07/17/06 City Council MinutesA REGULAR. M ...� TING of THE KA ISPE CITY COUNCIL WAS HELD A.7:00
R.M., MONDA , JULY 17, oo , IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL N
KALISPELL, MONTA A. MAYOR PAME A . . KENNEDY PRESIDED. COUNCIL
MEMBERS JIM ATKINSON, KARI GA RIE , BOB HERON, Boni HAFFERMAN,
RANDY KENY N T M KLUESNER DUANE 1ARSON, AND HANK O SON WERE
PRESENT.
Also present: City Manager James Patrick, City Attorney Charles Har al , City Clerk Theresa White,
Police Chief Frank Garner, Fire operations Chief Dan Diehl, Assistant Chief of Prevention Brent
Christopherson, Finance Director Amy Robertson, Public Works Director Jim Hans , Planning
Director Tom Jeritz, Senior Planner Sean Conrad', Planner 11 P.J. Sorenson, Community
Development Director Susan Moyer, Parks and Recreation Director Mile Baker, Airport Manager
er
Fred Leisti .o, and Recording Secretary Judi Funk.
Mayor Kennedy called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
A. AGENDA APPROVAL
Kenyon moved approval of the Agenda. The motton was seconded.
There was no discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon vote.
B. CONSENT AGENDA A RO VA
I. Council Minutes — Re alas Meet — Jul 2006
2. Award Bid T Gatewa West Mall Pr.i Ut Pro'ct
Gloved to .main agenda. as Iter G/ 7.
3. Ordinance 1 -- Initial Zonis — Rie e and Webster — 2nd Readigg
The ie *s and Webster have requested a zoning designation nation of City --2, Single Family
Residential, on approximately 13 acres located at 386 and 394 Three Mile Drive. or ina ce
1578 passed on first reading July 3.
Atkinson moved approval of the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded.
Kles ec moved to remove item , the Gateway West parking lot bid award, and place it o
the main Agenda as Item G/ . The motion was seconded.
The motion carried unanimously upon vote*
The main motion, as amended, carried unanimously upon roll call vote.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
July 17, o
Page
C. STUDENT ISSUES
Note.
D. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
E. PUBLIC HEARING — 2006 2007 FISCAL BUDGET
Patrick gave a staff report.
Mayor'Kennedy opened the public hearing.
No one wished to speak..
Mayor Kennedy closed the public hearing.
[.All written correspondence received prior to the public hearing is attached and by this reference is
made a part of the official record]
F. PUBLIC HEARING - GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT'' — HIGHWAY 93 NORTH
The City is considering amending the growth policy by expa dig the boundaries of the policy
northward using the Stillwater River as the western boundary, Church and Birch Grove Drives as the
northern boundary, USal e to Rose Crossing over to the Flathead River as the eastern boundary, and
Reserve .give as the southern boundary.
etz gave a staff report.
Mayor Kennedy opened the public hearing.
Joe �te-re..er, 3 5t Avenue East, Chamber f Commerce President, spoke in favor of the
growth policy amendment and praised the commercial planning in particular. He specifically
co .r ented that the 2 % general commercial portion seems overly restrictive and inflexible , and that
the limitations and buffers along highway systems also seem overly restrictive.
John Sonju, 111.5 1st Avenue West, stated be concurs with U terrei e 's comments, adding his
business property is approximately one mile north of the Stillwater River and a 100- 50 foot buffer
would almost cut the property in half. He reminded the Council that the buffer along the Lowe" and
Costco property is 40 feet. Sonja concluded that he is happy the City is taking a proactive approach
to planning north f town.
Mayre Flowers, 2770 Upper Lost Creed. Road, Whitefish., distributed detailed comments from
Citizens for a Better Flathead and asked the Council to continue the public bearing in order to give
the public more time to review the proposal. She said without a staff report and detailed findings of
fact, the public is handicapped on knowing what the impact will be.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
July 17, 2006
Page 21
Howard Mann, 3154 Parkway "ne, thanked the City Manager and the planning departmentfor their
foresight and wisdom to brim; this growth policy amendment before the City Council and the public.
He said with this amendment the City can protect the main corridors into the City.
Sharon DeMeester, 415 Chestnut Drive, spoke in favor of limiting the commercial development,
stating we don't want developer -driven planning. She stated she would like to hear more input from
the outlying areas, not just the City, and she feels more discussion is warranted regarding the
"limited commercial"' areas.
Mary Gibson, 2 .13 Mission Frail Road, stated she would like Council to consider the downtown" s
commercial development and the traffic problems at Whitefish Stage and Reserve. She asked
Council to limit access to the commercial development to Highway 93 as much as possible.
Mike e Hodges, 610 St. Andrews Drive, Columbia Falls, commented that it appears there has been
enough discussion and the time is here now to move forward.
]avid Mitchell, 249 Sherry Lane, said he feels the amendment is a well thought out plan and gives
s something g to shoot for in the future. He said that Section 36 and Hutton Ranch Plaza were well
planned and thought out, however, the area south of town was unplanned and is not an appealing
entrance. Mitchell said he believes in downtown revitalization, but the City needs to plan for growth
to happen everywhere.
Diane Yarns, 425 .ponderosa Lane, expressed concern that the plan is premature. She said
commercial ix ill is not yet complete within the City and we should not annex anything else north of
town until that is done. She said she is also concerned about traffic and we need a traffic plan for the
area.
Joanne Kiernan, 735 4th Avenue East, suggested that a thoughtful approach is important in this
situation and she would like to see planning that includes the entire City, because sheets and
sidewalks are deteriorating. She said she would like Council to consider all the options before
making a decision.
John Parsons, 725 9tb .avenue Vest, spore in favor of the amendment, but said the plan does not go
far enough. He said it will inevitably promote leapfrog development because of the retatively low
density .plan proposed. Parsons said without enough commercial property, development will still
occur in the County and he asked the Council to increase the intensity of uses.
Bob Parker, 6495 Farm to Market Road, Whitefish, part over of Majestic valley Arena, stated he is
in favor of the plan, but feels the 150 foot buffer is a little excessive.
.mayor Kennedy closed the public hearing.
[All written correspondence received prior to and during the public hearing is attached and by this
reference is made a part of the official record]
G. REPO RTS/RECOMMENDAT DNS AND SUBSEQUENT COUNCIL ACTION
Kalispell City Council Minutes
.duly . ', 2006
.gage 3
G . COUNCIL DISCUSSION — GROWTH POLICY AMENDMENT — HIGHWAY 93
NORM No ACTol
Jentz responded to one of the comments, stating that `'limited commercial" on the map was
essentially a housekeeping issue. He said the "limited mixed use" is the same designation that was
used for Hutton Ranch Plaza and that "'mixed use" means residential, office, and commercial. Je t
said the planning staff looked at this as a clarification.
Atkinson asked Jentz about the 150 foot buffer, as opposed to the normal 40 feet.
Jentz said the plan is based on traffic speeds and the Joo-J o feet is for the high speed areas of
Highway 93. He said the Planning Board feels that keeping traffic moving is very important and this
buffer would move development away from the highway and provide an area for frontage roads,
pedestrian paths, landscaping, etc.
Kluesner asked if roads like whitefish Stage and Reserve will be upgraded.
Jentz said we know that whitefish Stage is a Major corridor and the Mate does have fnrdin
mechanisms in place to help upgrade the secondary roads, but he won't hold his breath until it's
done. He said he feels the development community will he required to upgrade the roads a
development occurs. Jentz added that the City is also in the process of looking at impact fees and
loads are the next major issue we need to tackle.
Kenyon asked about the possibility of using Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) and asked if
they shouldn't be included in the growth policy.
Jentz stated he would support TRs, but it will require coordination with the county and they are
years away from getting the program going. He explained it is a "banking mechanism"' to buy
development rights from a rural area to increase the density in an urban area; the rural area is then
left open space. He stated it could be a great program, but we should have a policy with the
commissioners.
Herron asked Je tz to clarify the definition of `linear strip"' developments, adding he assumes that
Spring prairie, Lo es, and Mountain view are not "linear strip"" developments.
Jentz stated "strip development" is commercial dev lopme t along a Major highway that is one lot
deep, each lot with a separate driveway. He said there is no coordinated traffic plan, and no ability to
develop the land behind the lots. He said the Spring Prairie development is not considered a "Im ar
strip"' development because it has a coordinated traffic and pedestrian system.
Atkinson asked . entz to comment on the statement. by John Parsons that this plan doesn't go far
enou,gh and will promote leapfrog development.
Jentz said one way to address that concern is to allow additional development over the stated
percentages by PUD. He stated he does feel that within three years the commercial allotment in that
area will be full. Jentz said the reality is that businesses are coming and it's up to the Council
whether they are a part of the community.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
July 1, 2006
Page
Hafferman stated he has a problem with the 150 .foot setback and feels it needs more thought.
jentz exPlained it's meant to provide for frontage roads, for pedestrian areas, landscaping, and
parking, but the Council can change that if it chooses.
Herron commented we can finally plan correctly on large parcels and he will be offering language
allowing for . U. is. Fle said Ave can't wait any longer to plan for groiN4b.
Gabriel commented that she worked in Whitefish for three years, traveling back and forth. from
Kalispell, and that road is dangerous. She said a lesser setback would be dangerous.
Mayor Kennedy asked that this be placed on a work session agenda for July 24 for further discussion.
G 2. ORDINANCE 1 — ADDITIONAL STREET ASSESSMENT RATE CATEGORY
1STIST READING
Ordinance 1 creates a fifth rate category in the street assessment gate schedule .le to corer tax
exempt properties. ordinance 1579 was tabled at the July 3 meeting.
Larson moved to remove Ordinance 1579 from the table. The motion was seconded.
The motion to remove carried unanimously upon vote.
Larson moved to table Ordinance 1579 until August 7. The motion was seconded,
The motion to table carried upon vote with H f` er an, Kenyon, Klues er, Larson, Olson, and
Mayor Kennedy voting in favor and Atkinson, Gabriel, and Herron voting against.
G 3. ORDINANCE 1580 — ADDITIONAL STORM DRAJNAGE ASSESSMENT RATE
CATEGORY — 1ST READING
Ordinance 1580 creates a fifth rate category in the storm drainage assessment rate schedule to cover
tax exempt properties. ordinance 1580 was tabled at the July 3 meeting.
Larson moved to remove [ordinance 1580 from the table* The motion was seconded.
The motion to remove carried unanimously upon vote.
Larson moved to table Ordinance 1580 until August # The motion was seconded..
The motion to table carried upon vote with Hafferman, Kenyon, Kluesuer, Larson, Olson, and
Mayor Kennedy voting in favor and Atkinson, Gabriel, and Herron voting; against.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
July 1, 2006
'age
G f ORDINANCE 1581 — DECALJUNK VEHICLE, AND WEEDS ABATEMENT
ORDINANCE — IST READING
Ordinance 1581 amends the City's current junk vehicle ordinance, the weed rays ordinance, and the
comoniy decay ordinance.
Atkinson moved first reading of Ordinance 1581, an ordinance amending portions of Caters
10, 11 and 1.9 of the Kalispell Municipal Code relating to the regulation otiunk vehicles,
combustible weeds and grasses and community decay and declaring an effective date* The
motion was seconded.
Jentz gave a staff report.
Kloesner and Mayor Kennedy expressed concern with the language changes in the Junk vehicle
section.
Sorensen said staff feels the new language is clearer and will allow better enforcement.
Olson and Kenyon remarked that the staff should be given the opportunity to vork with the
ordinance and if it doesn't work they will be back before the Council.
The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote.
G 5. ORDINANCE 1582 — AMENDING ORDINANCE 847 RESIDENCY
REQUIREMENTS — IST READING
Ordinance 1582 amends the residency requirements for City department leads and their assistants to
live within three miles or a 1 -minute response time from. the City limits.
Larson moved first reading of ordinance 1582, an ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 847 to
require all Department Heads and their assistants to reside within three miles or 15 minutes
es
response time to the City and declaring an effective date. The motion was seconded.
larall gave a staff report.
Olson noted that a letter from Clarice Gates suggested the Council review each case individually and
not change the overall policy. He said he feels that may be the right idea.
Mayor Kennedy said that was actually discussed at the last work session and can still be considered.
She said after looking over ordinance 847, v cl was adopted in 1975, she feels the entire ordma ce
needs to be revised. Mayor Kennedy suggested the issue be tabled until the entire ordinance can. be
reviewed.
Herron moved ordinance 1582 be tabled to August 21. The motion was seconded.
The motion to table carried upon vote with Atkinson., Gabriel, Hafferma , Herron, Kenyon,
Kl esner, Olson and Mayor Kennedy voting in favor, and Larson voting against.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
.duly 1'7, 2006
'age,
G 6. RESOLUTION 5128 — FEE SCHEDULE FOR COPIES of PUBLIC RECORDS
Resolution 5128 sets a standard fee for copies of public records for all City offices.
Larson moved Resolution 5128,resolution to establish a fee schedule for copies of public
records from City offices. The motion was seconded.
Patrick gave a staff report aind answered questions.
Hafferman stated he feels information should be given to the public as a free service and the fees are
too high.
Herron said he feels the fees are very adequate because the departments are willing to provide
documents free of charge electronically or through the web site.
Hafferman reiterated this is too expensive and it's our duty to provide information to the citizens of
Kalispell.
The motion carried upon roll call vote with Atkinson, Gabriel, Herron, Kenyon, Kles ear
Larson, Olson and Mayor Kennedy voting in favor, and Hffer.an voting against.
G . AWARD BID — GATEWAY WEST MALL PANG LOT PROJECT Moved from
Consent Agenda).
Three bids were received for the reconstruction of the C y's portion of the Gateway West parking
lot. JTL Group submitted a bid of $280,258.70, Settle Contracting bid $293331. ' , and Schell nger
Construction bid $433,510.30. Staff is recommending the bid be awarded to JTL Group.
Atkinson moved the Council award the bid for the Gateway West Mail Parking Lot Project to
TL Group for $280,258.70. The .emotion was seconded.
Haffennan said he drives by Gateway West Mall daily and there is " eauco p�' Parking. He asked
why we are doing this.
Patrick stated this is a contractual obligation that the Council agreed to with Te eteeh quite some
time ago. He said once TeIeTech reached a certain number of employees the City agreed to provide
additional parking because American Capital does not allow Telete h to have access to the unused
part of the parking lot.
Moyer explained the City and the :fort Authority will share the cost of the paving 50150.
