2. Growth Policy UpdatePLANNING FOR THE FLITME
affaly5m_z
Planning Department
201 V Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940
Fax: (406) 758-7739
y"yw.kalispell.com/planning
Doug Russell, City Manager 9L
Kevin LeClair, Senior Planner
KGPA-14-01 — Kalispell Growth Policy — PLAN -IT 2030
October 27, 2014
BACKGROUND: Kalispell's current Growth Policy was adopted in February 2003 with Resolution
4773. Four amendments have been added since that time with the Highway 93 North Area Plan in
August 2006, the Highway 93 South Corridor Area Plan in December 2008, the Kalispell West
Neighborhood Plan in May 2009, and the Core Area Plan in December 2012. The Growth Policy
Future Land Use Map was adopted in May 2009, and the Annexation Policy Boundary was adopted
in March 2011.
An update process of the Growth Policy began in 2012, with Planning Department staff
meeting with over 40 community groups, local agencies, and service providers within the City of
Kalispell and the surrounding area. The information gathered during this effort was combined with
current demographic, economic, and development activity, and then incorporated into an updated
draft document. The Planning Board then spent the past year meeting every other week to review
and update the entire document. Once this process was substantially complete, another round of
outreach meetings were held with key stakeholders to solicit and gather feedback before transmittal
to the city council for consideration.
On September 2, 2014, the Kalispell City Council approved a resolution of intent to hold a
public hearing on October 6, 2014. On September 8, 2014, the city council held a work session
where the Planning Department staff reviewed the updated Kalispell Growth Policy — PLAN -IT
2030. Following the October 6, Public Hearing, the city council scheduled a subsequent work
session to review comments received and begin the discussion on final adoption of the plan.
As was discussed at the September 8th work session, the Growth Policy leads off with an
executive summary that presents a short-ten-n (3-5 years) planning direction for the City of Kalispell
and includes five key deliverables that will support and reinforce the Growth Policy. They include:
1) Implement the Core Area Plan.
2) Complete THE Downtown Plan.
3) Draft a new South Kalispell Urban Renewal Plan.
4) Create a Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan.
5) Update the Kalispell Transportation Plan.
Kalispell's Growth Policy is a foundational document that offers a vision statement and guides
growth and development in and around the City of Kalispell for the next 10-15 years. The document
is arranged into chapters covering a series of elements fundamental to Kalispell's future. Each
chapter contains a brief summary of the topic, followed by:
• "Issues" highlighting important trends, problems, opportunities, and community values;
• "Goals" stating the community's aims and priorities;
• "Policies" conveying the principles of action to guide the city in making decisions; and
• "Reconnnendations" to be considered as part of an implementation strategy.
On August 12, 2014, the Kalispell City Planning Board held a public hearing to finalize their
review of the updated Kalispell Growth Policy — PLAN -IT 2030. The day of the meeting, a comment
letter was received from Citizens for a Better Flathead with a number of comments and suggestions
for the document. The Planning Board reviewed and discussed each comment and incorporated
several of theirs into the document. Following this review, they voted unanimously, on a vote of 5-0,
to forward a resolution recommending adoption of the updated Kalispell Growth Policy — PLAN -IT
2030.
At the September &, 2014, work session held by the City Council, Citizens for a Better Flathead
submitted a comment letter containing 21 suggestions. The letter is largely a reiteration of the
comments submitted to the Planning Board at their hearing with some additional reasoning included.
A copy of the comment letter is attached to this memorandum with each comment numbered and
annotated for reference purposes. Following the Council work session, staff reviewed Citizens for a
Better Flathead's comment letter, along with the meeting minutes from the Planning Board's Public
Hearing on August 12, 2014. As a result of the subsequent review, staff is recommending five
revisions to the Growth Policy. The changes are noted in the annotations in the margins of the
attached comment letter.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Kalispell City Council review the comments
from Citizens for a Better Flathead and suggest any additional revisions to the draft Kalispell Growth
Policy — PLAN -IT 2030 in preparation for final adoption proceedings.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Approval of the request is expected to have limited fiscal impact to the City.
