The URL can be used to link to this page

12/17/07 WS/Glacier Town CenterKalispell City Council Work Session December 17, 2007 Mayor Kennedy: The Kalispell City Workshop and I would welcome any public comments at this time. If there is any member of the public that would like to address the Council on any item on the agenda or not on the agenda now would be your opportunity, other than the developers that will be doing the presentation. Is there any member of the public that would like to address the Council? Any member? Any member? Okay, we will close that. We're going to go right to the presentation. It's the first item on our agenda, Mr. Patrick. Mr. Patrick: Your Honor, before we begin here I would ask Council's consideration to remove the 9/11 update. We were asked to void on this for the time being and bring forward another workshop in January. So if that's okay... Mayor Kennedy: It's removed. Mr. Patrick: Thank you. Unknown Speaker: It's going to be a short night. Mr. Patrick: Merry Christmas Mayor and Council. One item on the main agenda and one item here. Mayor Kennedy: Very good. All right, let's go forward. Mr. Patrick: Your Honor, tonight, Your Honor and Council tonight what we would like to do is ask, as we do many of our developers, ask them to, ask the developers for Glacier Town Center to give sort of a broad overview of the project. This did pass Planning Commission last Tuesday night. Council will be seeing it in the near future, and we wanted to give you an idea of what was in store. Again without getting into the details of this it's going to be more of a concept presentation tonight and in that regard, I don't know, Chad or.... Mayor Kennedy: Is there anything that the staff is going to bring forward, or not at this point? Mr. Patrick: I think we would like the developers to lead here. Mayor Kennedy: Very good. Mr. Patrick: Chad Wolford is the developer/owner of the project. Chad Wolford: Hi. Chad Wolford, Wolford Development of Chattanooga, Tennessee. I appreciate you all taking the time to review this project this evening. If I could I am j ust going to introduce the team here and then turn it over to our land planners for a brief presentation and then we will do a question and answer session to follow. Ken Kalvig of Kalvig and LeDuc is our legal council. Kathleen Krager with Krager and Associates is our traffic engineer on the project. We have Dan.... Dan: New guy on the block. Chad Wolford: I'm just drawing a mind blank here, I'm sorry. Dan Perkins with Miller McCoy, or excuse me, with Morgan Construction here, our General Contractor; Wayne McCoy with Miller McCoy, our Civil Engineer and Ian McCaskill with Architecture Plus, our architects on the project. We also have Wayne Freeman and Brent Moore here too, with CTA to do the presentation. So, thank you all for your time. Mayor Kennedy: Thank you. Brent Moore: Good evening. My name is Brent Moore and I am with CTA Architects, 2 S. Main, in Kalispell. I am just going to go through a brief presentation, and Kathleen Krager is also going to participate in this presentation. At the end as Chad mentioned we will be happy to answer any questions you have about the development. As you are aware this project is within your growth policy, future land use map. It is designated as KN- I as approximately in this location along US 93, West Reserve and Whitefish Stage Road. Your growth policy identifies that area as the Kalispell North mixed use area. Specifically, the development of an integrated, residential/commercial development neighborhood between US 93, West Reserve Drive and Whitefish Stage Road. So this is where we come into play as land planners and architects. We really look at your policy as a guiding for our plan and this is our land use plan. If you notice, the predominant feature of the land use plan is a Lifestyle Center adjacent to US Highway 93. It is approximately 550,000 square feet as proposed. It would also have approximately 35 (thirty-five) lots around that central Lifestyle Center. Going east on the property there is proposed to be a large park area through the middle of the property and then there is a transition from this higher intensity commercial uses to mixed -use patterns along the boundary of the park in the center. In addition, there is a proposed community center that's approximately five acres, in this location. There is a mixture of housing types to the north and the east of the property. Those mixtures of housing types include town homes in this area, some higher density town homes to lower density single family residences along the project boundary. It also includes a neighborhood center at Rose Crossing. Unknown Speaker: Sir? Are there phases involved there that we could be aware of in that last... ? Brent Moore: Yeah. I'll get you... I have a phasing map... Unknown Speaker: Okay. Fine. Thank you. Brent Moore: This is again a more detailed view of the overall conceptual site plan. Again you see the Lifestyle Center; you see the out parcels filling up with structures. Again, the mixed use along that corridor there and the residential along those areas. And this is a phasing plan; it is proposed to be five phases. In total, the project would have 632 (six hundred thirty-two) residences and approximately 1.8 million square feet of commercial uses. The first phase as proposed is approximately 191 acres, and would be for this predominant commercial portion here. As you see the phases go out to approximately 2020, so a project of this scale does have a long-term build -out, over a 15 (fifteen) year period. This is a central park prospective of you looking on that predominant 25 acre feature in the center of the project which separates some of the higher intense commercial uses again from the residential uses. This central park feature, not only is the applicant agreeing to dedicate that portion to the city, but to make some significant improvements to the overall central park within Phase 1 of the project. This is the Lifestyle Center again, a more detailed view of the site plan of the Lifestyle Center. You'll see some of the access points that our traffic engineer will discuss in greater detail further in this presentation. But you'll see, as proposed, the applicant has proposed two primary intersections at the north and the south. Again you see some roundabouts at those locations, and are proposing a three-quarter intersection at that center location. Just a little bit of the overall architectural character of the theme of the project, it's generally on a western motif. The center of the project will have a food -court and you will see a variety of architectural themes coming from that central focus point, which would be a central entrance into the project. Again, the center of this Lifestyle Center is walk -able and does allow for angled parking. So you get a sense of the character of an open air mall. Again, this is one of the character sketches from that central food court area. Of course, the project also proposes to connect to your overall city system, and there are some primary connections. Rose Crossing is proposed within the first phase of the project, will be constructed by the developer and it will connect US Highway 93 and Whitefish Stage Road. There will also be a connection, as proposed, down to West Reserve Drive. And then internal connections within the property, larger connections- collector type connections- through the property. In addition the applicant is proposing four connections to the north. You will notice in your staff report, in the Planning Board's recommendation that they have recommended six connections. The applicant is requesting four connections to the north and some additional connections into these adjacent areas. I think that we'll go over a little bit more in the planning staff s presentation that will be coming up. But I just wanted to give a general, overall character to the proposed access and connectivity issues. In addition, you will see there are four locations proposed as conceptual locations for roundabouts. Again, that was a staff recommendation and a Planning Board recommendation that the applicant is willing to construct as a part of the overall project. At this point in time I'm going to ask Kathleen Krager to come up and talk a little bit more about the transportation issues. Thank you. Kathleen Krager: Good evening Your Honor, members of Council. My name is Kathleen Krager. I am a transportation engineer with the firm of Krager and Associates out of Denver, Colorado. And just to reassure you I am a registered professional engineer in the State of Montana, as well as a professional traffic operations engineer. This simply means that I specialize in traffic, and don't ask me to look at a drainage study, because I would be really bad at that. I have conducted a traffic impact study for this site. That the traffic impact study has been reviewed by city staff as well as the Montana Department of Transportation. And that study not only looked at all of the access points that serve this center, but also looks at a number of city streets that you should be aware of. Including the intersections of Rose Crossing/Highway 93, Reserve Street/Highway 93, Reserve Street and Whitefish Stage Road, Rose Crossing and Whitefish Stage Road, Rose Crossing and Highway 2. So, the study does encompass a fairly large area. It looks at a short term analysis, basically with the Lifestyle Center built, but it also considers long-term, which is the year 2030. It assumes total build out of the site as well as full build out of the Kalispell land plan in the area using numbers that were developed for the 93 bypass study. The traffic study has the basic analysis in it, but I wanted to sort of show it to you in a slightly different way tonight to try to make sense of some of the access issues that we discussed at Planning Board and that you're going to be looking at over the next month or so. (I've got to look at the next slide.) The applicant is recommending access to a number of locations including Reserve Street, Rose Crossing up to Highway 2. But the main access is to Highway 93 and we are recommending two signalized intersections; one at Rose Crossing, one at the southern side of the site, which is called Access B. and a three-quarter movement at Access A. The Montana Department of Transportation is also recommending this plan. With this plan, the numbers I am showing you are year 2030 numbers with full build out of everything in the area. Your critical intersection for access to this site is Rose Crossing, so I'll sort of concentrate at Rose Crossing and 93. With the two signals and the three-quarter movement, that intersection operates at Level of Service C, which is a very good level of service for a long-term analysis of an urban area. It's a ... you might not like it when your kids get a C, but C is actually a very good level of service. It means very reasonable delay for everyone going into the intersection. The average delay for the p.m. peak hour at that intersection would be 28.2 seconds. And that's the average of all movements - through, lefts, everyone. You put them together and the typical person is going to end up waiting 28 seconds at that intersection. Not a bad level of service at all, something that everyone sort of lives with. Very minor Qs; Qs are the length of vehicles stacking because they are waiting to get through a green signal. The other signalized intersection operates at Level of Service B, and the three-quarter movement will operate