Herron stated we agreed to do this a tong time ago so let's move ahead.
Hafferman said this is a `'total' waste of natural resources and we should have been able to utilize the
whole parking lot.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
July 17, 2006
Page
The motion carried upon vote with Atkinson, Gabriel, Herron, Kenyon, Kluesner, Larson',
Olson and Mayor Kennedy voting in favor, and Hafferman votingagainst.
H. r AYO COUNCI CITY MANAGER'S RIFoR S No Action
Patrick informed Council that the City has secured a Domestic Violence grant in the amount n of
$397,000.00, and Doug Overman a was recognized as Police Officer of the Year for the State of
Montana.
I# ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
ATTEST:
f
01/Theresa White
City Clergy.
Approved August 7, 200
Kalispell City Council Minutes
July 17, 2006
'age
Verse White
From: Clarice Gates [gardengate79@hotmall.com
Sent; Saturday, July 1 , oo 12:02 AM
To: eity la 9kalispel . ; twhite@kalispell.eom; it r anager@kalispe l.eom; pa @kowbey. e ;
r ertt@r o tana. om; bbarron@bh rro . om; ar on d@ t rytel.nt; j tk@ ontasky.nt:
ke ye o y erport.net; kari_ abriel-1 @bot naii. om; t k1 es er@ e t eyt 1. et;
maryo) o o0 @ ahoo. o ; cg@cyberiport.com
Subject: Public Hearing for Budget being held on July 17, 200
t am 0ariceGates and I live and own the place at 426 7th. Ave West, Kalispell. MT 59901. My phone
is: o6) 752-1199.
MY COMMENTS ON THE BUDGET HEARING BEING HELD ON JU � 2006 ARE. -
The plans to allow the Hockaday Museum on Art to expand by purchasing another building without
ways to repay the loans needed is not good business sense. Giving the flockaday Board the okay to d
what they want without making sure they have definite plans on repayment without putting the burden
on the people living in Kalispell is very important.
Wells Fargo Bank Building 1s another problem. According to your work shop agenda, Construction
Costs has increased by over 25 percent in the last year. 'Yon can have a very fancy building; with
windows in the basement or just tighten the oity's spending and leave the building the way it is. other
business have used modular room. dividers to separate diff r r't departments. I the basement full
sotrr lights could used, -t would also cheaper to heat the building without adding
more windows.
I heard that moving the Sewer and Water Department to the Wells Fargo Bank Building will cost this
Dept $1.0,000 each per year. Where will this extra money come frorn? W111 the rates need to be raised to
cover this amount?
In Zoo , all property will be reappraised and the new tax bills will be sent out in 2009.1 am sure that no
one else wants the added burden of more taxes or expenses created by the city. I know I don't,
Clarice Gates
. 200
Theresa White
From: Clarice Gates and n at Ca-)o aiI.c
Sent: Friday, duly 14, 2006 5:03 PM
* tw it @ afisp ll,eor # eityel r 9kalis ell♦e r i ity anag r@ al! .com; palms@kowboy. om;
ro rtt9monta a.c r ; h rr rig rron.co ; lar d@ rat ryt l.n t; i at @ tanasky.n t;
r ygiun.com; ah_ riel_ @ tr ai .c ; tw l s r@c r t ryt l.c m;
Subject: Public Hearing being held on July 17,2006 on the Highway 93 North Growth Policy
1. am Clarice Gates and a resident of Kali -spell at 426 7thAve west Kalispell, MT 59901. My phone
number is o 52-11 9.
MY COMMENTS ABOUT Highway 93 North Growth Policy:
.first, the facts are not in on whether Kalispell's sever plant will be allowed to dump p more effluent into
Ashley Creek to cover all the expansion of the sewer and water district. Kalispell is already commited
to helping Somers and their planned development and may reed to help Lakeside, too.
Also on the agenda of Kalispell sever and water Dept is adding more subdivisions in Evergreen as they
allow.
With this New North Growth :policy the Stillwater River will be the western boundary, Church and
Birch Drives as the northern boundary and so o . The current Growth boundary is one mile north of
Reserve Drive up to Rose Crossing.
Has the city council or the public seen any reports of the cost of providing sewer and grater so far out
from the city boundaries? Have the impact fees been set and how m ch can actually be charged towards
the cost of pumping stations, a new sewer plant to handle e f ent if it must be sent to a bigger water
source such as the Flathead River or the costs of pipe lines and pumping stations to to talk the eff ent
to a different river Instead of As ley Creek?
1 heard the comment at the Planning Board .meeting that the developers will be paying the cost of
extending the lines to their property, but what abort the costs I mentioned above. Who will pay for
theme.? What will be done about hauling the solid waste to a treatment plant to make compost, what will
be the extra cost there?
How much more water will be needed and ghat will the source and cost be
Maybe It is time that Flathead County coo research on a regional sewer plant.
If the properties listed in the Highway 93 North Growth Policy are annexed into Kalispell City limits,
the cost of providing; police, Fire protection and maintaining roads and streets in each subdivisions will
be very expensive. Studies show that the cost is more than the income from taxes,
Clarice Gates
12oo
Theresa White
From; Cechy McNeil [er cnef 9 na . rn
Seat; Sunday, ,,duly 16, 2006 9:17 AM
Too t hite(LDl alispell.00 n
Subject: Glacier Mall
I urge you NOT to accept the Kalispell Growth Policy Amendment, which would bypass voter opposition to the Glacier
Mall.
Do we really need MORE MALLS
The true value of Flathead County is its attractiveness. Yet we are depleting that capital fast. For example, the
commercial enclave at
Reserve and 93 is a nightmare. I knew a fair number of well-to-do
retirees who avoid going there, afraid of the inhumanity, the
vastness, the unregulated traffic, the general inconvenience of
that environment. Not one person lilies that areal
Building another mail will not help. We don't need it. We need to keep what is left of our open space. We need to think
of average citizens, not just the big guys, the developers.
Otherwise the Flathead will be a bell of screaming traffic with a vier of mountains blurred by pollution. Where is its value
then?
Steve Her aly, who was once chief county planner, wrote recently that the present status of Flathead County is as if we
had never had any planning at all.
It we spend down the value of this County, we will all lose out in the long run. Net everyone could or would pocket real
estate earnings and move to Sea Island, GA, or the Bahamas. It is time to put the braces on greedy humongo s
development in the Flathead. And what gees for the county goes for the city of K# as well.
From
Ceeily 1 . McNeil, eil, resident since 1990, Summer resident since 1959.
I agree with the work done by Citizens for Better Flathead
We don't have people for all the commercial development now everyone is looking
for workers to hire. Young people are still leaving for beer pay and benefits.
We need to stow down and make sure what has been constructed has been done
to standards and won't contribute to global warming.
omn es for Ke Uspe s G owth l"Ic H n g
. The City of Kalispell is proposing to add another super mega -mail of commercial development
surrounded by high density office and residential uses covering some 600 acres. This is the same
site as the formerly proposed Glacier Mail. If the county fails to prove its case regarding public comment
for the Glacier Mali County Growth Policy amendment, the approval of this mall wiff be null and void. If
the city approves this groom policy amendment, however, the Glacier Mall or any mix of big
box stores including a super Walmart could be built at this site despite the final outcome from
the court decision.
• ndrrtr of general commera and ffdvel r
Qlacler Mall KN- n the map) for five years. This action would encourage vital redevelopment in
the downtown and other existing commercial areas of Kalispell that are not yet built out. (The city
must, by law, consider the need to revise and amend its growth policy every five years*
• Establish baseline information to demonstrate the need for additional general commercial and office
space in the Kalispell planning area in keeping with Kalispell Growth Policy (KG , Goal 9, Page 15
which calls for this baseline information. The City of Kalispell should join a growing number of
communities around the country who are requiring economic impact reviews of the addition of new
acres of general commercial and other load uses.
• n the r d map and growth policytext amendment to dui Hate thg K-1 or Glacier Mail
a[ea to suburba It is premature to add
the proposed scale of general commercial and office development at the proposed Glacier Mail site
now.
• whitefish Stage and Reserve Drive are inadequate to handle this scale of development at this time.
Adequate infrastructure to ensure safe roads should be in place prior to increased development in
this area.
not delete the term .,limited"" s proposed in the definition of a "'mixed use"" land use
designation. This would allow any general commercial in mixed use areas.. including big box stores
that may not be appropriate in most mixed use areas throughout the planning area.
2. In a move towards excellence., the City& Kalispell is proposing to establishoverlay zone
along Hvwy 93 from Four Mile Drive north to Church Drive which will establish a 100450 foot
setback for all new development with landscaping, a pedestrian .frail or sidewalk, andfour-
sided
architecture. This overlay zone will also apply to US Hwy 2 from Reserve to Birch Grove. Similar
but smaller setbacks in an overlay zone are proposed for whitefish Stage R adw
• Support the creation of an overlay zone as proposed for the major highway corridors in Flathead
County*
Support the use of Planned Unit Development applications for properties that adjoin these corridors
to ensure development that enhances the character of the neighborhoods along this corridor and
the city,
3* With the exception of the 600 acre mega -mail,, office and high density residential dpmt
discussed in point #1 above,, the city map suggests that no other commercial will be permitted
along Hvvy 93 and Whitefish Stage except for what they are calling "'neighborhood commercial"
at the proposed intersections of Church and Hwy 93, Whitefish Shags and Tronstad Road, and
Whitefish Stage and Rose Crossing.
Support limiting the continued extension of general commercial development into neighborhoods north of
Kalispell ll and alone Hwy 93.
Call for phasing guidelines to ensure that neighborhood commercial areas only be built when there
is reasonable growth in residential uses to justify then, and that they be phased In development
from the city outward.
Comment specifically n if you think these proposed ,neighborhood commercial" areas are
appropriate for your neighborhood now or in the future, The Kalispell Growth Policy currently
defines "neighborhood commercial,"' as being generally lots 3-5 acres in size and spaced one-half to
one mile apart. (KGP page 6
4. Encourage "great neighborhoods"" a the city grog.. These areas north of Kalispell are currently
populated y low density residential development, The city should have policies as part of this
amendment to encourage the development of ""'great neighborhoods"" and to buffer existing
uses.
Indude a goal for this area that encourages the use of transfer of development rights (TDR) as a
planning tool to help retain river" corridor areas, create regional public parks and access to these
rivers.
Work with Flathead County to establish a joint plan for this area that includes a TDR program.
TDR program in c njounction with the county can also help preserve important farmland resources
that define the character of the Flathead Valley while helping the city better plan for growing areas
around the city.
Include a goal for the city to develop and adopt an ordinance that establishes guidelines for new
large-scale residential developments. Such ordinances are often called Master Plan Development
Proposals (MPDP) and can help ensure that large scale developments compliment existing uses and
the character of the area.
Please don't add to global warming rethink what we are: doing in the valley
Earmarks were given to all mail developers over the last four years Wolford probably riot
one Largest number of earmarks when to mail a l rs,That's why he wants a huge mail
to match the money he received from our government,
Sorry I canTtpresent t this evening Thanks for accepting my comments
Pauline Sjordal 234 Third Ave West Kalispell
Page 1of 3
Theresa White
From: Sally Janover [aduzi@earthlink.net
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2 :31 P
To: t hit kali pelf- o
Subject* Mega mall
Deer City of Kalispell,
RE: The proposed super mega -mail commercial development with high density office and
residential components over close to 600 acres in north Kalispell.
This could become a hack door for the Glacier Mall to enter, which I are against, just as I am to the
introduction of Super Stores in that area, like W lm rt. We don't need more shopping areas that
we have to drive distances to. Especially on iderin fuel prices and global warming.
Wait to see how the revitalization of downtown Kalispell is accomplished before even considering
such a huge development, If we want a city center, and a city with character, guild up the
downtown first as a place to go, like in Boulder Colorado, It will make Kalispell distinctive., and
destination point for unique shopping (versus the same as everywhere else) and a place for quality
wining, dining and entertainment,, versus fast food and love priced. unhealthy, monotonous fares
Deep north Kalispell around Reserve and Whitefish Stage Road easy to travel on, and low density.
The open space currently there may come in for much better use Inter on, once we see the benefits
of the new growth policy and the way in which all of Klipell is developing. A mega mall such as i
being discussed may turn out to he a future Might on the city, a huge expense, and a snarl that
doesn't suit our Montana lifestyle*. It might also make people think twice before coming to such
poorly thought out city.
agree with the points Citizens for a Better Flathead have made. I am copying their well worded
points below. Please take this into consideration before taking another step toward approving this
development
Sally Janover
1. The City of Kalispell is proposing to add another super mega -mail of commercial
development surrounded by high density office and residential uses covering some boo
acres. This is the same site as the formerly proposed Glacier flail. If the county fails to prove its
case regarding public comment for the Glacier Mall County Growth Policy y amendment, the approval
of this mall will he null and void. If the city approves this growth policy amendment,
however, the Glacier Mall or any mix of bilg boxstores iincludlngsuper Walmart could
be guilt at this site despite the Final outcome from the court decision.
& Table consideration generalcommercial and office development t the proposed site of the
_ Glacier Mall
KN -w vron the map) for rive years* This action would encourage vital
redevelopment in the downtown and other existing commercial areas of Kalispell that are not
vet built out, The city rust, by law, consider the need to revise and amend its growth policy
every five years.)
& Establish baseline information to demonstrate the need for additional general commercial and
office space in the Kalispell planning area in keeping with Kalispell Growth Policy KP, Goal
, Page 15 which calls for this baseline information. The City of Kalispell should join a
growing number of communities around the country who are requiring economic impact
7/1-7/2006
Page 2 of 3
reviews of the addition of new acres of general commercial and other land uses*
• Chanceancie the vroposed mat)_and .growth icy text amendment to desugnate theY N- .on-
Glacier fall areato suburban.v_residential_with hi . er de-- - - - vn residential lord vvr r �v,. i
premature to add the proposed scale of general commercial and office development at the
proposed Glacier Mall site now.
• Whitefish Stage and Reserve Drive are inadequate to handle this scale of development at this
time, Adequate infrastructure to ensure safe roads should be In place prior to increased
development in this area.
o not delete the tern EllirnitedEl as proposed in the definition of a O mi ed useEl land use
designation. This would allow any general commercial in mixed use areas, including big box
stores that may not be appropriate in most mixed use areas throughout the planning area.
