Loading...
CTAJanuary 7, 2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council P.O. Box 1997 312 1 st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: Glacier Town Center Conditions of Approval Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: Please see the attached copy of the December 6 h, 2007, metro to the Kalispell Planning Board Members from the City of Kalispell planning department prior to their decision to recommend conditional approval of this project. The attached memo includes ten primary areas in which the applicant and planning department requested additional consideration by the planning board prior to their recommended conditional approval of the project. The recommended conditions of approval before you this evening include 47 recommended conditions. Of these 47 conditions, we request that the City Council specifically consider six conditions as highlighted in yellow the attached memo as dated December Gf- we request that you conditionally approve of this project, removing or amending these referenced conditions. Specifically, with regards to condition E.i.e., we request the following changes: Pedestrian connections shall also be made to surrounding streets and the bike path located along Hi ghway 93 .earth. minimum of one connectionf shall be made from the bike path along Hi .93 North to the lifesole center. -4 minimum of one e connecho� shall he made from the sidewalk along dose Crossing to the lifesole center. Ilhere sidewalks t-ass traffic lanes, either at public or private streets or within the parking lot, the sidewalk may be at grade but shall be constructed of colored or tevlured com-rete, stone or other contrasting material to tisualyl demote a pedestrian way. Simply painting the walk area is not adequate. Specifically, with regards to conditions. twenty-five (25), we request the following changes: The center access off of Higbway 93 sering phase I shall be reduced from a 11 foot rivate road right of may to a 50 foot private road right-o_ f=way. .fit shall be designed with �� may -- .� lane design with athree--quarter (1W movement access. The road design shall support afire foot sidewalk and a minimum 5 foot landscaped boulevard on both sides. The northern and southern accesses aloe H&bway 93 nill include si naled intersections. In addition to this request, and in response to questions regarding the validity of the traffic impact study, we are providing a professional biography for Kathleen Lager, transportation consultant for the applicant. As a po.iult of clarification, the apph(carit requests the council provide additional clarification with regards to the role the Public works Department and the Montana Department of Transportation in the review of the traffic impact study as referenced in condition 18. As a final note, the applicant requests the opportunity to respond to any comment by members of the public at the end of the public hearing. Sincerely, Brent Moore, AICP Senior Planner, CTA. Cc: Highlighted Memo from December 6h Kathleen Krager professional biography City of Kalispell Planning Department 17 - 2nd Street East, Suite 211, Kalispell, Montana 59901 Telephone: (406) 751-1850 Fax: (406) 751-1858 Website: kalispellplanning.com Date: December 6, 2007 To: Kalispell Planning Board Members From: Sears Conrad, Senior Planner Re: Response to the December 4, 2007 letter from CTA regarding conditions of approval for the Glacier Town Center PUD and preliminary plat This memo is in response to the questions raised in the December 4th letter from. CTA after discussing CTA's November 27th letter with the developer and planning staff. The purpose of this memo is to address the developer's concerns regarding the recommended conditions of approval for both the Glacier Town center PUD and preliminary plat. First, however I would like to address some of the general comments made by CTA on behalf of Wolford Development on the first page of the letter. The letter states, "The applicant, wolford Development, firmly believes that the proposed project design has been developed to insure overall project success." However, the letter goes on to state, "A number of the following conditions are considered by wolford Development to be challenging to the overall project success. Where changes to conditions are requested, the developer believes due consideration should be given to the applicant's proven success in developing projects of similar scope in other areas of the country." The purpose of the recommended conditions of approval placed on the PUD and preliminary plat are not intended to limit the overall project's success. Rather, the conditions are placed on the project to insure the development is designed and developed in accordance with city standards and the goals and policies provided in the Kalispell Growth Policy. A proven tract record does not negate the fact that what was deemed appropriate design in Iowa or Arizona may not be found to be appropriate in the city of Kalispell, The following conditions were included in the December 4th letter (copy attached) from CTA with a response from the developer on why he feels that the condition is not appropriate or otherwise unreasonable. The developer's responses to the conditions are in italics. Any response from planning staff will be in normal font with any recommended word changes to the conditions placed in bald type. ........................................................................................................ .......... . ......................................... ..................................................................... . ......................................................................................................................................... . .................................................................... ...........