01/07/08 Planning Staff MemorandumCity of Kalispell
Planning Department
17 -- 2°d Street East, Suite 211, K..alispell, Montana 59901
Telephone: (406) 751-1850
Fax. (406) 751-1858
Wehsite. kalispellplannirag. corm
REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and city Council
FROX* Sean Conrad, Senior Planner
Jaynes H. Patrick, City Manager
SUBJECT, wolford Development Montana, LLG-Annexation and Initial
Zoning of R-3 (Urban Single Family Residential) , R--4 (Two Family
Residential), B--1(Neighborhood Buffer District) , and B-3 (Community
Business) , Planned Unit Development and Prelim inary Plat
approval for the first phase of the Glacier Town Center project
hMETING DATE: January 7, 2008
BACKGROUND: The Kalispell City Planning Board met on November 27, 2007 and
held a public hearing to consider a request for annexation of a 485.5 acre project site
into the city of Kalispell with four zoning districts placed on the project site; B- 3 , B -1,
R-4, and R--3. Accompanying the annexation and initial zoning application is a
request for two planned unit development (PUD) overlay zoning districts. A
commercial PUD with the underlying zoning district of B-3 and a mixed
residential/ commercial PUD with the underlying zoning districts of B-1, R-4 , and R.- 3 .
The conceptual site plan with the PUD, known as Glacier Town center, provides the
general land uses throughout the 485.5 acre project site. These include 282 single
family residences, 150 townh.omes and 200 apartment or condominium units. The
commercial aspect of the project includes a lifestyle center and a separate power
center along with a number of commercial and office out parcels totaling
approximately 1.8 million square feet of commercial and office space.
In addition to the PUD request the developer requested preliminary plat approval for
the first phase of a five phase project. This first phase is located on the west side of
the 485.5 acre project site along Highway 93 North. The first phase consists of 191.E
acres divided into 37 lots, 36 of which are commercial lots and one lot for a future
community center. The lot sizes range from 1 acre to 39 acres. The first phase also
includes 5.6 acres of open space along Highway 93 North and a 17.6 acre park.
The 485.5 acre project site is located above west Reserve Drive and spans the distance
between Highway 93 North and. Whitefish Stage Road. The project site is generally
bounded by Glacier Memorial Gardens Cemetery, the Stillwater River, west Reserve
Drive and Semitool along its southern boundary, Highway 93 North along it's western
boundary, Whitefish Stage Road along it's eastern boundary and a combination of
state owned land and lands within the city and county along it's northern boundary.
The 435.5 acre project site includes assessor's tracts 2C, 2D, 6A, 1, 3, 4, 1B, 1C, 1CA,
1 E, 1 F, 1 G, 2C, 2CA and is located within portions of Sections 19 and 30 of Township
29 North, Range 21 west, Principle Meridian, Flathead County, Montana.
Sean Conrad of the Kalispell Planning Department presented staff reports #KA-07-17,
KPUD-07-6, and KPP-07-12 evaluating the proposed project. Staff recommended the
planning board recommend approving the requested initial zonings of R-3, R-4, B-1,
B--3, the Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat subject to the conditions
listed in the staff report.
The developer and his consultant team spoke in favor of the proposed project however
provided the planning staff and planning board with a letter outlining 9 conditions the
developer had concerns with.
In addition to the developer, 15 other people spoke in favor of the proposed project.
Those speaking in favor felt that the commercial aspect of the project would be a good
thing for Kalispell as well as the amount of infrastructure improvements which would
coincide with the development. Chief among these was the Rose Crossing connection
to Highway 93 which some felt was important.
One person spoke in opposition to the proposed project. Her concerns included, in
part, the short review period for the staff report, transportation impacts, the amount of
commercial in the project not being consistent with the growth policy, and the need to
address affordable housing.
The planning department also received 3 letters for and 8 letters against the proposed
project for the November 27th meeting. The letters against the project included
needing additional time for public review, traffic impacts, cost to taxpayers to cover
increases in the sewer plant to serve such a project and limiting general commercial in
this area in accordance with the growth policy.
After the public hearing the board discussed the project proposal and unanimously
recommended the city council approve the requested initial zonings of R-3, R--4, B-1,
and B-3 for the 455.5 acre project site.
Due to the Jute hour, the planning board tabled discussion on the remaining portions
of the project, the PUD and preliminary plat of phase 1, until the December 11 th
planning board meeting.