. In a move towards excellence, the City of Kalispell is proposing to establish an overlay
zone along Hwy 93 fronn Four Mile Drive north to Church Drive which will establish a
0-1 o foot setback for all new development with landscaping, a pedestrian trail o
sidewalk, and four-sided architecture. This overlay zone will also apply to US Hwy 2 from
Reserve to Birch Grove. Similar but smaller setbacks in are overlay zone are proposed for Whitefish
Stage Road,
Support the creation of an overlay zone as proposed for the major highway corridors in
Flathead County.
. Support the use of Planned Unit Development applications for properties that adjoin these
corridors to ensure development that enhances the character of the neighborhoods along this
corridor and the city.
. With the exception of the boo acre mega -mall, office and high density residential development
discussed in point #I above, the city neap suggests that no other commercial will be
permitted along Hwy 93 and Whitefish Stage except for what they are calling
n i hhorhood cornmerciallEl at the proposed intersections of Church and Hwy 93,
Whitefish Stage and Iron t d Road, and Whitefish Stage and Rose Crossing. Qick here for
m.a.p.
* Support limiting the continued extension of general commercial development into
neighborhoods north of Kalispell and along Hwy 93.
o Call for phasing guidelines to ensure that neighborhood commercial areas only be built when
there is reasonable growth in residential uses to justify them, and that they be phased in
development from the city outward
Comment specifically on if you think these proposed On ighborhood commercialcommercialo areas are
appropriate for your neighborhood now or In the future. The Kalispell Growth Policy currently
defines Oneighborhood com erdalO as being generally lots 3-5 acres in size and spaced
one-half to one mile apart. (KGP page 16)
4* Encourage Elgreat neighborhoodsEl as the city groves. These areas north of Kalispell are
currently populated by lour density residential development, The city should have
policies as part of this amendment to encourage the development of Ogreat
.206
Page 3 of
neighborhoodsO and to buffer existing uses.
. Include a goal for this area that encourages the use of transfer of development rights
as a planning tool to help retain river corridor areas, create regional public parks and access
to these rivers.
Work with Flathead County to establish a joint plan for this area that includes a TDR
program. A TDRprogram in conjunction with the county can also help preserve important
farmland resources that define the character of the Flathead valley while helping the city
better plan for growing areas around the city.
Include a goal for the city to develop and adopt an ordinance that establishes guidelines for
new large-scale residential developments. Such ordinances are often called Faster Plan
Development Proposals M and can help ensure that large scale developments
compliment existing uses and the character of the area.
1 20
Page I of 1.
Theresa White
From: Julieart OligiCy,l
Sent* Monday, July 17, Zoo ;1 P
To: twhite9kalispell.com
Subject: Monday meeting @City Hall
Dear City Council,
,
I am writing for my husband and myself to ask that you consider our concerns when
you review the proposed Kalispell Growth Policy.
First we strongly support the creation of an overlay as proposed for the major Hwy
corridors in the Flathead Valley. We also support the use of Planned Unit Development applications
-for properties that adjoin these corridors. Thirdly we support limiting the continued extension
of General Commercial Development into neighborhoods north of Kalispell and along Hwy 9.3.
We ask that you table consideration of commercial and office development at the proposed
site of the Glacter Mall. k I. on the Map for the minimums of 5 years. Change the proposed .map and
growth policy text to designate the kn-I or the Glacier Mall. area to suburban resI en ial along Hwy
93.
Pieria help us grow smartly to preserve the reasons this has beein our home for 30 years
plus. Thank you for all that you are doing for the good of all. concerned.
Sincerely, JulieJulle Howard and Art Danner
1. 8 Zoo
un ari Scott
.den A. K lvi
,,vela M. LeDuc
Suzanne K. Scott
(of counsel)
SCOTT & KALVIG, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Southfield dower
0 3rd Avenue East, Suite 301
Kalispell, MT 59901
July 1', 2006
Honorable Pamela B. Kennedy, and
Members of the Kalispell City Council
City of Kalispell
3 12 1 st Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: Highway.93 North Growth Policy Amendment
Dear Mayor Kennedy and City Council Members;
MAIL:
Box 1678
Kalispell, MT 59903
x.406-257-6082
PHONE: o -2 - oo
am writing to you on bebalf of *lames L. f # ucky" Wol `o.rd and Wo.l.f'ord Development
regarding your proposed Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment, an amendment to the
Kalispell Growth Policy 2020. Since January 2003, Wol ord has held options to purchase 485 acres
of property in the area identified as KN-1 on your Highway 93 Norte Proposed Groh Policy
Amendment map.
.
Wol ord's property fronts 2,500 feet of Highway 93 starting at the north end of the Memorial
Gardens Cemetery., fronts West Reserve Drive west of Ser itool, and also fronts Whitefish Stage
Road. Since 1999, Wolford has planned and attempted to develop a large-scale shopping mall and
retail project. The project would ld include rational and locally owed businesses, such as department
stores, box retailers, out -parcel development such as restaurants and service businesses, office
buildings, and residences. The general commercial component of Wolford's project has been
anticipated to require more than 250 acres at full build out. The main component ent of the general
commercial aspect of the project is the retail center, which, alone, is anticipated to cover more than
100 acres including internal roads, parking and common areas, and landscaping. This retail center
will be located several hundred feet off Highway 93. Significant out -parcel development is planned
between the retail center and Highway 93. out -parcel development is contemplated on other sides
of the retail center as well. Wolord's plan also includes substantial acreage to accommodate future
July 17, 200
Page
expansion for the anchor businesses that locate in the development.
Wolford is pleased that the City of Kalispell's planning policy may now contemplate
significant commercial and retail development in the KN-1 area, and views this as a significant
advancement in City planning policy. Becky Wolford has always been willing to have his project
be a part of the City of Kalispell. However, Wolford was disappointed in. February 2003 when the
City adopted its growth policy because it left the old Stillwater neighborhood (golf course resort)
plan in place on Wolford's property rather than plan for Significant general commercial development,
even though Wolford had announced in January 2003 that he was moving his project to Highway
3 just north of Reserve Drive.
For that and other reasons, Wolford has worked with Flathead County since 2003 to move
his project forward. In that time, Wolford has had to endure numerous public and legal challenges,
but has made significant progress. Just last month, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the Co .nty's
decision to rezone 274 acres of Wol-ford's property to B-2 Commercial. . l tbo gh the Supreme
Court remanded a narrow aspect of the case involving the Co nty's amendment to its master plan,
we believe the outcome of the remand has no legal impact on the approved zone change. Wolford's
next step with the County would be to subdivide the properly,
Over the last two months, Wolford has met with Jim Patrick and City staff about the
possibility of annexing its 485 acres. Wolford does not anticipate making any decision about
annexation until your growth policy update is complete. Wolford has some concerns about the
Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment that it would like the Council to address.
Wolford has to primary areas of concern. Wolford does not support (I)any policy that
prevents general commercial development along and fronting; U.S. Highway 93, and. 2 limiting the
11genera lcommercial" component to only a maximum of 150 acres in the KN-1 area. 1 will address
each of these issues in greater detail.
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FRONTING HIGHWAY 93
Policy 4 under Goal 2 states that "Commercial activity would be generally centered within
the development KN . '# Wolford believes that commercial activity needs to be oriented toward
the road systems and not in the middle of a boo acre area away from the :roads. The types of
businesses and development that will fill 150 acres or more of general commercial property will
need to be located along and have exposure to the main arterial road --Hwy 93. Mountain view
Plaza and Spring Prairie Center have been successful because businesses have the necessary
exposure to the highway. As stated earlier in this letter-, Wolford's primary retail center will be
located several hundred Feet off Highway 93, but the out -parcel development is critical to the
economic feasibility of such a project.
Policy 1 under Goal 2 calls for the KN- I a..rea to be a "town center as opposed to a linear
strip ommerei e r .en fronting[U.S. .highway '. " Wolford plans commercial
July 1 7, 2006
Page
development along the highway —similar in nature to what you see in Mountain View Plaza and
Spring prairie Center, and what you will see in Hutton Ranch. Wol`ord vats clarification and
definition that those types of developments are not deemed "{strip commercial development. {"
Policy 30under Goal l calls for a "'minimum 100 - 150foot impact area " along Huy 93
north of the Stillwater River. Wolford believes that 15 0' is too much, when compared to policy that
requires only a Forty foot landscape buffer for property south of Reserve Drive. The commercial
areas south of Reserve Drive are similar in nature and scale to what Wolord proposes tobuild. It
is disparate treatment for the City to require a buffer zone that is nearly four times the depth of that
required for these similar, nearby developments.
If the City is going to require a 100 - 10 foot impact area, then it should 1 smoke the word
"minimum " from this policy, and allow the property owner to use the impact area for parking —
not just limited parking. While Wolyd understands that the traveling public is interested in view
shed along its roadways, those portions of real property tend to have the most value to the landowner
because of their proximity to the road system. Wol ord is willing to keep buildings out of a
reasonable impact area, but, because the impact area is so deep, the businesses developed there must
be able to utilize that portion of their property to accommodate the people corning to their
businesses.
"GENERAL COMMERCIAL" DEVELOPMENT LIMITEDO 150 AR s IN KN-1 AREA
Policy 3 under Goal 2 limits ` general commercial "' development in the boo acre KN-1 area
to w to 150 acres. Wolford's problems with this are l the KN-1 area covers more than just the
485 acres Wolord would develop; consequently, here may not be 150 acres available to him for
his development of his retail project; 2 Wol 'ord's general commercial project will exceed 150 acres
at full build -out; and the County has approved 274 acres of B-2 General Commercial zo-ning on
this same property.
One hundred fifty acres can fill up fast in our growing market. 80-1 o acres of general
commercial have already been built and occupied in Mountain view Plaza (Home Depot, etc.) and
Spring Prairie (Loves, etc.) in only 6-7 years. Development plans are already in place to Fill up
another l 00--1 20 acres in those projects and the Hutton Ranch project.. To better plan its future
commercial property inventory, the City should identify now adequate general commercial acreage
that can be used ""after" Wolord has built his project.
Wol ford supports changing the allowed amount o f "general commercial" property from 25
to 0%. Wol 'ord also supports putting flexibility into the plan that would allow the stated
percentages to be exceeded if a proposal is brought Forward as a planned unit development. PUDs
can be an effective way to create flexibility for the developer while providing the public with better
assurance about the end product.
July 17, 2006
Page
MISCELLANEOUS COMMENT
Both Policy I andPolicy 4 under Goal 2 use the tern ""town r". W 1 `ord would like
greater clarification as to what this term encompasses. He is familiar with the concept of a "life style
center" and wonders if lie style centers fit within the meaning o "town center".
ue y Wolf rd. and Wolford Development thank the Mayor and City Council for the
opportunity to comment on the Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment.
Sincerely,
Ken A. Kal .lg
cc: Jim Patrick
`tom Jentz
Charlie Harll
Jame L. " uc y" Wo ford
July 17, 200
The Honorable Pam Kennedy
the Kalispell City Council
P.O. Box 19
Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: Gro-w)th Policy Plan Amendmentfor Hi hi l y 93 North
Dear Mayor Kennedy and Councilors:
On behalf of Citizens for a Better Flathead, I any submitting the following
comments regarding the proposed Kalispell Groff Policy Amendment for 1-Eghway
North. The purpose of this letter is to summarize Citizens for a Better Fla h ad's
significant concerns as well as support for some elements of this proposal regarding the
proposed master plan amendment.
Process for arnendi e Kalispell GrowGrowtb . ollc .
Criteria on page 62-63 of the Kalispell Growth Policy to be followed when amending the
growth policy include:
Evidence of a major change in the socio-economic conditions of the community
• Identification of factual errors or contradictions
Consistency with the goals and policies of te growthpolicy, state a ,r, and other
policies adopted by the city council
Demonstration of the public need and support for the charge
• Evidence that the proposed change is the most effective means of meeting the
need
Benefit of the amendment should be to the public rather than benefiting one or a
few property owners at the expense of others
Our comments x ill follow and be based on these c teria., but not necessarily in the order
listed above as some criteria are more significant in this proposal.
Comments and Requested Actions*
1
l MCriteria: Amendment and Public Process
Under section 3c, page 63 of the KGP it calls for the planning board to provide a
description of the proposed changes as has been done, but it also calls for the planning
board to provide a rationale for these changes, and implementation strategies
n.ee e . to accomplish these changes. No written report has been prepared by the
planning board covering these items. Failure to provide this report and a written
review of the criteria under,fl cb. this reconuendat on is being made by the planning
board rakes it very difficult for the public to conunent on this proposal. The cover letter
provided on the city web site for this amendment notes that the Two Rivers
Neighborhood Plan approval to the north by the county and inquiries to the city from
parties interested in developing in this area ere the factors that started this review
process. but these do not e ate to a rationale and review of amendment criteria for the
public or a review of proposed implementation strategies.
lie jested Action to be taken by the City of KalilPell: A findings of fact/staff report
should be developed for public review prior to a public hearing on the proposed
aniendment. TIlis action would require you to cominue this hean*ng to a future date.
Additionally a significant last minute change to the recommendations was
not made public prior to the open house or planning board hearing on this
amendment. "hus the public was not able to comment on this change or understand
its implications prior to the planning board hearing. This change is the recent
proposal to remove "limited commercial" from all mixed use zoning districts in the
cite and planning area. This one change opens the door to the boo acre nixed use area
proposed in this North 93 growth policy amendment. Additionally, significant areas
aloe S vv 2 and a portion of Section state lands that abut residential uses would
g no be open to general commercial uses including big box stores and other high impact
conmiercial uses. Mixed use defined .as "limited commercial" appears to currently
correspond to - I Neighborhood Buffer District in the Kalispell zoning; regulations.
There is no zoning district by the name of mixed use district in the Kalispell zorting
regulations. The gro-wth police neap, however uses the tern. "limited commercial" for
nixed use areas on the neap. The growth police text, neap and zoning regulations should
be consistent,
e nested Action to be taken b v the City of Kalis ell: A findings of Fact/staff report
should be developed for public review prior to a public hearing on the proposal to change
the definition of pied use areas, including the rationale and implications of this
proposed change, which would require you to continue this hearing to a future date.
. Criteria: Consistence with the goals and policies of the growth policy, state law,
2
and other policies adopted by the city council.
Note. Goal-2 of the proposed amendment .t states "The development of an integrated-
residential/commercial neighborhood (Designated KN-1 on Growth Policy Ma between
S 9.3 -Reser e Drive and Whitefish Stage."