- ................. ................ ..................... . ................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................... . ................................................................................... ............. ......................................................................................................................................................................... .. ...................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................... ...................................................... ............. �.�.� ��� p�� , th+ r� w�t�i� t� pr t to b aesi:g� � �� R6 ds � ��........... .... ...... .. o t� Set :� � ,� 5 f 6t yid .1 t . �dg f t�.e r��htof�w�y ��n� tie �tret fro�.tag� of lit �� ................. ...... ........................................................................................ ......... ........... ........................... ii�.�sec tin s� i0 ct� t� sdw.�6: r bi nth "w'th.� ..... ..... .. .. .......... ..... ... .... ............ ........... .. ............. .... .. ...... .......... ... ..... ................... a e f he... ........ ..t. ..� f epor........... .....'t �preS st f s �o.... �.e rr fir e ii 3b t. .. ... ........ . . 01 .... . ........e.......... es r�....... .... .....t. . �r .. a d; aroun it �e i� es�� � n. .. er d �. � a e t co erc ��..... ds.� ................................................................... ........... ....... .......................................................... ........... o............n............o..................... ...................................h�bher 6f th....K.:4.i� stas .............................. .. ... .................... . :aL urag coy. u e s: t t e c- a. ate sonl.� s.... ... ..........n. .. ..... r�. ........ ... .... .r� ........ i a ...... ................................... .................................................................................... ....... . .. . .......................... . ......................................................................................................... ...........-.......... ....... ............. .............................-............................................................................................. ........................ . .................................................................................................... ........................................................................ p er �. l o lly �f t 6 xd1i �� r h � §tote + j Irk �.e " . . . . ... ........... .. . ,� . ...... bd onads .n the c� Ito bey c str.eted �i sty d �d s:d d n� .. .. ..................... Comment 2 Re ardin Pedestrian Connectivityin and Around the Life style Center: E. Kalispell Zoning Regulations, Section 27.15.030(13) (Conditionally permitted uses in the B-3 zoning district) Allows retail malls/community shopping centers as a permitted use within the zoning district. The following conditions shall apply to the lifestyle center and power center: i. The two center parking aisles within the lifestyle center shall be removed and the sidewalks be widened to provide for a more pedestrian friendly mall. ii. The developer shall provide the city with a pedestrian access plan for the entire project site. Both trails and sidewalks shown on the PUD plan and as a condition of approval shall be included in the plan. a. For access through the parking lots serving the lifestyle center (phase 1) and power center (phase 2) the access plan shall include a minimum 5-foot wide walking path with accompanying landscaping every third parking row or 200 feet, whichever is less. Landscaping shall include predominantly living material and include shade trees to be placed at such intensity and location as to form a canopy where they cover or line sidewalks. b . All sidewalks located within parking lots shall have a raised concrete surface for separation from traffic and parking. c. Pedestrian connections shall also be made to surrounding streets and the bike path located along Highway 93 North. A minimum of three connections shall be made from the bike path along Highway 93 North to the lifestyle center. A minimum of two connections shall be made from the sidewalk along Rose Crossing to the lifestyle center. Where sidewalks cross traffic lanes, either at public or private streets or within the parking lot, the sidewalk may be at grade but shall be constructed of colored or textured concrete, stone or other contrasting material to visually denote a pedestrian way. Simply painting the walk area is not adequate. d. