewhere in the county. A joint public hearing between the City Council and County Commissioners would be held after the neighborhood meetings have concluded. The City Council and/or Commissioners may also want to hold work sessions to discuss potential amendments to the plan as a result of the neighborhood meetings or because of special concerns members may have regarding certain issues. This process would likely take place over several months depending on the level of interest. In the past it has been difficult to generate interest based on a board plan for the jurisdiction probably because the residents don't see the impact it could have on their immediate neighborhood. Page 2 Alternative 3: Chapter by Chapter Review - Joint work sessions with the City Council, County Commissioners and Planning Board or just with the City Council could be scheduled to review the proposed growth policy plan by chapter. For instance, three or four chapters of the plan could be reviewed at each work session and potential modifications to the plan could be considered by the members. Modifications to the various sections of the document could be made as well as formatting, layout and policies. Generally speaking, the public would not be invited to participate in the work sessions, but a joint public hearing would be held upon completion to solicit comment. This process would likely take several months and would involve regular work sessions. This could prove to be a tedious process and one that the Planning Board has engaged in over the past year which has produced the document that has been forwarded to the governing bodies for consideration. Alternative 4: Review by Area and Related Issues - Joint work sessions with the City Council and County Commissioners could be scheduled to review "area -wide issues." For instance, the planning jurisdiction could be broken down into specific neighborhoods such as Evergreen, Greenacres, Airport, Northwest Kalispell, etc. and the issues which are specific to those discussed. The governing bodies could review proposed specific policies that relate to those areas and identify if these areas have been adequately addressed. Work sessions could also be held on specific issues that continue to arise such as development on the urban fringes, an urban growth boundary defined, big box development, mall development, the fairgrounds or other issues of concern. These work sessions could be held with or without public participation depending on the wishes of the members of the governing bodies. This type of approach may generate more public interest than a broad based approach to reviewing the proposed plan. This type of review would also entail a series of work sessions that would involve months of time. Alternative 5: Staff Review - Direct City and County department heads to review the plan and list issues for consideration from both the text and the map. This information would then by brought to the City Council and County Commissioners for consideration. In general, this was how the plan was last updated. This approach would generally be relying on the expertise of the professional staff to provide a critique of certain issues with which they would be familiar. It would reduce the amount of time the members would have to spend at work sessions and would probably reduce the review time overall. Page 3 Alternative 6: Issues and Priorities from Council / Commissioners - Ask each of the Council members and Commissioners to list issues they may have concerns with in both the text and the map. The issues could be prioritized during one or more work sessions and then work through them to some type of resolution. This approach would probably not involve the number of issues and time it would take to address the plan section by section, but would limit discussion to specific issues. I feel that strong public support is essential to the success of the growth policy. We will never satisfy all of the different opinions, yet we are obligated to get the majority of the community behind the new plan. If we don't, the document is doomed for failure within the first year of adoption. The fourth alternative is the most comprehensive and time consuming option, however, it has the potential to bring the public closer to the process. For this reason, I am recommending we go with the forth alternative. Second, would be alternative five, which is similar to what was done when the current plan was put in place. RECOMMENDATION: The Council needs the County's support to accept the plan and handle any amendments between the City Council and County Commissioners. Second, the Council needs to decide if alternative four is the approach the group wants to take. FISCAL EFFECTS: Unknown. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Council. Chris A. Kukulski City Manager Page 4