2 . Goal I and 2 of the ro , o ed amendment and the policies that support them
are to a.s.ign.ificant degree,d,ependent on cooperation with Flathead Count*
Cooperation with the count 'is the primary focus of the lzoals aind policiesof the
first .... r of ...Kalispell Growth' li p titled ` Admi i r i xn."
No indication is provided to show that, consistent with the goals and
policies of chapter one, the county has been invited to comment on this
final text and map amendment to the Kalispell GroNvth Policy. Earlier
joint county and city planning board sessions open the opportunity for
dialogue, but the real opporwnity for collaboration and joint policy
development is at this stage of the groNNqh policy amendment process and
should not be overlooked if this proposal is to be consistent with other
goals and policies in the KG .
Requested Action to he taken by the Citv of Kalis oil: It would be consistent with the
goals and policies of Administration Chapter of the Kalispell Growth Policy to address
ow they might be flier accomplished or are being accomplished through the
amendment dment process proposed as the Highway 93 North Gro-mh Policy Amendment. This
should be documented in a set of findings before you move for fmal consideration of this
policy amendment. It is my understanding that the county has not been asked to comment
on this proposal. The county should be invited to comment. Continue the public comment
period to review the outcomes of these discussions and input with the county.
2 . Policies 3 and 9 of the Kalil oil Growth oiiev chapter on administration call
for i itiati Cite-Cour ty a regime is that would cooperatively influence the
amount and type of growth witbin the rowtl o isy area and for mechanisms to
address large scale projects that have not been anticipated in..-th.e..growth poliev.
citizens for a Better Flathead submitted documents and testimony support' g policies
and 9 in consideration of this amendment and the policies to address them before
the city planning board calling for:
1) The inclusion of a policy that would lead to the immediate adoption of a
Master elan Development ordinance that Loud establish standards for
new large scale development, encourage creative designs, allow flexibility and
provide greater certainty for both developers and residents as growth
continues. A yodel ordinance from the City of Black Diamond, Washington
was provided in support of tis reco=endation. This ordinance is attached
to these comments again for review by the council.
3
2 The identification of the North 93 Groh Policy Amendment
(N93GPA) area as a receiving site for a Transfer of Development Rights
Program coordination wit Flathead County as a whole and to facilitate the
conservation of river corridors and opportunities for regional parks as
d evel o me .. proposals develop and are brou ght forward in the N 9 3 G A .
' The development of a policv establishing "Town Serving Zones" o
better de me future eon ere al development within the plan area and the
square foot size of appropriate commercial development was called for by
C . Again a mode for this policy and weblinks o other information on this
ded and are provided again. for your review.
o c fere rov
4) The implementation of a process or ordinance that establishes
"Community Impact Review Ordinance" or economic impact review
under which baseline impact information would be developed prior to
consideration of a development proposal by the city, .Again a review o
ill lar policles being adopted In numerous communities around the country
were provided for consideration mid are attached.
Reguested Action to be taken � the Oily of Kalispell: Adopt the following goals and
policies under Goal 2 of the proposed Highway 93 North policy amenc -neat to rake the
proposed amendment consistent with key goals and policies in the Administration
Chapter of the K;
Goal: Develop and adopt a Master Flan Development Ordinance to more clearly define
and encourage great neighborboods and overall quality development in the North 93 plan
area.
Policy: The city shall develop and adopt a Master Plan Development Ordinance for the
Highway 93North Grow Policy Amendment area. Prior to this adoption major
or
development applications for this area shall be made as Alarmed unit developments.
Goal: ffiiplement a Transfer of DevelopmentRights R) Prograin in the planm'ng area
for the Highway 93 North policy amendment area
Policy: Seek to develop a men orand m of understanding between the city and county to
establish the Highway North policy amendment area as a receiving area for a Transfer
of Development Rights program with the county and in conjunction with esta lislunent o
an expanded plalu ='ujurisdictional area for the city.
Policy: Establish are overlay zone for a Transfer of Development Rights program in the
North 9 3 plan area that is activated by and applied to development proposals in this area.
for current and for future phases of development proposals*
Police: The map density for suburban residential under at TDB.. program shall be
N
dwellings unit per acre for this plan area with added incentives for affordable housing
projects.
Coal: Develop a policy establishing "Town Serving Zones" to better define future
commercial development within the plan area and the square foot size of appropriate
commercial development in this plan area.
Policy: Development r ent proposals and redevelopment in the N 3 plan area will comply
with the citys adoption of a town serving zone,
Coal: Adopt are ordinance that establishes a "Community Impact Review rdina ce"
or economic impact review process under which baseline impact information is
developed prior to consideration of a development proposal by the city.
Policy: Development proposals and redevelopment in the N 3 plan area will comply
with the city's adoption of an economic impact review process
C. Coal-2 is not consistent with other- twals and poikies of the KGP including
comets with the following issue areas. These conflicts are not overcome because
he are not supported byfindi s rese a the -0.an-ninjz boards or staff as
noted Bare` none have been row*
deb
Conflict* KN-1 is not identified as a "target area" for development or area for
redevelopment in the KG . See goals and policies cited below.
3. ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT �T TEE "TARGET
DEVELOPMENT AREAS" S" Land Use: Business and Industry Cbapter
. Tar et Development Areas
a. Target development areas are generally located in the southwest part of Kalispell,
around the City airport, the southwest area of west Reserve Drive and Highway 93
rig- the state an Section and the deter street area.
h. Encourage development ent and redevelopment 'in the Cit 's established urban renewal
districts.
c. The target development areas are where co=ercia and/or light industrial
development or redevelopment ent is encouraged. Integration of resientia uses within these
areas is also encouraged. Land Use: Business and IndustU Chapter
. Explore ways the City of Kalispell can create financial and other incentives
to encourage improvements that lead to the redevelopment of unused existing
commercial and downtown housing space. Land Use: Business and Industq Chapter
recommendations
5
Conflict: The KGP calls for studies to guide the need for future commercial and
business a elo men , Goal 2 of the proposed amendment does not comply with
this*
9. DEVELOP A BETTER U RST ..I'sIING of FUTURE COMMERCIAL ,AND
UNDUSTRIAL NEEDS IN ORDER TO BE R S oNSfVE To POTENTIAL GROWTH, Land
Use: Business and I d s r i Chapter
D. NVhen large-scale development may have si Ica t impacts on the community,
studies should be provided to assist in assessing impacts including analysis related to
traffic, infrastructure and the cost of providing services. Land. Use: Business and
Industry Chapter
. FUND AN ECONOMIC MARKET STUDY ON A REGIONAL LEVEL THAT
WOULD BE SPONSORED AND SUPPORTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING
BODIES TAT COULD BE USED To DEVELOP MAST STRATEGY To
ENCOURAGE COMPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY.
The Economy Chapter
Conflict: KNI-1 is not consistent with the pattern and timing of growthcaked for i
other Policies identified in the KG . Whitefish Stage and other transportation
routes are not adequate for increased development at this time. No phasing is
proposed for the amendment proposed as Goal 2 of this amendment, thus
development proposals could be affected immediately upon passage of this
amendment. See sample of some of the goals and policies cited below.
1. Central business district:
a. Recognize dotowii Kalispell as the center of the cormnunity. Land Use: Business
and Industry Chapter
. Expansion . o commercial districts is anticipated to occur s infill are a conti atior
of existing coni-mercial areas to avoid the creation of new commercial districts and
leapfrog del7elopment. Land Use; Business and Industry Chapter
11
c. Expansion of commercial areas should e conti.n ent upon the provision of public
services and adequate in rastr cue with consideration given to anticipated impacts o
the neighborhood and natural enviromnent. Land Use: Business and Industry Chapter
6. Design and locate development to protect public health and safety; insure adequate
pro is o services.- be eon a . le with the character o, its s .r.roundings andencourage
the most appropriate use ofland. Growth Management Chapter
0
1. Develop and implement an affordable housing strategy to effectively provide for the
needs of low- and moderate -income residents. Land Use: Housing Chapter
recommendation
Requested Action to be taken by the City of Kalispell: Adopt the goals and policies
recommended under requested action sections above. Replace Goal 2 and policies 1-4
witb policies that are consistent with the growth policy and the other recommendations
ithi n these comments. D o not make changes to, the map or the tern " limited
commercial." Present revisions for public review and hearings again.
. Criteria:
Demonstration of the public reed and support for the change
• Evidence that the proposed change is the most effective means of meeting the
need
• Benefit of the amendment should be to the public rather than l ene tmn one or
few property oArners at the expense of others
• Evidence of a mayor charge in the socio-economic conditions of the community
In regards to Goal 2 and its policies,, no demonstration of public need or evidence that
this is the most effective way to meet this need have been presented.
Regugsted Action to be taken bv the Cifr of Kalispell: The city is asked to review the
public comment submitted as part of the public record on the Glacier Mall amendment by
the county as to why the scale of commercial development proposed in Goal 2 is not
desired or waiTanted at this time by a ma o 'ry of te residents who commented. We ask
that this public -record be made part of this hearing record. The city should also review
the comments submitted as part of this hearing. Based on this input the city should
provide ublic review and eonunent evidence that supports or Undermines the
proposed growtb policy amendment for the N area. All of the criteria listed above
should be addressed in the proposed findings for this decision and provided for .public
input and review.
7
Additional coinnients follow regarding eo -nercial baseline data for your consideration..
boo acres pied use: 4cdes general conu.ercia.
Methods
One method of d ete -nncy commercial land needs comes from the "Planner's
an.er's
sti atuffiGuide,,, a tool that takes into account several factors in determining hove
much conu-nercial lard a county reeds and can. support. t. determine commercial space
needed., a a c . atio� is made based o the number of employees in several types o
commercial employment, including industrial, retail, and office employment. (See 3
amier's Estimating Guide chapter on employment). Using these employment t numbers
is im of a t, because they indicate how much commercial space workers can
acconjodate. This particular formula uses population projections until 2020 and
detenuines hmv, man3T commercial acres we will need. This formula for Flathead County
resulted in the following coin ercial lard use reeds:
Type of employment
Gross acres needed
Market Factor
Adjustment
Planned Acres
needed
Ind strial
564
25%
752
Retail Trade
T958
25%
1277
Office
73 9
2 %
985
The market factor adjustment above accounts for a need for choice in commercial land t
keep property values affordable for conu-nercial development. The county reeds 5
a res of conunercia l, and 2 acres of zoned commercial can provide this,
Another method that is often used is an analysis of the retail sales per capita.. Flathead
County had average sales per capita o 13,2322002. (Source: Census,
: acts.cens s, cFo . ` states o oo ,lit l This is higher than the state
average, Which is $11,116 per capita. This is an indication that citizens in Flathead
County spend more than the average Montanan, leading to questions as to how much
more they are willing to spend as corunerciai spending opportunities increase.
Baseline
The draft county groNNrth poliev currently under review states that there are 938 acres o
"'business" zoning it the Co ity, as well as Soo acres for "business resort"'. In addition,
there are )92.771 acres of unregulated private land that could be used for conunerciai
development.
H
The Flathead Basin Stewardship Index states that there are 3,514 acres zoned under either
a "cor r erclal" or "business's designation. The draft groNMh policy, on the other hand,
does not give figures 'or "commercial" designation. The policy attributes this to different
definitions o "commercial uses.,;
This chart shows the current nm-r of commercial acres in the cities:
Area
Commercial Acres
Kali s ell
501
Whitefish0
Columbia Falls
27.1
i `or
Evergreen - - ...............
(Check with the chart included in the commernts for the Riverdale development, page ,,
March 5, 2006)
Though no exact numbers exist on the number of retail and office acres currently in use,
the numbers above indicate that the County meets the number of planned acres for 202
already.
Results
The first method of calculating commercial land use needs is a good one to use for
Flathead County because of the high demand for employees ee at local businesses. With
unemployment in the County at an historical low, local employers are having trouble
finding qualified employees. The draft grovdh policy ideates a substantial number o
vacant positions. Therefore, the amount of commercial space *n the County must be
proportional to the number of workers available to work in that space.
Based on the numbers from the "Planner's Estimating Guide'' formula, Flathead County
has already designaled enough acreage to acconunodate for the co=ercial needs of the
valley. There are well over 1.277 acres of co=erc al land, by any estimate, and this
number will meet the reeds of the population of the Go ng projected for the year 2020.
The second r et o ", though not fiffly investigated, indicates that Flathead County
residents are already spending more at retail establishments than their peers in other carts
of the state, indicating a lack of disposable capital. Taken into consideration along NNith
the rising costs of bousing in the valley, there might not be an economic base to support
this increase in commercial land.
I
If conunercial development takes place beyond what both the workforce and the
cononiv a-n sustain, then businesses will not succeed. New businesses will not move
into an area that caigot sustain he . Established businesses may move to newer
conuiiercial areas,, but this will result in a large increase i n vacant commercial land,
especially in downtown areas.
Local businesses are already having trouble finding qualified employees. The County
simply c i o support vast increase �. coinmer ei ldevelopment. The proposed boo
acres of land available for commercial de elo men will therefore not meet a need in the
County, but will Father increase strain. on the existing business community, as well as o
e local economy s the County must meet the infrastructure needs for this development.
10
Page I of 5
Main Identi
From: "Citizens For A BetterFlathead" <dtizens@f1atheaddtizens.org
f <citiens@iatheadcitien.or
Seat. Friday, July 14, 2006 813M
Subject: Aierli Critical Kalispell proposals could put an end to Downtown Kalispell
t Account. rg ni atiol me 1
�rw
Citizens for a Better Flathead
Action Alert
July 14,, 2006
Here are the rut
Huge Changes Proposed for Kalispell Area. t*s essential that you speak up now.''.
.� critical Kalispell Bypass Decision Wednesday, July
_-sstod comments for Kalispell Growth Policy Hearing
Dear CFBF,
5upport the opp -- Join your friends and neighbors in calling
on Kalispell to live up to its motto: Building a Community that Expects Excellence,
Kalispell faces to key decisions.
n Monday 3uly 17th a public hearing will be held regarding a major change proposed to
lallspell's growth policy. This change includes a provision that allows a new super mega -
mail of commercial development to be built.
n Wednesday, 3ulY 19th a public bearing will be held to determine which section of the
Kalispell Bypass should be built first, the south portion that most benefits the economic
vitality of downtown Kalispell and would get trucks out of downtown, or the north that
will further benefit new commercial development spreading to the north of the city.
i s decisions mill affect tine entire l lath ad Valli � Everyone should speak up, Your
input can make the difference in encouraging the city to set a goal of excellence that will
set in motion a legacy of good planning. More information on both these proposals is
below. Please be sure to note that each hearing has a different appropriate location to
send comments.