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the city's site review committee. A licant's Comment: The applicant does not believe that these design recommendations will provide any improvements to the overall proposed design.. The applicant does not believe that the recommended pedestrian ways will improve pedestrian mobility or provide any substantial increase in improving the overall health, safety and welfare of pedestrians. An abstract is included as attached to this letter which references a recent study completed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) which examines the relationship between pedestrian safety and added safety elements within parking lots. The following abstract summarizes the study's conclusions: This study examined the assumptions made by some agencies or managements that special elements may be needed in parking rots for pedestrian protection. It also studied the question as to whether a safety relationship can be found between parking angle, stall width or other variables in parking layout. Results show a very low proportion of parking lot accidents involve injuries. Pedestrian accidents represent an even smaller fraction, and special pedestrian protection within parking lots was not found to be justified (see abstract for additional information). In addition to safety related concerns, the applicant believes that the requested increased hardscope area will not be fully utilized by pedestrians, and will detract from the overall design of the parking areas, including reducing landscaping areas. The applicant has agreed to provide additional landscaped areas within the parking areas as illustrated on the attached revised site plan, "Highway 93 Intersections Traffic Circles." Additionally, with regard to point d., the applicant requests that the plan be reviewed according to the city's adopted review requirements. Staff Comment: The applicant's architect submitted revised parking lot landscaping plans for the lifestyle center. These revised plans are attached. The revised plans show linear landscape strips through the parking lots surrounding the lifestyle center. Another plan shows increased landscaping within the parking lot in the lifestyle center itself. Staffs maim concern is breaking up the large parking lots with landscaping and pedestrian walkways. Staff would concede that the number of pedestrian walkways may not be warranted but still believes several walkways adjacent to or through the parking lot should be provided. Staff Recommendation. Staff accepts the revised streetscape plan showing improved landscaping and pedestrian access within the lifestyle center and recommends deleting staff condition E.1' above. Staff recommends removing references to condition E. ii, a and b concerning sidewalks in the interior of the parking lots in exchange for an increase in landscaping in the landscaping provision of the lifestyle center and power center as follows: a. Linear row of landscaping material on average every 200-225 feet (typically every 3-4 rows). b. The landscaping feature will include a combination of trees, bushes and flowers shall extend the length of the parking lot and shall be a minimum. of 10 feet wide. C. 1--3 inch round river rock is not an approved landscape material. d. The exterior row of parking lot islands shall be landscaped islands, not just flat concrete slabs. C . f. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the city's site review committee. With regards to condition E. ii. f requiring the plan to be reviewed by the city's site review committee, this is how city staff would recommend reviewing such a plan in lieu of the developer actually providing one to staff as part of the project application. . ............................................................................................................................................................................. . . ................................... ........ .......... ................................................... ................ ........... ........................................................................................................................................................ . ....................................................................................................................................................................... . ........... ..................... ...................... ...............-...................................................................................-....................................... Thy: fo: 1 b;: � .�.cr�3or�.te G! ....................... ............................... ............................................................................ ................ .......... ............. ............ ............................................ ..................... .................................................... .. .. ................................................. . ............................................................... ........................................................ . : the .......... .. re arc .. ...... �`� � �� (�� �'o� �� �� �. ��k b: t ........ ... ... ... fiibt � r . ........ W16: -k M§ eci hdn b llbw: ......1eqg b1:3. ............................................ ........... .. . . . . . .. ..................................................... ................................................ ............... ................. . ............ ........ ..... ... ....... . ;; .� �11r.1� ; of �ort� i'oa g t �a��h rs�.et ; bl: � d� c n t t o is �. d .. 2 of C. rtill at 6f Su e 1 t .. . . .. ...... .. .... C.......... F... . .. ...... .. 