On November 29, 2007 staff had a phone conference with the developer and CTA to
discuss the issues brought up in the November 27 letter. After this meeting CTA
provided staff with a revised list of concerns. This revised letter was dated December
4th and is the letter staff addressed in its memo to the planning board dated December
bth.
At the December 11th meeting several people spoke both for and against the project
during the "hear the public" portion of the meeting. Staff provided a brief synopsis of
the November 27th meeting and informed the planning board that the planning
department had received 60 letters and emails since the Novcmbcr 27th meeting. The
majority of the letters had concerns with the project which included prohibiting more
stoplights between Kalispell and whitefish, ensuring new development moves forward
concurrently with needed transportation infrastructure, and identifying transportation
solutions before development applications are considered for subdivision review. The
planning board took time during the meeting to review the 60 letters.
After reviewing the letters, planning staff discussed each of the ten issues included in
the December 6th memo to the board. The board agreed with all of staff's
recommendations contained in the memo. However, upon discussing the last issue in
the memo, issue 10 regarding highway access, the board discussed this for some time.
The planning board acknowledged, that MDT had ultimate responsibility to review the
traffic study provided by the developer and based on that study to approve the access
points and intersection designs on Highway 93. However, the board had concerns
with the assumptions of the study itself. Furthermore several board members had a
concern that the project failed to provide a design which limited the number of access
points onto Highway 93, thereby limiting or doing away with the need for additional
traffic lights to serve the project.
Several planning board members cited Policy 3 under Goal 1 of the Highway 93 North
Growth Policy amendment which includes the following policy statements:
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.
However, other planning board members felt that with the increase m allowable
commercial land uses in this area the above mentioned policy may no longer be
relevant. Two alternative motions were voted on regarding the proposed access onto
Highway 93.
The first motion moved to include a recommendation to allow for two signalized
intersections on Highway 93, one at Rose Crossing, the other at access B, shown as
Sweet Meadow Lane on the preliminary plat and located immediately north of the
cemetery property. The basis of this motion, was a revised site plan provided to the
planning board which depicted what the project would look like with two signnalized
intersections, one on the north end the other at the south end, serving the project site.
The two signalized intersection locations were based on a letter from MDOT which
stated that the Department conceptually approved of two signalized intersections.
This motion failed on a vote of 3 to 3.
The second motion moved to restrict access B to aright-in/right-out access only. The
planning board members who voted in favor of this motion felt this would provide for
access points along Highway 93 more in line with the access policies cited above. This
motion failed on a vote of 3 to 3.
During general beard discussion on the PUD a motion was moved and seconded to
define the urban mixed use portion of the project site as follows: Of the 25% called for
to be urban mixed use retail uses could not exceed 1/4 of this area and office uses
could not exceed 1/4 of this area. The remaining area under the mixed use designation
shall be residential with 1/4 to be made up of medium density residential and the other
1/4 to be made up of high density residential. The purpose of this motion was to
further define policy 7.f of chapter 4 of the Kalispell Growth Policy which. states, "Allow
a compatible mix of higher -intensity uses including office as well as some commercial
and light industrial; medium and high density residential and public facilities." This
motion failed on a vote of 3 to 3.
The planning board ultimately recommended approval of the PUD on a vote of 4 to 2
subject to the original conditions listed in the staff report as amended by the
December 6th memo to the planning board. (Note: This motion provided for stop lights
at Dose Crossing and access "B", by the cemetery, and a "right-in/right-out only" at
the main entrance, access "A") .
The planning board then discussed the preliminary plat. A motion was made to
approve the preliminary plat with the staff recommended conditions with an additional
condition requiring the lots to waive their right to protest a future SID. This motion
was approved on a 4 to 2 vote. The original staff report sent to the planning board for
the November 27th meeting has been revised to reflect the planning board's
recommendation to the council.
Since the December 11 th planning board meeting the planning department has
received over 30 letters with concerns about the Glacier Town center project. These
letters as well as letters submitted for the November 27th and December 1 1thplanning
board meetings are attached.
REC0hBMNDAT10N*. Hold a public hearing on the Glacier 'Town Center project.
ALTERNATPTES: As suggested by the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
Sean Conrad 1 ames H. Patrick
Senior Planner city Manager
Report compiled December 28, 2007
Attachments: Amended report # KA-07-17, KPUD-07-6 and RPP- 07-12,
Public comment letters and application materials
Minutes 11 / 27 f 07 and 12 f 11 / 07 planning board meetings
c: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk