Loading...
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��