ALTERNATIVES: The Kalispell City Council may also adopt the Kalispell Growth Policy —
PLAN -IT 2030 as recommended by the Planning Board; or reject the proposed Kalispell Growth
Policy— PLAN -IT 2030 and return it to Kalispell Planning Board for additional review and
consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin LeClair
Senior Planner
Attachment: Citizens for a .Better Flathead's Comments on Kalispell Growth .Policy Update, City
Work Session, September 9, 2014 with Planning Department staff annotations
c: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk
T:406.756.8993mF:406J56.8991
Kalispell, Montana 59VO3
Citizens for a BetterRathead's Comments mnKalispell Draft Growth Policy Update
City Work Session, Sept 9, 2014
Citizens for aBetter Flathead appreciates this opportunity tocomment on the proposed
updates t0the current Kalispell Growth Policy. VV8provided earlier comments for the planning
board at their final hearing. These comments are a follow-up to those comments on items we
would like toask the council tnconsider further.
Our organization was founded in 1992 and we represent some 1500 supporters throughout the
county including many Kalispell residents. We have participated in the public process of the
drafting ofupdates tothe Kalispell Growth Policy since 1992.
We see the Growth Policy as not only an important document for setting city policyand
priorities, but as a resource document for economic development where someone considering
locating in the Kalispell area can easily find information that can early on peak their interest in
the area. For residents, the growth policy should be a window into the diverse goals, and
policies of the city and one that informs residents who when informed will be willing to take a
more active role in local government decisions and leadership such as serving on boards.
VVehave reviewed the entire draft Growth Policy and want tocompliment the city, staff, and
planning board onajob well done. Asyou move towards final adoption xvewant toprovide
you with @ series 0ffinal comments for your additional consideration. But let rnefirst repeat
that vveparticularly appreciate that:
* Your planning staff provided direct outreach to groups in the planning area to both
explain the proposed update and t0seek input tothe plan. VVealso appreciate that
planning staff made themselves available to answer questions for us as they arose.
We appreciate that you provided us, and the public, e copy ofboth the strike -through
version showing what was being changed and a final draft that incorporated all changes.
The strike through version was vital to our understanding the nature of the changes
being proposed and where nochange was needed.
* We think you have provided a good balance between background text and a bulleted lay
out ufeasy toread issues, goals, and policies. Numerous maps included are well done
and valuable.
Our comments are organized bvchapter and the page numbers sited ' are those of the proposed
draft growth policy found on the city web site on 9/5/2014, which does not show changes
made with strike-thr0ughs. VVehope this layout helps you toreview and consider our
comments. Where we felt it was important in addition to a suggested change we have included
a reason for why we think the change is important.
Chapter 1: Growth Policy Administration
Page 9, Policy 9 Needs Revision "9. Provide a mechanism to address large-scale
projects that have not been anticipated in the growth policy."
1 } Discussed and denied
by the Planning Board (PB). Consider revising to provide a clearer policy statement: Criteria will be
Staff recommends retaining developed to address large-scale projects that have not been anticipated
the PB's recommendation. in the growth policy.
Reason The term mechanism is broad, vague, and not easy to
understand what tools might be used to fulfill this policy.
Page 9, Recommendation #4
Needs Revision #4. Use the general growth policy amendment
process to address large-scale and / or complex projects that have not
been anticipated in the growth policy.
2) Discussed and denied by Revise this recommendation to provide more specific criteria for large-
PB. Staff recommends scale and / or complex projects such as: Develop criteria to address
retaining PB large-scale projects that have not been anticipated in the growth policv,
recommendation. and that are proposed as general growth policy amendments.
Reason. As this is tied to policy 9 above, it is important, we feel, to
provide more direction for the developer and the community as to how
large scale and/or complex projects that are not a clear fit under the
growth policy will be handled.
Page 9, Recommendation
Needs Revision "2. Find ways to provide greater exposure forthe
public to the planning process, such as the local media, to encourage
greater improved public involvement and interest."
Reason Consider being more specific and take this opportunity to
toot your own horn as you have a great web site, televised meetings on
line, and email notifications to encourage and support public
involvement.
Revise this recommendation and add some additional
recommendations by stating:
3a} PB discussed and denied
the original comment. Continue to -encourage public involvement in the citv's planning
The comment was revised processes by maintaining access to documents, minutes, development
and staff recommends applications and staff reports on the citv's web site.
incorporating the suggested
text.
3b) Staff recommends Retain links on the city web site as feasible to televised meetings, and
incorporation as suggested maintain a list serve set up for those requesting email notifications.
3c) This statement was the Develop signage guidelines that -require applicants for development to
main contention from the post signs on property identifying land use zoning or growth policy
original comment. Staff changes proposed, date and location of hearing and opportunities to
recommends denying comment on changes in use requested on properties proposed for
development.
suggestion.
3d) Staff recommends Continue to support the use of work sessions, and proactive outreach
activities by the planning staff to encourage public participation in city
incorporation as suggested decisions.
Chapter 4: Business
Page 22, Issues
Add new issue 7. The Kalispell Downtown planning area has
4) This comment was accepted significant capacity for future growth and infill. This current capacity has
by PB. Staff recommends not been measured for a number of years. Knowing this capacity can
retaining this suggesting. help in planning for downtown revitalization and „in economic
development efforts.
Add Goal 7. IDENTIFY THE INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT CAPACITY
5) Discussed and denied by OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND POTENTIAL RATE OF BUILD OUT. USE
PB. Staff recommends THIS INFORMATION TO PROMOTE AND SECURE DOWNTOWN
denying the suggestion. REVITALIZATION AND INVESTMENT.
Page 26 Add Recommendation 11. Give priority to completing a study of
6) Discussed and denied by the inf ill and redevelopment capacity of the downtown area and its
PB. Staff recommends potential rate of build out.
denying the suggestion.
Page
7a) This is a new comment.
"Mini -storage" is an Admin-
istrative Conditional Use in
B-2, B-5, 1-1, and 1-2 zones.
Staff does not recommend
Reason: Businesses looking to relocate to our area, or residents
considering starting a business or encouraging family or friends to
relocate to the area, should be able to determine from reading the
growth policy where the city has potential to grow. You have set goals
for downtown redevelopment. Basic to these goals is identifying and
including what the infill and redevelopment potential is.
Add new issue Businesses that provide storage units for
rent are providing a service that is used my many. Without development
standards for such units, however, storage units are often being
developed without adequate landscaping, buffering, setbacks, and
architectural standards, needed to make them an visually pleasing
addition to the community.
adoption.
Page Add new policy ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
7b) Same comment as 7a" STORAGE UNIT FACILITIES TO ENSURE THEY ARE DEVELOPED WITH
above.
ADEQUATE LANDSCAPING, BUFFERING, SETBACKS, AND ARCHITECTURAL
STANDARDS, NEEDED TO MAKE THEM AN VISUALLY PLEASING ADDITION
TO THE COMMUNITY.
Chapter 5: Industry
Page 29 Add Issue Add an issue statement:
8a) ❑iscussed and denied by There is not ouantifiable information that addresses the current (over?)
PB. Staff recommends supply of business parks in the plan area and the potential need to
denying the suggestion. encourage infill in these business parks before adding additional capacity.
8b) Same comment as "8a" Add goal SEEK QUANTIFIABLE INFORMATION THAT ASSESSES
above. MARKET CONDITIONS ABSORPTION POTENTIAL AN D VACANCY RATES
FOR BUSINESS PARKS.
Add Recommendation Gather quantifiable information that assesses
8c) Same comment as Ta" market conditions, absorption potential and vacancy rates for business park
above. uses _within the Growth Policy area.
Reason Businesses looking to locate in this area need information
like this to help them understand resources and locations where a synergy of
business development can be attractive to them as a potential new business.
Page 29 Add goal SEEK QUANTIFIABLE INFORMATION THATASS ESSES MARKET
9a) Discussed and denied by CONDITIONS ABSORPTION POTENTIAL AND VACANCY RATES FOR LIGHT
PB. Staff recommend denying INDUSTRIAL USES WITHIN THE GROWTH POLICY AREA.
the suggestion.
Page 29 Add Recommendation Gather quantifiable information that assesses
9b) Same comment as "9a" market conditions, absorption potential and vacancy rates for light industrial
above. uses within the Growth Policy area.
Chapter 6: Agriculture
Page 32 Add new goal Where feasible, work with the Flathead County
10) Discussed and denied by Extension Service and the Flathead Valley Community College Sustainable
PEI. Staff recommends denying Agricultural Program to support the growth and economic development
the suggestion. potential of a sustainable agricultural industry within the plan area.