Huge changes Proposed for Kalispell Area. Itys essential that you
speak- u nowt �
Kalispell is proposing to amend its growth policy to cover well over three thousand acres
north of the city and to the northwest and northeast of the city. This area is outside of
the city limits, but this growth policy amendment will establish the future land uses that
will be permitted by Kalispell when those properties annex into the city to hook onto city
water and steer. Click on these ins to see a reap. and text of the changes (please
particularly look at Attachment B of this document, page , Please be patient, the links
may be a bit slow! Note that the blue area labeled KN-1 on the map is the site of the
proposed Glacier Mall.
20 6
Page 2 of
While some ley aspects of this amendment proposal are positive, there is one portion of
this amendment that is of great concern. As part of this growth policy amendment, dment, the
city ois proposing to add another super mega -mail of commercial development
surrounded by high density office and residential uses covering some boo
acres. This is the same site as the formerly proposed Glacier Mall. The Montana
Supreme Court has recently ruled that the county rust still prove that It adequately
considered public comments in reaching its decision, Over % of the public comment
strongly opposed this decision and submitted extensive studies and comments to
support this opposition. Many involved in this case feel that the county will have a
difficult time proving they considered these comments.
Key Kars fro vth Policy issues for Dublic h ar r Nor
p n. There are four key components of this proposal that you will
want to comment on. It's best to show up and speak, but written comments Vcan e
eor turned l at the lalis ell City Hall
to c hearing at 7pm. The fey points o
these issues and our suggested comments are at the bottom'of this email. please
remember that comments for the bypass should be sent to another location. see the
bypass information below for that information.
Critical Kalispell Bypass Decision Wednesday, July 19
Key K Bp l �ppa s ss s for h i air _th c.y � ':
to aL.30 P.,m The presentation at : o p.m. is followed by questions/answers and
opportunity for publiccomment; at the Outlaw Ballroom, Bulldog Conference center at
West Coast outlaw Iran, 1711 Highway 93 South, Kalispell. Comments and suggestions
can be provided at meetings s or by email, telephone, fax, or in writing to these bypass
project contacts:
Dwane Kailleyr Montana Department of Transportation, Mssoula District
Administrator, 2100 West Broadway, P.O. Box 7039, Missoula, MT s o - 0 ,
Phone; o - , - ' o , Fax; �-., mail dkailey@mt.gov.
and/or
Mitch Stefllingv Stelling Engineers, Inc.,Project Manager-, 614 Park Drive South
Great Falls, MT 59405, Phone: 0 -- - 00, Fax: o - 5 - 00, r aff:
mall@stellinginc.com
f you are emailing comments we also suggest that you send a copy to the Kalispell city
Council at twhite@kall'spell.com , or turn comments in at the Kalispell City Hall to
Theresa White,, City Clerk, prior to Mondays pubic bearing at 7pm.
10 n_general points to keep in rind
The KalispellBy-Pass is a proposed -mile long bypass around the vest side of the
City of Kalispell. The original purpose of the bypass was to remove ov traffic
from the congested areas of downtown Kalispell by providing a direct north -
south route for truck traffic and others for whom Kalispell was not a destination. In
November 1994.. the findings from the FEIS were documented in a Record of
Decision (ROD) with the Federal Highway Administration HWA) that identified
the preferred bypass route along the western side of Kalispell. Visit this web site
for more information on the by-pass and options at
lit p: w vw. allspeIft ss.c m his 1.c
__ None of the current commercial development north of Kalispell, including that
south of the Reserve and Hvvy 93 intersection including Home Depot, Lowes,
1526
Page
ostco and the other new commercial uses, as well as the high school, now filling
and lining this area were in place when this final project design was approved.
t this time there is only about $30 million of the $76 million needed to build this
project. Due to this situation, only half the bypass can he built now. Full traffic
relief will only come with the full project completion, but there are clear pros and
cons for which section should he built first.
o The key issue now appears to he: should the southern portion he built first, which
will more directly benefit the redevelopment and Future vitality of the Kalispell
downtown, or should the northern section he built first, which will likely fuel
continued commercial development to the north.
There is legitimate concern about the safety of roads serving the new high school,
but this now appears to he a non -issue. Senator Burrs' office has indicated with
almost 99'% certainty that he will he able to secure the $4.5 million needed to
build a safe road to serve the new high school. (If fundingwere not received, both
options could still include a contingency provision of funding for the high school
road section.
Citizens for a Better Flathead endorses bul'Iding the southern portion of the
Kalispell Bypass for the following reasons:
The original intent of this funding was to remove truck traffic from downtown
Kalispell. This is still a major problem for downtown Kalispell and building the
southern portion of the bypass First provides the only immediate relief option for
this issue. Building the northern section first provides no such benefit to downtown
Kalispell.
The downtown area of Kalispell is well recognized - s the heart of the city. It
defines Kalispell as a special place apart from "Anywhere SA". Kalispell has
tremendous potential to grove and redevelop in its continued role as the heart o
the community. This assertions was recently supported by a comprehensive study
of the Kalispell area carried out by Hyett Palma, a nationally -recognized downtown
redevelopment firm in coordination with the National League of Cities. Building the
northern section first 'ill undermine the revitalization of downtown by encouraging
continued development to the north. Encouraging even more growth to the north
is in direct conflict with the priorities established in the Kalispell Growth Policy.
Transportations planning should follow lard use plans developed for the area.
The criteria used to rank options for the bypass sections is very subjective and
does not give reasonable Freight to the original intent of the bypass and the
important role that down town Kalispell plays in the economy sy of the city. This
criteria reeds to he reexamined and reworked.
! New growth to the north has added significant new costs and traffic impacts to the
proposed hypassf resulting in a costly redesign and amendments to the final
design for this project. Growth to the north has not paid its fair share of its
impacts on the roads in this area. The downtown Kalispell area was in line first for
these much needed transportations dollars and they should retain this priority.
Suggested Comments for Kalispell Growth Policy Hearing
Pnints to Raise you would like, please feel free to cut and paste or modify the bullet
points below the numbered subjects into your written or oral comments):
1. The City of Kalispell is proposing to add another super mega-nnll of commercial
development urro n y high density office and residential uses coveriing
some 600 acres. This is the sane site as the formerly proposed Glacier Mall. If the
6
Page 4 of 5
county falls to prove its ease regarding public comment for the Glacier Mall County
Growth Policy amendment, the approval of this mall will be null and void. If the city
approves this growth policy amendment, however, the Glacier Mall or any mix
of big box stores including a super Walat could be built at this site despilte
the final outcome from the court deolWon,
• Table consideration of general commercial and office e deyelop.mgnt at the ro posed
sllte of the Gla ier Mall KN-1 on the map for five years. This action would
encourage vital redevelopment in the downtown and other existing commercial
areas of Kalispell that are not yet built out. (The city must, by lave, consider the
need to reprise and amend its growth policy every five years.)
• Establish baseline information to demonstrate the need for additional general
r
commercial and office space in the Kale pelf planning area in keeping with Kalispell
Growth Policy (KGP), Goal 9, Page 15 which calls for this baseline information. The
City of Kalispell should join a growing number of communities around the country
who are requiring economic impact reviews of the addition of new acres of general
commercial and other land uses.
Change the proposed ma and arowth pol.icytext amendment to des hate the
KN-1 or Glacier Mall area to suburban residential with higher density residential
alor , It is premature to add the proposed scale of general commercial
and office development at the proposed Glacier Mall site now.
• Whitefish h Stage and Reserve Drive are inadequate to handle this scale of
development at this time. Adequate infrastructure to ensure safe roads should he
in place prior to increased development in this area.
• Do not delete the term "limited" as proposed in the definition of a "mixed use,"
land use designation. This would allow any general commercial in mixed use areas,
including big box stores that may not be appropriate in most nixed use areas
throughout the planning area.
2. n a move towards excellence, the City of Kalispell is proposing to establish an
overlay zone along Hwy 93 from Four Mlle Drive north to Church Drive which
will establish a 10- o foot setback for all new development with
landscaping, a pedestrian trail or sidewalk, and four-sided architecture. This
overlay zone will also apply to US Hwy 2 from Reserve to Birch Grove. Similar but
smaller setbacks in are overlay zone are proposed for Whitefish Stage Road,
• Support the creation of an overlay zone as proposed for the major highway
corridors in fathead County.
• Support the use of Planned Unit Development applications for properties that
adjoin these corridors to ensure development that enhances the character of the
neighborhoods along this corridor and the city.
3. With the exception of the 600 acre mega -mall, office and high density residential
development discussed in point #1 above, the city neap suggests that no other
commercial will be permitted along Hwy 93 and Whitefish Stage except for
what they are calling ""neighborhood ommer ilall" at the prop o ec intersections
of Church and Hwy 93, Whitefish Stage and Tron tad toad, and Whitefish Stage
and Rose Crossl4ng. Crick here for nap.
• Support limiting the continued extension of general commercial development into
neighborhoods north of Kalispell and along Hwy 93,
• Call for phasing guidelines to ensure that neighborhood commercial areas only he
built when there is reasonable growth in residential uses to justify them, and that
56
Page 5 of 5
they be phased in development from the city outward.
Comment specifically on if you think these proposed "neighborhood mm r i l"
areas are appropriate for your neighborhood now or in the future. The Kalispell
Growth Policy currently defines "neighborhood commercial"" s being generally lots
3-5 acres in size and spaced one-half to one rile apart. (KGP pace 16)
Encourage "great neighborhoods" s the city grows. Tee areas north Kalispell
are currently populated by low density residential development, The city should
have policies as part of this amendment to encourage the development
11great nel r e d " and to buffer existing uses,
Include a goal for this area that encourages the use of transfer of development
rights s a planning tool to help retain river corridor areas, create regional
public parks and access to these rivers.
Worm with Flathead County to establish a joint plan for this area that includes
TDR program. A TDR program in conjunction with the county can also help
preserve important farmland resources that define the character of the Flathead
Valley while helping the city better plan for growing areas around the city,
Include a goal for the city to develop and adopt an ordinancethat establishes
guidelines for new large-scale residential developments. Such ordinances are often
called Master Plan Development Proposals M and can help ensure that large
scale developments compliment existing uses and the character of the area,
Contact Information
ii: i�flathead ad l ens. rema
phone;756-8993
e; t rw.iatadiins.r
-- Powered by
This email was sent to citizen iatheadciti ens. rC'ti lathes f i e s.or
Instant removal with b rj Tm i Privacy...Policy.
Citizens For A Better Flathead i P.O. Box 771 i Kalispell I MT i 59903
No viru found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
V . ...3 Virus Database: 26 . ,1 -Release Date: 2
1 526
ORDINANCE No. 05-779
ORDINANCE of THE CITY OF BLACK
DIAMOND,, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON,
CREATING MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM AND DEVLOPMENT REGULATIONS
AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 18.98 TO THE
LACK DLAMONID MUNICIPAL CODE
VaffiRES, in 1996 King County expanded the Cit 's urban growth area (UGA);
WHEREAS, the City insisted, as part of the UGA expansion, that a program be
created to establish a public review process for WD applications, protect and preserve
open place, allow alternative, innovative forms of development; allow flexibility in
development standards and permitted uses, identify sigm cant environmental impacts
and the appropriate mitigation; provide grcater certainty about the character and timing o
developments, provide needed services and facilities in are orderly responsible manner,
promote economic development and job creation M the City; create vibrant mixed -use
communities with a balance of housing, employment while 'allowing development'
to be of greater public benefit as open space, parks or community facilities; and
V.MREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan contemplates the development o
such a program; and
WHEREAS, prior to the expansion of the City"s UGA. the City entered into the
Black iar and Urban Groff Area Agreement that is dated December 31, 1996 with King
County, Plum Creek Timber Company, L.P. and Palmer Coking Coal Company (the
"Agreement'); and
WHEREAS, that Agreement required that such a program be created and
WHEREAS, sfce the Agreement was executed the parties to the Agreement have
woTked cooperatively to assist the City i the development of the MPD Program by
providing funding, u*npnt and expertise; and the proposed MPD Program regulations have
been tamely forwarded to the appropriate State agency for review and comment prior to
adoption, and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on'Aprid 21, 2005 held a public ea to consider
the MPD Program regulations, with notice of said egg having been given as required
y law, now, therefore,
Ordinance No. -'
page I of 1.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BLACK IAMB,
WASHINGTON DOES ORDAIN,, AS FOLLOWS:
WS:
Section I. There is hereby created a new Black Diamond Municipal Code
Chapter 18.98 which shall be entitled Master Plan Developments.
Section 2. There are hereby added to Chapter 18.98,of ffie Black Diamond
Mtmicipal Code new sections, which shall read as set fob in Exhibit I attached hereto
and by reference incorporated herein.
Section 3. Se era i ty. If any provision of this Ordinance is determined to
be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions of this ordinance
shall remain in force and effect.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in fall force and effect
five 5 days from and after its passage, approval, posting and publication as provided by
law. A summer of this ordinance may be published in 11'eu of publishing the ordinance
in its entirety.
Introduced the day of April, 205.
Passed by the City Council on the - ay o 2005.
Approved by the Mayor on the ay o.,:5�C) . 2005,
Ho d Botts, Mayor
ATTEST:
cris Kandior, City Clerk
APPROVED R:
ren Combs, City Attorney
Effective Date: .
Ordinance No. 0 -779
--Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 1 TO ORDINANCE NO.OS-779
City of Black Diamond Zoning Code
Master Planned Development
Sections:
18*9#010
Master Planned Development (MPD) permit — Purpose
18.98,020
MPD permit— Public Benefit objectives
1.8,98.030
MPD permit — Eligibility
18,98,040
MPD permit -- Application Requirements
18.98,050
MPD permit — Required Approvals
18,98,060
MPD permit — Review Process
18,98.070
MPD pert — Environmental Review (SEPA)
18, 8,0 0
MPD pert - Conditions of Approval
18, 8,0 0
MPD p rnut - Development Agreement
18,98,100
MPD permit - Amendments to an Approved MPD permit
18,98,110
MPD standards - Design Review Required
18..120
MPD standards # permitted Uses and Densities
18,98,130
MPD standards - Development Standards
18.98.140
MPD standards - open Space Requirements
,98,150
MPD standards -On-Site Recreation Requirements
18,9 ,1 0
MP. standards - Transfer of Development Rights
18.#10
MPD standards - Street Standards
18,98-180
Mp1 standards — Stormwater Management Standards
18.98,190
MPD standards - water and Sewer Standards
18.98.1 5
Vesting
8, 8,200
Revocation of MPD permit
Exhibit I to Ordinance No. 5- 77
Page I of 16
0605.