1 �� . .e- ... �."1 ��� �"i6'��e.. rl.... �'��n; +� i� sits ........... . .. . . ...... ....... ootfpeWill b pa the fhl ceS �1tS �o tat t� pa mng boa far den '� hlh r+ ap"orte Comment 4 Re ardin e n S ace and Parkland: 5. A minimum of 72.3 acres of developed open space and parkland shall be provided within the Glacier Town center subdivision. ApRlicant's Comment: The applicant is concerned that the number or recommended conditions are reducing the availability of land for development, specifically the additional requests for additional transportation connections. Therefore, at this time, the applicant can agree to meeting all state and local requirements for openrpark space dedication through the subdivision review process. At no time will the open spacelpark space be reduced to be less than that required in the subdivision regulations. In a phone conference on November 29th, 2007, City Planning staff acknowledged the additional requests for dedicated right-of-way to increase connectivity to adjacent parcels. In acknowledgement of these requests, planning staff agreed to draft language allowing some flexibility for the applicant to decrease overall parkland dedication requirements if requests for public dedications in the form of roadways become burdensome. Staff Comment: The open space and parkland dedications proposed by the developer are discussed on pages 20 through 22 of the staff report. The developer is proposing a significant amount of parkland and open space areas within the subdivision. Not counting the existing BPA powerline easement on the project site a total of 65.6 acres of parkland and open space is proposed. with a maximum potential of 632 dwelling units on the project site the minimum parkland required by the subdivision regulations equals 18.96 acres. The amount of proposed parkland/open space is over three times the minimum required under state subdivision regulations. Just meeting the minimum required parkland as the response letter states would drastically reduce the amount of parkland/open space throughout the project. In light of the significant amount of parkland/open space proposed and the developers concern about providing both additional roadway connections and 72.3 acres of parkland and open space, planning staff concurs. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff would recommend the planning board consider amending condition 5 as follows: 5. A minimum of 72.3 acres of developed open space and parkland shall be provided within the Glacier Town center subdivision less any additional required right-of-ways for local roads and Highway 93 created by the conditions. Comment S Regarding Irrigation: 11. The landscaping and irrigation plans for the buffer areas along Highway 93 North, Whitefish Stage Road, and the perimeter of the project site shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation Department and developed as follows: A. Highway 93 North buffer shall include an irrigated landscaping corridor with undulating topography and have a mix of tree plantings with a ground cover predominately of lawn. B . whitefish Stage Road shall include an irrigated landscaping corridor with undulating topography with landscaped berms a minimum of 5 feet in height from grade and have a mix of tree plantings with a ground cover predominately of lawn. C. The perimeter buffer shall include an irrigated landscaping corridor with a minimum width of 20 feet and have a mix of tree plantings with a ground cover predominately of lawn. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 20 feet from the edge of the bike / pedestrian trail. A Ucant's Comment: We request that "irrigation" be removed from the above statements. While the applicant intends to irrigate appropriate areas, numerous native plant species do not require irrigation, nor is it the applicant's intent to use an excessive amount of water in areas that would be appropriately landscaped without irrigation. The applicant feels that this is a more appropriate issue to address during the detailed site plan review process, and shares in the overall concern for providing an effective landscaped corridor inhere plants thrive with or without irrigation. The approved irrigation and landscaping plans shall be installed prior to finial plat of the respective phase where the buffer is located. Round river rock 1"-3" in diameter is not an appropriate landscape material. Applicant's Comment: The applicant requests the ability to bond for the unfinished improvements of this portion of the project prior to final plat. Staff Comment: The purpose for recommending a landscaping and irrigation plan was to provide a well manicured landscaped buffer along the major roadways of Whitefish Stage and Highway 93. Pages 22 through 24 of the staff report provides further detail of the type of landscaping city staff is recommending in these areas. While some areas of the perimeter buffer may not warrant irrigated landscaping, such as the area around the Stillwater River, other areas around the residential portion may. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the planning board consider the following amendment to condition 11: 11. The landscaping and irrigation plans for the buffer areas along Highway 93 North and Whitefish stage Read, . shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation. Department. Landscaping within the perimeter buffer areas of the project site may require irrigation where appropriate as determined by the developer and the Parrs and Recreation Department. The buffer areas shall be developed as follows: A. Highway 93 North buffer shall include an irrigated landscaping corridor with undulating topography and have a mix of tree plantings with a ground cover predominately of lawn. B. Whitefish Stage Road shall include an irrigated landscaping corridor with undulating topography with landscaped beams a minimum of S feet in height from grade and have a mix of tree plantings with a ground cover predominately of lawn. C. The perimeter buffer shall include a landscaped corridor with a minimum width of 20 feet and have a mix of tree plantings with a ground cover pr� � +©� c, f J = TTT1^7 Buildings shall be located a minimum of 20 feet from the edge of the bike / pedestrian trail. The approved irrigation and landscaping plans shall be installed