Page 32 Add new policy Encourage the connectivity of agricultural lands
11) Discussed and denied by and open space with similar features on adjoining parcels of land as
PB. Staff recommends denying development occurs.
the suggestion.
Page 32 Add new policy As development occurs, ensure and facilitate
12) Discussed and denied by producers' access to agricultural land.
PB. Staff recommends denying
the suggestion.
4
Page 32 Add new recommendation Develop incentives to encourage and
13) Discussed and denied by reward conservation of agricultural, ecologically important, and open
PB. Staff recommends denying space lands.
the suggestion.
Reason for new goal, policies and recommendation: The above
recommendations are small steps to sustain the growing small scale
farming enterprises in the current growth policy area and future growth
areas for the City of Kalispell. When agricultural lands and open space on
adjoining parcels are encouraged to be connected through the design of
proposed development the viability of the adjoined agricultural or open
space uses is increased and buffered by their connectivity. The attached
report provides additional rationale to support the economic
development potential and local food security that is provided by
planning for small scale farming within the growth policy area. SEE
ATTACHED REPORT, Agricultural Protection in Montana: Local Planning,
Regulation, and Incentives and these exerpts:
"Particularly noteworthy for local governments is the Montana
Constitution's mandate that state laws not only protect agriculture, but
also enhance and develop agriculture. This language may shed light on
the subdivision review obligation, suggesting that the mitigation of
"impacts on agriculture" is something more than just the slowing down of
agricultural land loss over time. Rather, it should be an approach that
results in the advancement of agriculture in the community." [page 9,
"A national review of agricultural protection initiatives reveals that
agricultural protections can take many forms, from traditional
agricultural zoning districts, to public and private ease►nent acquisitions,
to community food programs.as Communities most effective at
agricultural protection use a variety of tools together in an integrated
approach called "food system planning."86" (page 14 )
"Another important consideration is contiguity among protected lands.
Fragmented agricultural lands can undermine a community's ability to
retain a functioning agricultural land base. Among other concerns,
fragmentation can interrupt water supply delivery, place conflicting land
uses beside one another, and hamper the movement of livestock and
agricultural equipment. Contiguity of lands can also promote related
open space and conservation goals." (page 29)
Chapter S: Natural Environment
Page 37 Add new issue Aquatic Invasive Species are being introduced to
14a) Discussed and denied by Montana unintentionally as they hitchhike on and in boats, recreational
PB. Staff recommends denying equipment, aquariums and backyard ponds. In Montana, Aquatic Invasive
the suggestion. Species (AIS) are a serious problem. There are currently over 70 aquatic
invasive species reported in the State. Current state activities and
5
statutes address AIS prevention and control. However, there is a need to
combat AIS at the local watershed level to assist with these efforts, and
minimize the harmful economic, ecological and social impacts of AIS.
Reason Kalispell depends on tourist dollars as an important part of
its economy. AIS prevention and control is an issue that should be
identified in the growth policy for local government officials and
residents alike. Many city residents have boats and travel in the region
with their boat. The city should do their part to educate residents of this
issue and to collaborate with agencies working on this issue.
AIS if not controlled will harm the attraction of tourist to this region and
will be costly to control. It is important that each city and the county play
a part to help prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species.
Montana agencies are inspecting boats at boat ramps, on highways and
at the Montana borders. Most of these inspection stations require
mandatary stops of all boaters with boats.
The City of Whitefish recently donated to support an inspection station
that inspects boats traveling to their area. Efforts are being ramped up in
the Flathead Basin since it encompasses some of the state's most intact
ecosystems and blue ribbon fishing. In order to protect these ecologically
and economically valuable resources, inspections stations have been
added at Ronan, Clearwater Junction, Eureka, and Highway. Additionally,
it is mandatory to have your watercraft inspected before launching in
Glacier National Park.
Page 40 Add Goal Support local efforts as appropriate to prevent, control
14b) Same comment as "14a" and/or eliminate Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) within the Flathead Basin.
above.