18.98,010 Master Planned Development (MPD) permit — Purpose. The purposes
of the Master Planned Development (MPD) perynit process and standards set out in this
chapter are to:
A. Establish a publicreview process for MPD applications;
. , Establish a comprehensive review process for development projects occurring
on parcels or combined parcels greater than 80 acres in size.
C. 'reserve passive open space and wildlife corridors in a coordinated rarer
while also preserving usable open space lands for the enjoyment oyment of the City's residents;
D. Allow alternative, m*novative forms of development and encourage imaginative
site and building design and development ent layout with the intent of retaim'ng significant
features of the natural environment;
E. Allow flexibility in development standards and permitted uses-
F. Identify significant enviorormental impacts, and ensure appropriate mitigation;
G. Provide greater certainty about the character and timnig of residential and
commercial development and population growth within the City;
H. Encourage environmentally sustainable development,
. Provide needed services and facilities in are orderly, fiscally responsible manner;
J. .promote economic development and job creation in the City,
K. Create vibrant mixed -use neighborhoods, with a balance of housing,
employment, and recreational opporurdties
L. promote and achieve the City's -vision of incorporating and/or adapting the
planning and design principles regardiing .mix of uses, compact form, .coordinated open
space, oppoftl-�ties for casual socializing, accessible civic spaces, and sense o
corrflnur.ty; as well as such additional design principles as may be appropriate for a
particular MP , -all as identified in the book Rural By Desk y Randall Arendt;;
M. Implement the City's Vision Statement, Comprehensive Plan,, and other
applicable Goals, Policies and objectives set Forth in the municipal code.
18,98,020 MFD Permit - plc Benefit objectives. A specific objective of the
MPD permit process and standards 's to provide public benefits of typically available
through conventional development. 'these public benefits shall include but are not
Bruited to
A. Preservation and enhancement of the physical characteristics (topography,
drainage, vegetation, environmentally ly critical areas, etc.) of the site
B. Protection of space and groundwater quality both ors -site and downstream,
through the use of innovative,. low -impact and regional stonnwater management
technologies;
C. Conservation of water and other resources through innovative approaches to.
resource and energy management Mc uding measures such as wastewater re -use;.
D. Preservation and enhancement of open space and viers of Mt. Rainier;
E. Provision of employment uses to help meet the City's economic development
objectives;,
F. Improvement of the City's fiscal perforr ance;
Exhibit l to Ordinance No. 05-
Page 2 of
.. oo5
G. Timely provision of all necessary facilities, infrastructureand public services.,
equal to or exceeding the more stringent of either existing or adopted levels of service, as
the MPD develops; and
H. Development of a coordinated system of pedestrian oriented facilities including
but not limited to trails and bike paths that provide accessibility throughout the MPD and
provide opportimty for connectivity with the city as a whole.
18
,. M Permit — Criteria for MPD Eligibility.
A. Where Required* An MPD Permit shall e. required for any development
project where:
. Any of the property witbin the development is subject to an MPD, overlay
zoning designation; or
2. The parcel or combined parcels total at least so gross acres. This subsection 2
shall not apply if a subdivision or site plan application is. submitted for said parcel or
combined parcels and the applicant is requesting that the project be subject to a
development agreement pursuant to. RCW 3 6.70B. 1. 70 that will further the Public Benefit
Objectives of Black Diamond Municipal Code. section .9 . 20. The employment use
objective of section 18.98.020 ) will only apply to properties within the proposed
eve o ment project that have an underlying business zonmg classification. If the
application is denied, then an MPD permit would be required.
Ellgjbifity. Where not required under 1 .9s.030(A) the City will accept an
MPD permit app ication� and process a development proposal as an MPD, only for
contiguous properties that meet the following eritia*
. The proposed MPD property shall be in a single ownership, or 'if in multiple
ownerships, specific agreements. satisfactory to the City shall be signed by each
property owner that place the properties under unified control, and bird all
owners to the MPD conditions of approval,
2. All properties Within its proposed MPD are witfiu the City limits at the time o
MPD application submittal- provided, however, properties within a PAA. may
e included in the application so long as the proposed uses for the property not
lop ted within the City, and the conditions of NTD approval for the property
not located within the City comply with applicable County development
regulations for that parcel, and, as a condition of approval the property owners.
are required to file restrictive covenants upon the PAA property, in a form
acceptable to the City, that restrict its uses to those approved in the MPD
approval..
C.. Contigpfty. All properties to be included M an. MPD must he contiguous.
18,98,040 MD Permit - Appfleation Requirements
A. Mlication �e uirements.. All applications for approval o NTpermit
.shall, at a minimum, include all of the information atio and documents set forth in this
section.
.. A set of mster plan drawings, showing. -
Exhibit I to Ordinance No. o - 779
Page 3 of t
60605.
(a) Proposed opera space, parks, recreation areas, trail networks," wildlife
corridors, and perimeter buffers;
(b) Existing environmentally critical areas and their buffers, together with
the reports, surveys or delineations used to identify their locations;
(c) Proposed locations and preliminary profiles of all streets having a
fiction higher than neighborhood access, and all pedestrian
connections including trails;
(d) Proposed sites for schools and other public facilities required to serve
the development;
(e) Conceptual public utility plans (sewer, water, stormwater);
(f) Types, generalized loatorns, acreages, and densities of proposed
residential and non-residential development; and
(g) Proposed sites for public transit facilities.
(h) Any existing easements located upon the property.
2. A map at a scale no smaller than 1. inch = 100 feet, showing propel
boundaries and existing topography foot contour intervals), areas of vegetation
y type, other natural features, and existing structures.
3. A legal description of the MPD property, together with a title report no
more than 30 days old disclosing all lien holders and owners of record.
. A projected phasing plan and schedule including the proposed phasing of
housing, public facilities, and services e.g. recreational facilities, open spaces and
drainage facilities) and an estimated development timeline.
. A completed SEA checklist, with van'os environmental studies and
SEPA documents. If the City and the Applicant have agreed that an Environmental
Impact Statement will be prepared for the proposal, a Checklist shall not be
required.
. A comprehensive fiscal analysis disclosing the short and long-terrn
financial impacts of the proposed MPD upon the City both during development. and
following project completion, including are analysis of required balance of
residential and commercial land uses needed to ensure a fiscal benefit to the City
aver project completion, and including an analysis of personnel demands and fiscal
short -falls anticipated ding the development phase .of the MTD together with
reconnnended mitigations to ensure that the MPD does not negatively impact the
fiscal health of the City, nor the ability of the City to adequately serve existing
residents, provided that if an EIS will be prepared, the fiscal analysis may be
prepared concurrently.
', A narrative de cr'ption and illustrations of the MPD plaming/d s gn
concept, demonstrating how the proposed MP . is consistent with the C ty's N'
Design Standards, Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable. City policies and
standards..
8* Typical cross -sections of all proposed street and trail tomes, including
landscaping, pedestrian facilities,, and any other pro os d improvements Within the
right-of-way or trail corridors.
. A listing of all property owners of record wig 500 feet of the exter'or
boundaries of all parcels proposed to he included within the MP, together wig
three sets of mailing labels for said property owners. (When one or more of the
Exhibit l to Ordinance No. 05-9
Page 4 of 16
6005 -
MPD property owners own property adjacent to but not included within the ?4P,
the Soo Feet shall be measured from the exterior boundary of this adjacent
property.).
10. An aer'al photo of the MPD area and parcels Within 1000 feet of its
boundaries that was taken since the time of the last development activity within the
MPD area or surrounding properties or one year from the application date,
wbic ever is more recent., at a scale no smaller than Mch = 1000 feet.
11. A narrative description and illustrations of how street alignments and lard
uses in the proposed MPD will coordinate and integrate with existing adjacent
development, and ado acet undeveloped properties.
12. Proposed ownership and proposed maintenance tenar ce program for all lands and
-facilities required to be shown on the master plan draw ings by section
tr VA 1 )i.
1 . A proposed water conservation plan for the MPD pursuant to section
18.98.190.
14. If applicable, a desc tior of any mineral or other resource) extraction
operations proposed within the MPD, the tiring wd phasing of the proposed
operation and reclamation ation of the lard for subsequent proposed uses.
15. Proof of proper notice for the Public Infornation Meeting and the
Planning Commission*
. . The City shall have the a thor t ` toadr. in'strativel r establish additional
.detailed submittal requirements.
C. The applicant t shall pay all costs Mcrued by the City in processing the MP
permit application, including but not limited to the costsof planning and engineering staff
`
and consult.ants, SEPA review, fiscal expel, legal services, and overall admhu'strat on.
A deposit in an amount equal to the staffs estimate of processing the. M D, as
d eterri .ed after the pre -application conference shall be required to be paid at the time of
application, and shall be placed in .a separate trust account. The City shall establish
procedures for per'odic billings t the, applicant of lIP. review costs as such costs are
incurred by the City, and 'mar require the maintenance of a minimum fund balance
through additional deposit requests.
A. MPD P it Required. An approved MPD pennit and development agreement
shall he required for every MPD in the City..
B. Consolidated Review. The Cite Will allow are MPD Pit to be pad of a
consolidated Permit action a a t on* ed by RCW 36.70B. Consolidation shall not be
allowed ed for Comprehensive Plan amendments, or annexations..
C. plementing r e elo Meat Applications. An MPD permit must he approved,
and a development agreement as authorized by RCW 36.70B completed, signed and
recorded, ' before the City will grant approval to an application for any implementing
Exhibit 1 to Ordinance No.05-779
Page 5 of 1
.. o o
development approval. An application for. a MPD permit may be processed, at the City's
discretion,, with amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or rag code, inter -local
agreements and lard development permits associated with the MPS. permit, such asforest
practice permits, clearing and grading permits, conditional use permits, variance permits,
shorelines permits, and permits required- by other public agencies. Provided, however,
the City may, in its discretion restrict the number of simultaneous applications to be
processed if they are gable to adequately consider the infon ation contained in the
permits due to the reed to have the applicable standards established by the MP
approval, due to staff time restrictions, on the inability to meet processing deadlines as a
result of the simultaneous filings. In any evert,. the City shall not grant approvalsto
related pernits before the granting of an MPD permit and recording of a development
agreement.
18.98.060 MPD Permit — Review Process
A. MPD Permit — PrqzaR cation Conference, Public Information. Meet m and
PlanninCommission Informational Meetr �e Aired*
. A pre -application conference between the MP . applicant or
representative and City staff is required before the City will accept an application for
MP. permit approval..
a. The purpose of this conference is for the applicant to familiarize
the staff with the proposed MP , and for the staff to review with the applicant the City's
submittal requirements, anticipated staffing reeds, and processing procedures for MP
permit approval. The goal is to identify the City's objectives and likely issues, and to
e it hate potential problems that could arse during processing of the MPD permit
application prior to fonnal processing on the MPD permit application.
.. The applicant or representative shall present the inforrration
required as part of the. MPS. application. The City's ntent is that the conference takes
place after site inventory and analysi's has been substantially completed, but prior to the
completion of detailed survey, architectural or eng neenng work on the proposal..
C. A nonrefundable . pre -application conference fee in are amount
set forth in the City .fee Schedule Resolution will be paid before the pre -application
conference Will be scheduled.
2. der the pre application conference has been completed, a Public
Information meeting shall be conducted by the applicant. A Public. Infor-nationeeting
is. required before. the. City will accept are application for MPD pit approval.
a* The applicant shall schedule and conduct a Public
Information meeting regarding the proposed application. The Public Information
meet g shall be conducted at City Hall, or at such other public location within the City
that Will accommodate the anticipated attendees. The applicant shall attend the meeting
and provide information to the public regarding the proposed project, its tiring, and
consistency with the City's MPD Code, the Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable
city codes and regulations..
b. The Public Information meeting shall not be a Public.
Hearing, but shall allow for are informal exchange of comments between the applicant
and the general public. Notice of this meeting shall be provided in the newspaper of
Exhibit l to ordinance No. 05-9
Page 6 of 16
-60605.
record at least 14 days in advance- of the meeting and shall be mailed to the property
owners identified in section ,9 .o o(B)(7)(e above.
3. After the Public Information meeting has been completed a
Planning Commission Informational meeting shall be conducted. The Planning
Commission Information meeting is required before the City will accept an application
for MPD permit approval.
a.. The Planning Cormisie. Informational meeting will take
lace at a regular meeting of the Cormnisso.. ,At this meeting, the applicant shall
resent the overall an.* a. design concept o proposed ��, arthe
Commission shall provide preliminary feedback to the applicant regarding the
eons steno eoncep t with Cit 's adopted standards, goals and policies, The
PlanningCommission may bring specific issues of interest or concern tothe attention o
the applicant.
. While a public meeting, the purpose of the Planning
Commission Informational meeting; is not intended for the receipt of comments from the
public regarding the proposed MP,
B. MPD Permit Flublic Review Process..
CO leteness Cheek and SEPA: City staff shall review the WD
application for completeness and, once it I's determinedto be complete, provide the
required notice of application. Staff will then initiate the SEPA process.
2,. Qptional EIS S o Meetin : If the City's responsible official makes a
. eterninat on of environmental sigmcanoe regarding MPS. Application, - Staff may
schedule and'conduct are EIS. Scoping meeting. The applicant shall attend the meet r
and provide information regarding the proposed project, scope, planning,, tinging, and the
` � consultants.
results of any relevant envrornental studies per'orne y the Applicant's consulta
3. Staff Review: At theconclusion of the SEPA process, Staff will conduct
its detailed review of the proposal. This review may include requesting additional
n orrnati n� or proposal revisions, from the Applicant..
4. Staff ort:. The Staff will prepare a Witten Sty Report tothe Heafing
Ear. The completed Staff Report . shall be seat to. the Hearing Examiner and to. the
Applicant at least 10 calendar days prior to the public bearing.