prior to final plat of the respective phase where the buffer is located.. Round river rock 1"-3" 11 in diameter is not an appropriate landscape material. Note: Due to seasonal changes bonding is permitted for the approved landscaping/ irrigation plans. Comment 5 Regarding Roundabouts: 12. The following road intersections shall include engineered roundabouts as part of phase 1: Glacier Drive and Glacier Loop * Many Glacier Drive and the roadway serving phase 3. • Two roundabouts along Rose Crossing at intersections to be determined by the traffic impact study with input from the Public Works Department. Alicant's Comment: ...._ Each of the proposed roundabout locations have been so indicated on the attached exhibit illustrating the overall traffic patterns within the subject property. The proposed roundabouts are at the following locations: • Glacier Drive and Glacier Loop has been relocated to the intersection of Sweet Meadow Lane and Many Glacier Road • For a point of clarification, use understand the recommended Many Glacier Drive roundabout to be intended for the intersection of .luny Glacier Road and the roadway serving phase 3. ■ Two roundabouts have been identified on Rose Crossing as conceptual locations, in recognition of the condition. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not recommend any changes to this condition. The applicants do propose 4 potential roundabout sites on the attached revised site plan. Comment 7 Re ardin Si na e: 14. The signs within the Glacier Town Center shall adhere to the sign plans proposed in the application and referenced in condition 3. K subject to the following conditions: A. The freestanding sign designated 1.1 of Exhibit H of the application shall be located east of the 100 foot buffer area along Highway 93 North. The use of message boards shall be prohibited. A licant's Comment: The freestanding sign designated I. I of Exhibit H will not have a message board. However, the signs should be viewed as GATEWAY ELEMENT'S, designed to complement and be an integral element associated with the Lifestyle Venter of Glacier Town Center. Materials, colors, lighting and graphics will work together and be constructed to the highest standards. In order to reflect the proposed access changes recommended for the project, the applicant is requesting two of these gateway elements, one each to be located at the .Primary Entrance Drives at the North and South Primary Entrances into the project. The intention is that they be placed on the median, a short distance from the intersection with Highway 93, at both of the signalized entrances to Glacier Town. Venter. B. The two monument signs designated 2.1 of Exhibit H of the application shall be located along the eastern edge of the 100 foot buffer area along Highway 93 North. Applicant's Comment: The applicant requests that one monument sign designated as 2.1 of Exhibit H be in a like manner viewed as a GATEWAY ELEMENT rather than a sign. The design, materials, colors, lighting and graphics, which are integral components of the monument entrance element, will reflect the architecture of the Lifestyle Center. The intention is that there will be a single gateway element of this design along the west, at the secondary entrance off Highway 93. Again, this is a change resulting from the proposed re -orientation of the access points off Highway 93. Each of the changes in response to condition M.A. and 14.B. is requested in order to direct traffic to the primary entrances at the northern and southern access locations off of Highway 93. ........................................................... . ...................................................................................................................................... ....... ... ..................................................................................................................... . ....................................................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................... ....................... ................. . ............ ........................ .......................... .......... ........................ .................... .......................... ................ ........ oM � � ���� � lbeo+� t d l�o�gnda ii. wall sign area for the west, south and north facing walls of the building shall be limited to a total of 50% of the total sign area allowed for the tat. Ap lieant's Comment: The applicant agrees to condition RE Staff Comment: The proposed signs for the project site are discussed in the staff report on pages 27 through 29. The purpose for limiting the signage along Highway 93 is to maintain the visual integrity along this portion of the highway and to meet the intent of policy 3.f of goal 1 of the Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment. This policy states, "Additional design standards should be developed to insure 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 signage is proposed, it should be done so as part of a unified planned unit development concept." The planning board should note that four other PUD projects built along Highway 93 North to the south of this project site have also had their signage limited. In some cases it was limited much more than that proposed for the Glacier Town Center. Buffalo commons, located in the area of Kalispell Regional Hospital, has the following sign restrictions for the commercial/ retail/ office lots along Highway 93: • For lots Zoo feet in width or more one freestanding monument sign 24 square feet per face with a maximum height of 6 feet and oriented