Page 40 Add new Issue According to the Flathead Lake Biological Station,
15a) Discussed and denied by endocrine disrupter compounds, pharmaceuticals, and personal care
PB. Staff recommends denying products were detected in 13 or 14 shallow ground -water wells that were
the suggestion. sampled in the fall of 2010 by the Flathead Lake Biological Station in the
Flathead River Drainage.
Page 40 Add Policy Encourage residents not to flush or pore unwanted
15b) Same comment as "15a" pharmaceutical and personal care products down the drain. Promote the
above. use of a free and secure drop-off box far unwanted medications located
in the Flathead County Justice Center in Kalispell.
Page 40 Retain former policy "New commercial and industrial
16) Discussed and ultimately development and residential subdivisions should be accessible by paved
denied by PB. Upon further roadways to protect air quality. "
consideration, staff is
recommending this language Rationale This policy is in the current Kalispell Growth Policy and
be re -incorporated into the should be retained. New development should not contribute to air
Growth Policy.
[-1
quality issues, which remain a concern in the area.
Page 40 Retain need for noise standards informer policy "Limit and mitigate
17) Discussed and denied by impacts related to outdoor lighting and noise by developing measurable
PB as suggested. Staff standards for noise impacts and by enforcing dark sky compliant lighting
recommends following policy regulations. " (See original wording in 2020 KGP page 28)
be added:
Policy: Limit and mitigate Rationale Noise is an on -going concern for many. It is an issue that
impacts of noise on the deserves review and consideration of best practices to address this
community and develop concern. A good job was done addressing lighting issues, the same kind
measurable standards for of effort needs to be given to noise issues.
addressing noise impacts.
Page 127 Example of one place that noise is addressed in the KGP Update
"22. Advocate the design and site layout of new residential development
adjacent to industrial zoned property, Highway 93 and the future bypass
to incorporate noise reduction techniques so that the new development
will not be affected by noise that exceeds 60 dBA at the property line."
Page 128 "23. Encourage the use of setbacks and earth berms as noise reduction
techniques in residential development to mitigate noise impacts and
discourage the use of sound walls."
Chapter 9: Downtown and Core Area
No additional comments
Chapter 10: Historic and Cultural Conservation
No additional comment
Chapter 11: Parks and Recreation
Page 59 Add new text to this section to give recognition of and future
18) Discussed and denied bfroIIaboration opportunities with the trail systems that have been
PB. Staff recommends the
developed through and around Kalispell by Rails to Trails with the Somers
to Kila trail, and with Foy's to BlacktaH trail and open space that are an
following additions:
asset to the City of Kalispell.
Add Issue: Multi -use trails and
trail systems, such as Rails -to
-Trails and Foy'S to Blacictail
Development of arks and trails should be recognized as an important
p p 8 p
Trails are important for the
factor in the Kalispell economy. The Institute for Tourism and Recreation
economy and for public health
Research (ITRR) at the University of Montana's School of Forestry
reasons.
conducted a study entitled, "Analysis of Touring Cyclists: Impacts, Needs
Add Policy: Support and
and Opportunities for Montana,"(PDF) which found that multi -day
encourage the expansion and
cyclists spend $75 per day while in Montana, and stay an average of eight
development of additional
multi -use trails and trail systems in
or more nights. Researchers queried cyclists who had visited Adventure
and around Kalispell.
Cycling headquarters in 2013, or who had purchased Montana section
maps between 2010-2013. Cyclists hailed from 48 states and 18
countries.
h ttp://www. a dve ntu recycl i n g. org/d efa u It/assets/F i I e/ U S BRS/Research/
Multi-d ayCycl i ngStud yWeb. pdf
https://Outdoorindustry•org/images/ore reports/MT-montana-
ou tdo o rrec re ationecon omy-oi a. pdf
Finally, develop issue and policy statements that recognize the message
that Transportation Planner Mark Fenton recently delivered in his recent
visit to Kalispell that there is a direct connection between community
design and community health. He cited research showing that community
design was the, or one the, most important tools for improving
community health by encouraging active living through community
design for waIkab11ity and recreation.
Chapter 12: Transportation
No additional comment
Chapter 13: Sand and Gravel Resources
No additional comments.