5
�ear� � am nor Public Hearin The City"s. Hearing Examiner shall
hold a lc hearing on the MP. permit appieat'orn, aver corpletor the plc
information and Planning Commission meetings and conclusion of the SEPA process. ,At
least 14 calendar days pfior to the public. hearing, the City shall provide notice of the
hearing as follows:
Exhibit I to Ordinance No. 05-' 9
Page 7 of 16
a. Publication in the City's. newspaper 'of record;
b. .posting of the proposal site, in at least 3 locations visible from
public streets or fights -of -way;
C. Mailing to owners of record of properties within Soo feet of the
perimeter of the proposed MP (when one or more of the MPD property owners own
property adjacent to but not included within the MP, the 500 foot measurement shall be
made .from the property boundary that abuts property not owned by one or more of the
MPD property owners-, and
d. Any person(s) formally requesting notice.
6, Hearing Examiner Cri r'a} The HearinHeafing Examiner shall prepare recommended
findings of Fact, conclusions of law, and conditions of approval or a recommendation for
denial for the City Council's consideration, and shall transmit these to the City Council
vim foinleen l calendar days of the close of the public ear'n.'rye Examiner shA
evaluate the MPD application and other evidence submitted into the record, in order to
determine if the application, if appropriately conditioned, meets or exceeds the followffig
criteria:
(a) The City's adopted policiesand regulations, including but not limited to the
Municipal Code,' Comprehensive Plan, Public Works Standards, Critical .areas
Regulations, MPD Ordinance and NTD Design Standards. In evert of a conflict between
the policies, standards, objectives, or regulators the most stringent shall apply mess
modifications are authorized it the MPD ordinance and Design Standards.
(b) There are no significant adverse environmental impacts;
(c) The proposed project ect will have no adverse financial impact upon. the City at
each phase of development, as well as at full build -out. Tbis shall include conditiom'ng
any approval so that the fiscal analysis is updated to show continued compliance. with 'this.
cntena, in accordance with the following schedule:.
1. If any phase has. not been completed wig 5 years, a new fiscal
analysis must be done with regards to that phase beforeare extension can be granted; and
2. Prior to commencing a new phase.
(d) There is co.ncrrrency for all utilities and transportation system 'improvements
prior to occupancy at each phase and at build -out.
(e) The project, at aJl phases and at build -out, will not exceed the. available City,
staffing or result M the lowering of City staffing levels of service established by the. City,
including hose related to public safety.
(f) The project, in each residential phase, provides a Mix of housing types that
allows theproject to meet the percentage of affordable housing recommended under the.
County ode Planning Policies.
(g) For those portions of a proposed MPD that have Comprehensive Plan land use
designations, the ratio of residential to commercial lard uses wig the MPD shall be the
same'asdesignated on the Comprehensive Land Use Map unless the required fiscal study
supports or requires a different ratioof residential to commercial lard uses.
(h) If the MPD proposal includes properties that are subject to the Black Diamond
Urban Groff area Agreement (December 1996)then the proposal is- Consistent with the
terms and conditions therein.
Exhibit l to Ordinance No. 05-779
.page 8 of 16
(i) If the MPD proposal includes properties that were sexed into the City by
Ordinances 515 and 517 there the proposal must be consistent with the terns and
conditions. therein.
6 The orientation tatior of public building sites or parks shall preserve view corridors
of Mt. Rainier or other view cor - dors identified in the Cit 's Comprehensive Plan.
.
(k) The proposed MPD meets or exceeds all of the public benefit objectives o
18.98.020, and the WIC purposes set forth in. 18.98.00, ff. subparagraphs through (M).
(1)I
If the M prof e t is adjacent t to property already developed, or being
developed as. an MP, or adjacent to property which is within an MPD overlay zone,
then the project is designed so that there is connectivity of trails, open spaces and
transportation com'dors, the designs of streetscae and public open space amenities are
compatible and the project will result in the fictional and visual appearance of one
integrated project with the adjacent properties subject to. MPD approvals.
So long as to do so would not jeopardize the public health, safety, or welfare, the
Examiner may allow the applicant to voluntarily contribute money to fc City in order to
advance ro .ects to meet the City's adopted co gency or level of service standards, or
to mitigate. any identified adverse fiscal impact upon the City that is caused by the
Project.
. C r council: At its first regular meeting of o ing the receipt of the
Hearing Examiner's recommendations, the City Council shall schedule a time for its
consideration of the MP . The Council may:
(a) Accept the Examiner's recommendation; or
(b) Remand the MPD application to. the E alm"ner with direction to open the
heart g and provide supplementary Endings and conclusions on specificissues; or
(c) Modify the Examiner's recommendation, If modifying the Examiner's
recommendation, the Council shall enter its own modified findings and conclusions
as needed.
8, ,]al s: The Councils decision with regard to are MPD permit shall be
the Cit's final action for the purpose of any and all appeals.
18,98,070 MPD Permit - Environmental Review (SEPA).
A. Pursuant to the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEA) and
local SEPA relations, the City shall d et one whether an Environmental hnpact
Statement is required for the NT proposal. An application for a MPf permit shall
include,,at a rn�u, a .competed Envronm�tal Checklist. Prior to o concurrent withi
application submittal, the City and the Applicant may agree to prepare afi Environmental
Impact Statement for the proposal.
B. If desired by the applicant and deemed appropriate by the City, are WIC
proposal may be designated by the City as a planned action pursuant to RCW
4121 C.03 (2) and WAC 197-11-164 et seq.
Exhibit I to ordinance No. 05-779 9 of l
o o5 -
C.. Implementing City permits and approvals, such as preliminary plats, building
permits, and design reviews, shall be subject to applicable SEPA requirements*
18.981,080 M D Permit - Conditions of Approval.
A. 'he NTD pennit shall contain such conditions as are necessary to ensure that
the approved MPD complies with all applicable policies, standards, and objectives of the
City, including the provisions of this Chapter and the er'ter'a set forth in section
8. . (B)(6)
18,98,090 M D Permit -k Development Agreement. The MPD conditions of
approval shall he incorporated into a development agreement as authorized by RCW
.7.170. This agreement shall -he binding on all NW- property owners and their
successors,. and shall require that they develop the subject property only in accordance
with the terns of the MPD approval. This agreement shall he signed by the Mayor and
all property owners and lien holders within the MPD boundaries, and recorded, before the
City may approve any subsequent implementing permits or approvals (preliminary plat,
design review, building permit, etc.).
8, 8,100 MPD Permit - Amendments to an Approved MPD Permit. An
applicant may request an amendment to any element or provision of an approved UT .
All p ications for amendments. shall be deemed either "minor' or `*rr a, of" An
amendment application'shall he considered minor if it meets all of the following Brit r a:
. Would not -increase the total number of dwelling units in a MPD above the
maximum number set forth in the approved MPD permit;
2. Would not increase the total floor area of non-residential uses;
3, Would ld not decrease the minimum, or increase the maximum density for
residential areas of the MPD beyond density ranges approved in the MPD permit;
4. Would not decrease the approved amount of open space or recreation space;
5. would not significantly increase .any adverse env rorumental impact, provided
that additional environmental review may he required t determine whether sudh change
is likely to occur;
. would not adversely impact the projeet's fiscal projections to the detriment o
the City; and
7, Would not significantly impact the overall design of the approved UT .
Minor amendments may he approved administratively by the _City in accordance With the
procedure set forf in fe MPD development agreement, where applicable. Any
amendment application that is not `for'' shall he deemed to he major. The final
determination regarding whether an amendment is "m not" or "major" shall rest with the
arm*.g. Commission. Applications for major modifications shall he reviewed by the
same procedures applicable to. new MPD permit requests.. The City, through the
development agreement for the approved MP , may specify add fiona er teria for
dete�im'ng whether a proposed modification is "major"' or "minors",
18,98,110 MPD standards - Design Review Required.
Exhibit 1 to Ordinance No. 0-77
Page 10 of l
60605 ,
A. Desi* W Standards. The MPD master plan and each subsequent implementing
permit or approval request, including all proposed building permits, shall be consistent
with the City's NPD Design Standards, Chapter 18-98 BDMC.
�.�. B. es . Process.
i eye ' oc,�
. MP. 'wit: The Hearing Examiner shall evaluate the. overall M1?.master
plan for compliance nth the City's MPD Design Standards, Chapter 18.98 ;A MC,. as
part of the Examiner's recommendation to the City Council on the overall MPD permit.
I Implementing Permits or Approvalg — Residential Subdivisions. Each
residential subdivision that is part of an approved MP . shall be reviewed by the City's
Planning/Design Commission at the time of preliminary plat review for compliance with
the City's NTD Design Standards, Chapter 18.98 BDMC. Thi's review shall include
typical schernatc. draws (floor plans, elevations, and eter'or material samples) for the
single -Family res'dences and other structures to be Alt on 'the subdivided lots* This
review shall be merged with the Flaring Commission's review of the preliminary plat,
and shall take place at the same meeting at which the Planning Commission holds its
public hean'ng on the. plat, The City shall mergeits public notice'of the design review
with the required Public notice of the preliminary plat hearing, utilizM*g the notice
requirements for that hean*ng, as set forffi in Subdivisions, Title 17 BDMC.. The City's
Planning/Design Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council on the
lays compliance with the WD Design ' Standards, include.; but not Bruited to fe
compliance of the proposed street layout and schematic design of the proposed residential
structures. This recommendation shall be Forwarded to the Council in conjunction wig
the Plmning Commission's recommendation on the Fremm'ary plat. The
Planning/Design Commission shall adopt findings, conclusionsand, where applicable,
recommended conditions of approval with respect to the proposed subdivision's
compliance with the. City's WD Design Standards. Individual detached single-family
residential structures on lots 7,200 square .feet or greater -in size are subject to
adr.u*U'stratve review for compliance with the City MPD Design Standards but are
exempt from the Flanm*ngOesign Cords on schematic drag review process... set
forth above.
.. hpplementing.Pets. or Approvals short Subdivision short Plats)... Short
subdivisions (short plats) within are approved MPD shall be Teviewed by the
Planning/Design Corn-rM*ssion for compliance with the City"s ' WD Design Standards,
Chapter 18.98 MC.. This reviewshall include typical schematic drawings. (floor plans,
elevations, and exterior' material sample) for the single-family residences and other
structures to be built on the subdivided lots. This review shall take place at a regular
public meeting of the Comnussion. The City shall Provide Publicnotice of the design
review at least 14 business days prior tothe scheduled Commission meeting, by
Publishing a notice in the City"s newspaper of record, and posting fe site in at least 3
locations visible from an adjacent public street or right-o-way. Mailed noticeto
individual adjacent property owners is not required. The Commission shall make a
decision on the short l at's compliance. With the WD Design standards, including but
Exhibit l to Ordinance No. 05-779
Page l l of l
o o .
not limited to the compliance of the proposed lot layout and schematic design of to
proposed residential structures.. The ConUnIssion shall adopt Endings, conclusions and,
where applicable, conditions of approval. This decision shall be final unless appealed to
the City Council within 14 days of the City"s issuance of a notice of decision.
. Im-olementing. Pennits or rova s — Sig e+4m Residential Buildin
Permits in Aproved Subdivisions or Short Subdivisions.- Witte an approved MP , the
City shall adniinistratively review single -Family residential building permit applications
in approved and recorded subdivisions and short subdivisions for consistency with the
schematic building drawings approved in. conjunction with preliminary plat or short plat
approval. No public notification is required for this administrative design review.
Applications for single-family residential structures that are found to be not consistent
with the approved schematicdrawings, or for which no schematic approval took place
(other than. Mdivic ual detached single -Family residential structures on lots 7,200 square
feet - or greater in size), shall be referred to thePlanning/Design Comnussion for its
review.
. Imlernentir 'errnits or Apnova s —der Building,. Perms: All other
structures (including but pot limited to commercial and multifamily buildings) within are
approved MPr -shall be reviewed by the Planning/Design Planning/DesignCommission for compliance
with the City's MPD Design Standards, Chapter 18.98 B MC# TMs review shall he
made on schematic drawm' gs (floor plans, elevations, and exterior material samples), site
plans, and landscape plans for the proposed structure or structures. This review shall use
the process, notice, and appeal provisions descr*hed in Subsection above. The
Commission shall make a decision on the proposal "s compliance With the MPD Design
Standards, including but not limited to the compliance of the proposed site and landscape
plans, and design of the proposed str cture s .. The Commission shall adopt fmdings.,
conclusions and, where applicable, conditions of approval. Building permit applications
that are found to he not consistent with the approved schematic drawings, or for which .no
schematic approval took place, shall he referred to the Plan ingl esig - Commission for
its review.
6. Future Protect Co siste : The City shall not approve a prelirm"nary plat or
short plat, or issue a building permit or site plan review approval for a parcel located
within an W ,. unless. the City has found that the proposal is consistent with applicable
NWD Design Standards.
18.98-120 MPD standards- Permitted Uses and Densities.
A. MPDs shall include a TM'X of residential and non-residential uses.. Residential
uses shall include a variety of housing types and densities.
B. Each WD shall contain sufficient affordable housing, in each residential phase,
In order toprovide the percentage of affordable housing recommended in the County-
wide Planning Policies...
C. An MPD shall contain retail, commercial, office, audios business park uses as
these uses are defined by Title, 18 of the BDMC, and shall contribute positively to the
city Job growth and achievement of fiscal balance.
Exhibit l to Ordinance No. -7
Page 12 of l
" .
IMF The use mixes required to comply with the conditions of MPD approval shall
override any underlying zom'ng code use restrictions to the contrary.
18,98,130 MPD Standards - Development Standards
A. An approved 1\4PD permit and development agreement may allow development
standards different from those otherwise imposed under the Black Diamond Municipal
Code, in order to provide flexibility to achieve public benefits, responding to changing
community reeds, further the public benefits set for the in Sections I and 2 of this code,
and encourage modifications cations ich provide the fanctional equivalent r adequately
achieve the purposes of City standards.
. Any approved development standards that differ from those in the otherwise
applicable Code shall not require any artier zoning reclassification, variances, or other
City approvals apart from the. MPD permit approval.
C. Building permit applications shall he subject to the building codes in effect at
the time a building permit application is deemed complete by the City.
18,98,140 MPD Standards — oiler Space Requirements
A. An approved MPD shall contain at least % ors -site open space. open space -is
defined to include, but is not limited to, wildlife habitat areas, perimeter buffers,
environmentally enUical areas and their buffers, and trail corridors. It may also M*clude
developed recreation areas, such as golf courses, trail corridors, and play fields. Open
space shall he calculated based on the gross acreage of the MP . Provided, this
requirement shall not apply to property within the City's Potential Annexation Areas as
identified it the 1996. Black Diamond Urban Growth .,area Agreement so long as the open
space indentified it that agreement that is located within the project honndar�es remains
permanently protected.