towards the interior of the project site. ■ wall or marquee signs shall be single faced and not exceed 24 square feet per sign and oriented towards the interior of the project site. Mountain View Plaza, located on the east side of Highway 93, has major tenants such as Home Depot, Target, Best Buy and Bed, Bath and Beyond. The sign limitations for the center are as follows: • wall signs are calculated at 1.5 square feet for each frontage foot of the longest side of the building. This sign area is the total amount of signage for the entire building. Note: The Kalispell Zoning ordinance provides for 3 square feet per lineal foot of building frontage when the building frontage is less than 200 feet. If over 200 feet the sign area is calculated at 3 square feet up to Zoo feet plus one square foot for each additional lineal foot of frontage beyond 200 feet. Two monument signs are permitted. The monument signs have a maximum height of 5 feet and have a maximum sign area of 90 square feet and 60 square feet per side. Two entrance signs are permitted. The entrance sign along Highway 93 has a maximum height of 22 feet and a sign area not to exceed 158 square feet per side. The second sign along West Reserve Drive has a maximum height of 18 feet and a sign area not to exceed 117 square feet per side. The two entrance signs were required to meet setbacks from the right-of-way line per the Zoning ordinance. S-Pring Prairie Center, across from Mountain View Plaza, has major tenants such as Loge's and Costco. The following sign restrictions were applied to this development: * Ground mounted signs have a maximum height of 24 feet and 120 square feet in total surface area. only three ground mounted signs are permitted, one for each of the three phases of the project, and the sign shall only advertise the primary tenant of the phase and the name of the development. Note: The only sign currently installed within Spring Prairie is a monument sign for Lowe's . This sign is 15 feet tall and has a sign area of 51 square feet. * All wall signs are required to conform to the Kalispell honing ordinance. Hutton Ranch is located on the east side of Highway 93 just south of Mountain View Plaza. Major tenants in Hutton Ranch currently include Sportsman Ski Haus and the Signature Theaters. The following sign restrictions were applied to this development: * Two freestanding signs displaying the name of the development as well as individual business within the development. ! No other detached freestanding signs were permitted along highway 93. ■ 4 monument signs are permitted within the interior of the project. Note: The monument signs are intended to be common signs for the anchor and major tenants within the Hutton Ranch development. The maximum height of the monument sign is 6 1/2 feet with a total sign area for the businesses of 16 square feet. i All wall signs were required to meet the Kalispell Zoning ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends amending condition 14 .A and 14.B to allow the two freestanding signs, one at Rose Crossing the other at the access road just north of the cemetery and one monument sign at the center access. The location restrictions of the signs should be maintained as well as sections C and D of this condition. Comment 8 Regarding m Coletion of Public Infrastructure: 22. A minimum of two-thirds of the necessary public infrastructure for subdivisions on the Glacier Town Center site shall be completed prior to final plat submittal for each phase and that both the water and sewer systems serving the individual phase be operational. Apoficant's Comment: .It is the applicant's intent that all improvements shag be constructed according to state and local subdivision standards regarding construction of public improvements and financial guarantees of improvements. A subdivision improvements agreement will be negotiated prior to final plat approval, and will address the portion of improvements to be constructed prior to final plat. The following information provides additional clarification for why the applicant believes this requirement is unusual and the difficulties that it presents, as well as providing proposed solutions to this issue. The following describes the anticipated normal progress of construction planned for the Glacier Town. Center. In connection with Lifestyle Center projects comparable to the contemplated project, the developer commences construction of the site work on the project with a goal of completing the site work and then transferring the separately platted tracts of land to the Anchor stores as well as outparcel owners so that the new owners can begin construction of their building as soon as ,possible. In order far all portions of all of the parties' construction to be completed within the shortest length of time, the highest priority is to grade the site to be in a position to deliver the land to each of the Anchor Stores in order to commence their construction. The customary and required process is to plat the applicable phase of the Venter in one plat. In that prat, the Anchor Store tracts will be established, and the outparcel tracts would also be established. The plat has to be completed prior to the conveyance of the applicable tract to the Anchor stores. Simultaneously with the grading, the infrastructure work is started by the developer and is in progress. All of the infrastructure work is not finally completed until the latter portion of the construction project. This is done to avoid "stacking" of construction periods. For example, if all of the infrastructure were required to