Chapter 14: Public Infrastructure and Services
19) Discussed and denied Add new Goal PLAN FOR BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE BY
by the PB. Staff recommends MAPPING BROADBAND LOCATIONS AND WIRELESS COVERAGE AND
FORGE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS TO SUPPORT THIS WORK AND TO
the following addition #a the GROW BROADBAND CONNECTIVITY.
Economics chapter:
Issue: Internet, broadband, and
telecommunications infra-
structure are becoming
increasingly vital to the growth
and development of private
businesses and the daily
lives of residents.
GOAL: ENSURE
BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS
HAVE BROADBAND
CONNECTIVITY AND SUPPORT
THE WORK OF PRIVATE
COMPANIES IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE
NECESSARY ■
INFRASTRUCTURE.
■
Add new Policy Map broadband locations and wireless coverage
develop policies needed to grow broadband connectivity.
Reason Identification of issues, goals and policies for
intern et/broadband or such telecommunications facilities should be
included as these are important issues for future economic development.
SEE ATTACHED RATIONALE and the following excerpt:
The "Planning and Broadband Report...stresses that planners can and
should begin to actively engage in planning our broadband infrastructure
future in seven different ways:
Including broadband infrastructure as a basic planning component.
Conducting broadband mapping — knowing the "what" and "where" of
connectivity is a growing public need.
Increasing bandwidth demands. New standards are needed to facilitate
large-scale data sharing.
0 Mapping broadband locations and wireless coverage.
• Using social networking as an information resource.
■ Forging public/private partnerships. Both public and private partners
need to work together in striving for universal broadband connectivity.
■ Maximizing the generated benefits from private development resulting
from public funding for infrastructure.
Planning and Broadband emphasizes that planners need to incorporate
broadband initiatives into comprehensive plans. The report also provides
guidance on how planners can work with
telecommunications professionals. Using the telecommunications
industry's "layers" model provides easily identifiable opportunities for
planners and telecommunications professionals to worktogether."
How do you determine if your community is ready for a broadband plan?
The authors offer these questions to consider:
■ What is the level of stakeholder engagement? Successful plans tend to
have wide stakeholder engagement.
• Is there an existing community broadband plan such as a
communications or technology master plan?
• Where is broadband currently available in the community?
■ Who is unserved or underserved: businesses, people, institutions?
■ Who is currently using broadband and how?
■ Who will use broadband in the future and how?
■ What efforts are being made to meet local needs now, and what efforts
could be made?"
Chapter IS: Annexation Policy
No additional comments.
Chapter 16: Implementation Strategies
Page 98 Expand Growth Policy Amendment Criteria
The current growth policy criteria states:
Growth Policy Update Implementation Strategy
ide. Evaluation criteria should include:
1. Consistency with the goals and policies of the growth policy, state law,
and other established policies adopted by the city council;
2. Demonstration of the public need and support for the change;
3. The proposed change is the most effective means of meeting the need;
and
4. The public, as a whole, benefits, rather than one or a few property
owners at the expense of others."
Expand the evaluation criteria by adapting the current criteria wording
and adding the following additionsI criteria to make the amendment
process more predictable, less subject to challenge, and comprehensive.
9
Growth Policy Update and Amendment Implementation Strategy
20) Discussed and denied by e. Growth Policy Amendment Criteria includes the following:
PB. Staff recornmend s denying 1. Is the proposed amendment Consistency with the goals and policies of
the Suggestion. the growth policy, state law, and other established policies adopted by
the city council?
2. Is their demonstration of the „public need and support for the change?
3. Is the proposed change is the mast effective means of meeting the
need?
4. WIII the public, as a whole, benefit, rather than one or a few property
owners at the expense of others
5. Is the amendment based on existing characteristics and/or projected
trends that are substantially different from those presented in the most
recent update?
6. Does the amendment create inconsistencies within the document?
7. Has the proposed amendment undergone a sufficient process of
citywide public participation and review?
Page 109 Revise "f. Information regarding public hearings, development
21) Accepted by PB. Text proposals and staff recommendations should be available consistent with
now reads: the date of notice time which triggers the time period for public notice
established by state law with adeq .atn t„ne 49F FRUiRIAXMd
"f. information regarding public
hearings, development proposals
and staff recommendations Rationale Notice provisions for state law are not met if the public
should be available with does not have access to the development proposal and staff report for
adequate time for review and the entire notice period.
consideration according to
state law."
10