B. Open space shall be -located and designed to fonn a coordinated open
space network resulting in continuous greenbelt areas and buffers to mirmie the Visual
impacts of developmentwithin-the MP , and provide connections to existing or pled
open space networks, wildlife corridors, and trail corridors on adjacent properties.
C. The open space shall he located and designed to xm'nirni a flie adverse impacts.
on �i dlife resources and achieve a high degree o compati ility Wi �Rdli `e habitat
areas where identified.
D. The approved MPS. permit and development agreement shall establish specific
uses for open space within the approved MP.
E.. The approved MPD perinit and development agreement shall establish which
open space shall he dedicated to the City, which shall he protected by conservation
easements, ts, and which shall he protected and maintained by other rnecham'sms.
18.98.150 MPD Standards — on -Site Recreation and TrailRequirements.
Exhibit I to Ordinance No. -'
Page 13 o l
160605.
A. An WD shall provide on -site recreation areas and facilities sufficient to meet
the .needs of MPD residents, exceeding; or at a m1m*MUM consistent with levels of service
adopted by the City where applicable. This shall include providing for a coordinated
system of traits and pedestrian linkages both within, and connecting to existing or
planned regional or local trail systems outside of the NTDw
B. The approved WD permit and development agreement shall establish the sizes,
locations, and types of recreation facilities and trails to be w*lt as part of the MPD. The
approved MPD permit and development agreement also shall establish which recreation
and trail areas shall e dedicated to the City, and which shall be owned and maintained
y other mechanisms
18.98,160 MPD Standards — Transfer of Development Rights* All proposed
transfers of development fights shall be consistent with the City's adopted "CDR program
(Chapter 19.24). n approved MPD permit and development agreement shall establish
the 'CDR requirements for a specific UPD. Maximum allowable MPD residential
densities can only be achieved through participation in the Cit `'.s 'CDR program as a
receiving site.
18,98.170 MPD Standards — Street Standards.
A. The City may consider street standards that modify those standards that apply
generally within the City.
B. The MPD application shall include street standards consistent with the MPD
design guidelines. These standards may deviate from typical City-wide street standards in
order to incorporate `'so impact development" concepts such as narrower pavement
cross- sections, enhanced pedestrian features, low impact storm water facilities, and
increased connectivity. Cul-de-sacs areto be discouraged. Standards incorporating
" "green street' or "low impact development" storn water drainage features (such asgrass-
lined swales) shall he encouraged where their implementation does not result in abnormal
long-teirm mmontenance costs.
C. The street layout shallbe-designed to preserve view com*dors of Mt. Raim'er or
other view corridorsidentified in the Cit 's Comprehensive ensive Plan..
D. The City shall review the proposed street standards as .part of the MD pit
review process. The ' approved street standards shall become part of the MPD permit
approval, and shall apply to public and private streets in all subsequent implementing
projects within the MPD. except when new or different standards are specifically
determined by the City Council to he necessary for public safety.
18,98-180 MPD Standards — Stormwater Management Standards.
Exhibit i to Ordinance No. 05-779
age 14 of 16
- o6o5
A. The MPD applicant shall, at a minimum, abide by the adopted storm water
management regulations of the City at the time of a complete application, The City may
consider the application of stonnwater management standards that enhance those
standards that apply generally within the City, in order to Implement ffie design concepts
in the MPD design standards, provided that it can be determined to the City's satisfaction
that the functional requirements of the citywide stormwater management standards are
met.
B. The City s aH review the proposed standards as part of the NTD Pest review
process* The approved standards shall become part of the MP -permit approval, and
shall apply to public and private stonnwater management systems in all subsequent
implementing projects within the MP, except when new or different standards are
specifically determined by the City Council to be necessary for public health or safety.
C. Where conditions allow, opportunities to infiltrate stormwater to the benefit o
the aquifer, Mcloding oortmities for re -use, shall be implemented as part of the
stornwater management plan for the MP .
18,981,190 MPD Standards - water and Sewer Standards. A. An MPD shall be served with public water and sever systems that:
Employ innovative- water conservation measures including metering
technolo 'es, irrigation technologies, landscaping and soil amendment technologies, and
re -use technologies to reduce and/or discourage a the reliance upon potable water for non -
potable uses including outdoor watering.
2. Are designed iin sueb a way as to emanate or at a mimmom rice to the
greatest -degree possible the reliance upon pumps, 'lift stations, and other mechanical
.devices and their associated costs to provide service to the MP.
B. . Each WD shall develop and implement a water conservation plan to he
approved as part of the development agreement that targets a maximum water
consumption of no greater than 230.gallons of water per day per equivalent residential
unit, and -sets forth , MP -vide strategies for achieving grater conservation ding and
-after project completion to achieve consumption rates of less than 230 gallons of water
per day per equivalent residential Wit.
.9.95 vesting
A, Except to the extent earlier terW ate[ modified by the provisions o
this Chapter, -or as otherwise spe'cified in the conditions of approval, the M D
Permit approval vests the applicant for 15 years to all conditions of approval and to
the development regulations in effect on the date of approval.
Vesting as to storwter regulations shall be on a phase by phase
basis,.
C. vesting as to conditions necessary to meet the fiscal impacts analysis
criteria refire y section 1 8.98.00(B6)C shall only a for such period o time
as is ,justified by the required updated analysis.
Exhibit 1 to ordinance No, 05-
Page 15 of 16
"o ,
18.98,200 Revocation of MPD Permit. The City Council may amend or revoke any
or all conditions of MPD approval, after pubic ems ; and. notice under the following
eircumstarces:
A. If the development was phased, and a phase has not been
approved within five years of the approval of the previous
phase or the original MP . approval and an extension of said
phase has not been previously granted. An extension may be
granted for up to an additional two years on such additional
conditions as the Council determines are necessary in order
to assure that the extension does not adversely impact the
intent and purpose of the initial MPD approval.
B. A condition of the MPD approval has been violated and the
violation has not been coiTected after sixty days notice
of the violation unless said violation can be corrected through
the use of a duly posted performance or maintenance bond
provided at the time of MPD approval.
C. A violation of are NTD condition of approval that cannot be
corrected such as the destruction of wetlands or removal o
trees and vegetation that was specifically prohibited are
cannot be restored to their orial state within 60 days. .
D. The MPD perr.t has been approved for more than five 5
years and the City Council Ends that Sher development
will present a heat to the public health, safety and welfare
are
unless the amendment or revocation is implemented.
Provided, however, the City shall first determine that the
condition carrot he amended in order toeliminate the threat
to the public health, safety or welfare before it revokes the
Permit approval..
The above Provisions not withstanding,the vacation and/or amendment of the MP
approval shall not affect Previously approved building permits.
Exhibit 1 to ordinance No. 05-779
Page 16 of 16
"-o
Town Serving Zone, Palm Beach Florida
Residents of Palm Beack an island off the coast of Florida,, have converted their a.i
commercial district into a "town -serving one," which caps is stores at 2,000 square feet
and impels them to serge primarily "town persons:" those living, or working in Palm
Beach, Businesses larger than 2,000 square feet can apply for a special exception use
permit provided they can convince the City Council that not less than 0% of their
anticipated customers will be "town persons" : The o g later was upheld in a 1991 court
case, which concluded that the restrictions served legitimate public interests and reflected
the tow 's desire to limit the displacement of its local businesses by larger, regional
establishments.
Schedule of Use Regulations
s
Palm Beach
Purpose:
It is the intent of this district to create, preserve and enhance areas of attractive,, small-
scale, retail, personal and professional/business services to be developed either as a unit
or in individual parcels, providing for the frequently recurring needs of Townpersons: To
enhance the general character of the district and its compatibility with its residential
surroundings, signs are limited to those accessory to businesses conducted on the
premises, including the number, area and types; and retail drive-in facilities are not
permitted. Further, in order to maintain the Town -serving nature of the district,
limitations on gross leasable floor G area are imposed,
Permitted Uses:
Maximum of 25000 square feet of Gross Leasable Area G ):
1. Retail and service establishments, such as: restaurants and drinking establishments,
hardware stores, food stores, clothing stores, drug stores, barber shops, beauty salons and
jewelry
stores.
I office and Professional Services and Business Services
. Banks and financial institutions
_ Nora -Profit Cultural Centers
S. Professional or Studio -type Schools
. Essential Services
Accessory Uses:
. off-street paring and loading
2. Signs
. rye -family dwellings located above the first Floor
. Accessory uses customarily incident to the permitted or approved Special Exception
Uses
Special Exception Uses;
. Public or private parking lots or storage garages
. Auto rental lots
. Multi -family dwellings
. Private social,, swimming, golf, tennis and yacht clubs
. Service stations
. Public structures
Supplemental parking
. Public or private academic schools
. Drive-in business service facilities
10. Churches'. Synagogues, or other Houses of Worship
11. Any Commercial Establishment with greater than 2,000 sq. ft. of GLA, provided the
Town Council has found, as a fact, that the proposed use is Town serving.
Town -Serving: Establishments principally oriented to serving the needs of Town Persons
which would not substantially rely upon the patronage of persons not defined as Town
Persons. 'own -serving establishments, by definition, would typically contain 2,000 or
less square feet of interior Gross Leasable Area G and would not engage in
advertising designed to attract other than Town Persons.
Copyright - oo - Institutelor Local Self-Reliantgq
The New Rules Project - ht�t www.newrule ._or
economic & Community Impact Review
number of communities now requi
Are a comprehensive economic and community
impact review before approving any new retail construction. Typically, the review s
triggered when the proposed development exceeds a certain size e.g., a retail store larger
than 21,00square feet or that will generate more than 5 00 vehicle trips per clay),
n order to pass, ,the proposed project must meet cer a*n criter*a outlined in the or inar c .
These vary from place to place, but may include impact on the downtown business
district, employment ment Oohs gained versus jobs lost), wages, tax revenue, roads and other
public services, historic resources, air and water pollution, and traffic. As part ofthis
process, cities typically require that economic and fiscal (tax) impact studie's be
conducted by independent cons lta is chosen by the city council and paid for by a fee
assessed on the developer. In most cases, there's also a public hearing to gather citizen
input. In the end, if the city council or planning hoard) determines that the pro ect's
overall costs outweigh the benefits, then the developer is denied a permit to proceed.
In some areasl neigbb oring co mmu niti es have worked together to establish a Regional
Impact Review process for very large developments. Many corporate retailers are large
enough to have impacts that will be felt well beyo.nd the borders of their host torn. Cities
and towns often have difficulty rejecting unwanted retail development for fear that the
store will simply locate in a adjacent torn, generating many of the same harmful impacts
but moire of the tax revenue. Regional cooperation offers .a solution to this problem. .
handful of regions have taken this approach, creating joint planning agencies charged
with reviewing applications for developments that exceed a certain size, or developments
of regional impact RIs). This is in addition to any review and permitting required by
the host municipality.
Some states are considering legislation that would require all communities to conduct
economic impact reviews of proposed big -box development. See our rules -covering
Manatom act Reviews.
RULES:
Benninglon, VT
n January 2005, the town of Bennington, home to 9,200 people and located in the
southwest corner of Vermont enacted the follovn'rrg ordinance. It bans stores over 75,000
square feet i n one comr ercra] district and 5 0, 000 square feet i n the .rest of the town, It
requires proposals for stores over 30,000 square Feet to submit to- a community impact
review conducted by an independent consultant chosen by the city. The cost of the
review is to he paid by the developer.
Carbondale Colorado
In'November 2 o , after three years of debate and a voter referendum that demonstrated
strong opposition to sprawling shopping centers, Carbondale, Colorado, enacted a
ordinance that requires the town's planning staff and Board of Trustees to weigh the
community and fiscal impacts of a large-scale retail proposal before deciding whetherto
approve or deny the project.
Greenfield Massachusetts
Greenfield',, Massachusetts requires new retail stores to undergo a special review ifthey
exceed 20,000 square feet or generate more than Soo vehicle trips per day. Impact studies
are paid for by the developer and consider the project's impact on traffic, municipal
services, public revenue, the environment, the local economy, and the community. The
community component includes potential impact on historic and scenic sites, the
character of the town, and the downtown business district.
Homey Alaska
After two years of consideration ---including a review by a city council -appointed task
force, numerous public hearings, and a voter referendum- -the city of Homer, Alaska, has
capped the size of retail stores at 25,000-45,000 square feet and adopted a community
impact review process for proposed retail developments is over 15,000 square feet.
Los Angeles Commune act Review ordinance
n October Zoo '. after months of debate on the consequences of big -box development,
the Los Angeles City Council enacted a law that requires proposed superstores to pass a
economic impact review in order to obtain approval to build. The law applies to retail
stores larger than 100,00square feet that devote more than 10 percent of their floor
space to food and that are seeking to locate in economic assistance zones.
Middletown, Rhode Island
In determining whether to approve or deny proposals for large-scale development, the
Middletown Planning Board evaluates the pro ect's impact on traffic, municipal services,
the environment,, and the character of the community. The town requires that developers
submit detailed impact statements and pay a fee to cover the tow 's cost of hiring
consultants to review the impact statements and offer independent analyses, For shopping
centers and other commercial development, the fee is oo per 1,000 square feet of gross
floor space,
ML Shasta
., California
In March Zoo , the City Council of Mount Shasta, California., voted -2 to enact the
following ordinance, which caps stores at 50,000 square feet and requires proposals for
stores over 2,0square feet to undergo an economic impact review and obtain a
conditional use permit.
Santa Cruz, -California
In October 2,, the Santa Cruz City Council voted unanimously to adopt are ordinance
requiring new retail stores over 16,000 square feet to obtain a special permit. only stores
that add to a balanced and diverse mix of downtown businesses are allowed. "The
continued establishment of large square footage retail businesses in the Downtown, if not
monitored and regulated, may frustrate the Downtown Recover Plan goal of establishing
and maintaining diverse retail base with a 'unique retailing personality,"' the ordinance
states.
More:
Also see ReOonal_ Impact .review
Protecting e ownedRetail: Planning Tools for Curbing Chains and
Hurt dRg H m of _Businesses rPDFI by Stacy Mitchell, Main Street News,
February Zoo . (c)National Main Street Center, National Trust for r stork
Preservation. All rights reserved.
Copyright 19 -2 o - Institute for Local Self -Reliance
The New Rules Project � htti)://www.newrules.o��