be completed before an Anchor Store were conveyed their platted tract and began construction, this "stacking" of construction ,periods would result in the overall construction period being so long that the project would not be feasible or within commercially acceptable completion periods. As the result of these requirements the developer will pursue the grading of f ` the site and deliver Anchor store tracts as quickly as possible upon completion of the grading of the site and thus very little of the infrastructure work would be completed at the time of the delivery of the first Anchor Store tract. Again, the priority is to grade the sites, deliver the pads and have all of the construction occur simultaneously such that there is no stacking of the construction periods. Unlike a residential construction, the transferees of the Anchor Store lots and outparcels lots are sophisticated parties who require the developer to complete, before the opening of the Center, any infrastructure which is incomplete at the time of the delivery of the parcel. The applicant proposes that all of the subcontractors in excess of $100, 000 performing infrastructure work on the site will be bonded. The city would be named as a dual obligee on such bonds. In addition, financing will be in place to complete all of the infrastructure improvements prior to the request for the platting of the property. Thus, the developer would and could provide evidence offinancing xn.ancing to the city in addition to the bonds in order to establish that the construction contracts are in place and the financing for construction of the infrastructure is in place and the infrastructure work will be completed. such evidence would be in the form of a letter from the bank indicating that a loan is in place containing usual and customary terms and conditions for projects comparable to this project. This should provide the city with satisfactory evidence that bonding is in place and that the work will be done and that wank financing is available in order to complete the work. Therefore, the applicant requests that this condition be removed. Staff Comment: The purpose of this condition is to insure that the minimum amount of public infrastructure (water lines, sewer lines and adequate road access to the lots) is installed prior to final plat. The main reason for this condition is to protect primarily residential lots whose future owners may want to construct soon after purchasing the lot. The developer has stated that due to agreements made between Wolford Development and future lot owners within the commercial portion of the project; this is already covered between the two private parties. Staff Recommendation* Staff recommends the planning board consider amending the condition as follows: 2. A minimum of two-thirds of the necessary public infrastructure for residential subdivisions on the Glacier Town Center site shall be completed prior to final plat submittal for each residential phase and that both the water and sewer systems serving the residential phase be operational. ............................................................ .... . ....................................................................................... ................ ............................................................................................................. 'gar -., ... . . eodh �tl.l heed ya eeiv d atsrvi e frd�o 2 Comment 10 Regarding -Highway Access: At the planning board's November 27th meeting the board was provided a letter from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDOT) regarding the Departments thoughts on access onto Highway 93. The next day MDOT sent another letter, dated November 28th , to CTA clarifying their previous letter which the planning board received. In the November 23thletter MDOT states that they have reviewed and approved the conceptual design presented to them on November 26th. This conceptual design includes two signal intersections on the north and south ends of the project site along Highway 93. The conceptual design also includes a 3/4 turn movement intersection for the main access into the lifestyle center. At the planning board's November 27th hearing several planning board members cited the growth policy and its intent to limit or outright prohibit the number of signal intersections north of West Reserve Drive. Based on the discussion at the planning board hearing the developer has opted to revise the proposed PUD site plan slightly to illustrate what the conceptual access plan onto Highway 93 would look like. Attached is a revised site plan showing the two primary entrance points into the project site from Highway 93 with the secondary entrance utilizing a 3/4 turn movement intersection. The following was included in CTA's December 4th letter: Transiportati*on and Access onto US 33: In addition to the above referenced comments to the planning staffs proposed conditions, the planning board in the public hearing on November 27th, 2007, requested additional clarification with regards to access issues onto Us 93. Attached is a letter from Krager and Associates regarding transportation issues. Additionally, two exhibits are included which provide an illustration of the location of access points "Highway 93 Intersections Traffic circles", and the overall transportation circulation proposed for the project "conceptual Traffic Diagram". The following is a summary of the proposed access onto Us 93 and is illustrated by the attached exhibit "Hwy 93 Intersections Traffic circles": ■ The applicant requests two primary access points, one at