quite well. The three-quarter movement, that's a... they're a fairly new type of intersection. They were actually developed in the mid 80's, the current form of them, in the early 80's I should say, out of Denver, and the purpose for a three- quarter movement is to take advantage of capacity prior to a signalized intersection. And the way that you do this is that when you have a left turn arrow at the signalized intersection, in this case, southbound left turn, southbound left turn at Access B. whenever that green arrow comes on for that left turn, that's basically a green arrow also for your three-quarter movement. And they can do it quite safely, quite easily, and it provides actually more capacity than if we put in a double left turn lane at this intersection. The reason for that is people tend to be a little bit timid about using the outside left turn lane. We find that about 60 percent of the people use the inside left turn lane; 40 percent use the outside left turn lane. So we don't get a full doubling of capacity just because we double the number of left turn lanes. But when you add a left turn lane prior to the signal that people can take advantage of that signal, and quite easily see the traffic in front of them, they're able to get just as much traffic through that three-quarter movement that you could at the signalized intersection. All in all, this plan works quite well. Montana Department of Transportation was pleased with it. However, this was not the plan that the Planning Board recommended. Let's take a look at what Planning Board recommended. They recommended removing the three-quarter and putting a right -in, right -out at this location. Doesn't sound like it's such a big deal; it's just removing one movement. However, when you remove the left turn here at this un-signalized intersection, that means those left turns have to use a signalized intersection, either at Rose Crossing or at Access B and you have to give those left turns more green time. To give the left turns more green time you have to take the green time away from everyone else, mainly the through traffic on Highway 93 and the result is that the level of service at Rose Crossing drops to Level of Service D and the delay per vehicle almost doubles. It goes up to 46 seconds a vehicle. This is what the Planning Board recommended, but it was not the only thing they considered and I'm sure you've listened to what the Planning Board had to say so I want to go through the other considerations they had as well. One of their considerations was to remove Access A completely and make Access B a right -in, right -out access and have Rose Crossing be the only signalized intersection. I believe the theory here is fewer signals on Highway 93, Highway 93 will operate better. And it seems like it should be that, but it doesn't actually work that way. If you try to jam too much traffic into one intersection instead of spreading it out to a number of intersections, you're going to end up with unnecessary delays at that intersection. And you're going to be taking a lot of green time away from Highway 93 traffic to accommodate the other turns that will occur at that intersection. That means that all the left turns out occur at Rose Crossing, all the left turns in occur at Rose Crossing. That intersection ends up operating at Level of Service F and yeah, just like I have to tell my high school aged kids, Level of Service F is failing. From a traffic stand point we do not want to see an intersection with a Level of Service F, particularly not a signalized one. Delay is 101 seconds, four times as great as it would be under the proposal being made by the applicant and you end up with some fairly long Qs. For example, the Q of people waiting to turn left out at Rose Crossing is long enough that it's beginning to interfere with the main entrance into the Lifestyle Center where we're proposing a traffic circle. And the one thing you can't have with a traffic circle is a stack of traffic that enters the traffic circle because traffic circles can work wonderfully well unless you stop in them, and then they stop in all directions. So, not a good plan there. The right -in, right -out would also operate at Level of Service F for the right turners out entering Highway 93 and they would have some fairly extensive delay. There's one more proposal that Planning Board looked at, and that was the Junior Interchange concept that is considered within the transportation plan that's being considered. What I tried to do here was to provide a conceptual design of the type of Junior Interchange that seems to be talked about the most in this area. And that is, we commonly call them a buttonhook design. And what this design would do is, Rose Crossing would go over Highway 93 and if you wanted to go to Whitefish you would make a left turn onto this buttonhook and then a right turn onto Highway 93. If you wanted to go to Kalispell, you'd go, take the bridge over 93, make a left turn onto this buttonhook, and then a right turn onto Highway 93. These buttonhooks by the way can actually go in any four of the quadrants. I put them in these quadrants because obviously one quadrant is the Glacier Project so we know we've got land there. And it seemed that land on the south side might be more readily available on the other side of Highway 93 than land on the north side, but that would be land that would have to be acquired in order to do this concept. If you put in a Junior Interchange here, it is reasonable to expect that you have to remove access at both point A and at B in order to have the Junior Interchange function properly. We try to space all interchanges at least one mile apart in order to give proper acceleration/deceleration length on the highway. So I've