Rose Crossing, and one at the southern Access Point. o These proposed entrances would serve as primary entrances into the Lifestyle center. ■ The applicant requests a secondary entrance as indicated on the attached site plan. o In recognition of the secondary nature of this access} the applicant wM reduce this road cross-section at the secondary access point from a four -lane to a two-lane facility. An overall transportation exhibit illustrating the planning department's recommended conditions for connectivity in relation to the projects proposed traffic circulation plan and access issues is also included as attached. Staff Comment: In reviewing and deliberating the proposed Glacier Town center project the planning board should consider the following with respect to the growth policy and access onto Highway 93: ■ The Kalispell Growth Policy is an official public document adopted by the City of Kalispell as a guide future growth in the city. The growth policy is not a law or regulation, but rather the adopted policy when making land use decisions for the community. • When considering zoning, subdivisions and other development issues, the growth policy should be consulted and the development should be in substantial compliance with the goals and policies. The plan is intended to reflect the economic, social, and environmental policy of the city of Kalispell, and is fundamentally, a guide to the physical development of the community. ■ Policy 3 under Goal 1 of the Highway 93 North Growth Policy amendment states the following. 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 -in 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. Haw the road access points are controlled onto Highway 93 will ultimately be up to the MDOT. However, the number of access points onto Highway 93 is based on internal design and the land uses within the Glacier Town Center. The planning board should consider how policy 3 above should be interpreted in making their recommendation to the city council. The city is proposing to pursue an access control study with MDOT along the North 93 corridor to determine appropriate locations for future access points, frontage roads, potential junior interchanges, etc. Such a study and funding would take a minimum of 2 years. ...................... ��"044 .................. ........................................................... .................... ................... ....................dtns................... . ..... ............ . ........................ . ................... .................................... .raper and Associates, Inc. n street, Suite 210 Den Y � [ 03-3154 303-4464 fax 303446-0270 kkraner0kraaen Is c es. tsr t Kathleen Krager is a licensed professional engineer in the states of Montana, Colorado, and Washington. She is also a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (PTOE), which is an international certification for engineers that specialize in Transportation and Traffic. She has been working exclusively in this field for over thirty years and has been president of Krager and Associates since 1985. Ms. Krager has a Bachelors of Science Degree in civil Engineering from Iowa State University and has completed advanced course work at Northwestern Traffic Institute, University of Wisconsin, and the University of Colorado. She is a past president of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Colorado/Wyoming chapter and is a recipient of the chapter ITE Professional of the Year Award and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Outstanding Service Award. Ms. Krager is well-known for her work in access management and related intersection design. In 1981 she directed a research project for the US congress entitled "Access control Demonstration Project". Many of today's common access management strategies were developed in this project, including the 3/4 design intersection. After many years of preparing specific access control plans for both rural and urban roadways: Ms. Krager co-authored the Colorado State Highway Access code, 1998. With her work in access management, Ms. Krager has worked on numerous conceptuallpreliminary designs for intersections and interchanges. In 1987 Ms. Krager provided the access control plan and conceptual interchange designs for US 285 from Denver to conifer. The initial designs included the construction of three interchanges, which were named junior interchanges, since they did not meet interstate standards. Those interchanges proved successful, so CDOT has added five more junior interchanges along that section of highway. Ms. Krager has also provided conceptual design and analysis for interstate interchanges to increase their capacity, including 1-2251Parker Road and 1-25/58th Avenue in Denver. Ms. Krager's private sector work has included analysis of retail, office, and residential developments of all sizes. Her recent large-scale, mixed -use projects include Centerra (680 acres of mined -use, including a life-style center), Interquest North and South (a combined retail/office park development with 2,172,00 square feet of floor area), and candelas (a residential/retail development of 500 acres). Cathleen Krager Experience Page Z Her national clients include Horne Depot, Walgreens, Wal-Mart, Safeway, Shop-Ko, Circuit City, Target, McDonalds, Taco Bell, and Starbucks. Ms. Krager has provided Traffic Impact Studies in nine states. In Montana, she has ►worked in Billings, Bozeman, Butte, Missoula, Great Falls, and Kalispell. In addition, Ms. Krager has testified as an expert in Traffic Engineering in Montana district Court.