removed the access at B and A, everyone wanting to go to 93 ends up going up to Rose Crossing. In addition, my first access up to Rose Crossing no longer works because it's too close to the buttonhook interchange and so I've brought everyone out to the second one. This sort of very highly controlled access plan ends up with some capacity problems because you're bringing basically everyone to the same points. Exiting the mall, or the Lifestyle Center, you end up with a very long Q of traffic waiting to get out at Rose Crossing and make that left turn. You also end up with a very long Q of traffic waiting to turn left to head toward Whitefish. In addition, you end up with long Qs waiting to make the right turns onto Highway 93. These long Qs have very long delays. A delay of this type, with this type of Qs, you're probably looking at 15 to 20 minutes in exiting the Lifestyle Center and actually getting onto Highway 93. Now the advantage of this design is that the through traffic on Highway 93 doesn't have to stop. But, that doesn't help the person who is shopping here and just had to wait on the typical night, not just the weekend before Christmas, but a typical night, had to wait 15 to 20 minutes to get out, to get on Highway 93. It's looking at these considerations that I think certainly brought the applicant to the conclusion that we should be looking at two signalized intersections and the three-quarter as the most efficient design for both Highway 93 and for the center itself, as well as brought the Montana Department of Transportation to that decision. Whenever you have an arterial street, which is what Highway 93 is, you need the proper amount of access in order for it to function well. If you control the access too tightly and bring everyone out at one location, you're going to have to have a super intersection or large interchange to accommodate it. If we can bring people out at more locations, but regulate where those locations are, you can come up with the best design. (Can we go back to Figure 1 ?) This location which MDOT has recommended, you notice has the signal spacing equal to the signal spacing at West Reserve. This is half mile spacing in between each of these signals, and traffic engineers have reached the conclusion these days that for our arterial street systems that function at around 45 miles per hour, that half mile spacing is what we're looking for. You can achieve very good progression of traffic, that's when you're able to drive and you hit theoretically, all of the green lights and you don't stop at every single one. You interconnect these lights to West Reserve, and the majority of traffic on 93 can hit them as all green lights rather than having to stop for traffic anywhere. In addition, it gives you enough room for turning movements; that you have enough room for adequate left turn, storage, that type of thing, and also the half mile allows signal progression in both directions. Signal progression used to be really easy when we were designing streets where everyone worked downtown and everyone lived outside of downtown, so they came into downtown in the morning and they went away from downtown ... Our travel patterns have changed greatly and the travel patterns on 93 really reflect that. There is not a heavy directional traffic on 93. You get heavy traffic in both directions in the a.m. and p.m. peak hour so you want signal progression that is going to work for southbound and northbound both in the a.m. and p.m. I know I've thrown a lot of information out at you this evening and I'd be more than willing to answer questions or, or to discuss any of the traffic further that you'd like to talk about. Mayor Kennedy: While you've got that up there right now, Access B .. . Kathleen Krager: Yes... Mayor Kennedy: What makes you think that that will have a ... not A, B . Kathleen Krager: Oh, sorry, this one. Mayor Kennedy: What makes you think that will have a left hand turn lane? Kathleen Krager: That's going to be....because I've already recommended it and the Montana Department of Transportation is going to, to require it. For a signalized intersection to function properly there, we are going to have to make improvements to 93 that are going to need to include left turn lanes. You cannot have a road that handles the type of traffic that we're talking about and accommodates things smoothly, without delays, and safely, without having left turn lanes. Mayor Kennedy: So there would probably be limited traffic that would be turning left at that spot, at least in the near future, because there isn't a lot of development.... Kathleen Krager: Well, if you were to build it right now before you put the Lifestyle Center in, that's true. But with the Lifestyle Center, that left turn lane will receive good volumes. You'll have people turning left both here at Rose Crossing and Access B. And I think both of the retail surveys and my traffic distribution shows that Whitefish area is a major area where you'll get shoppers from. Mayor Kennedy: Left, yes ... turning into the Lifestyle Center, coming from the north, but when you're heading this way, not... Kathleen Krager: Oh, no. That's probably... Mayor Kennedy: Heading north, not south. Kathleen Krager: Right. I'm sorry. That's probably going to be a T intersection at least for quite a while unless you approve a development on this side that uses that fourth leg. Mayor Kennedy: So my concern is this. You're telling me that without having the right turns in ... like the Planning Board staff is suggesting, Access A be rights only, not the three-quarter, and you're saying that if you do rights only it won't function as well... Kathleen Krager: That's right. Mayor Kennedy: ... because you will have the issue of... well, if you have the three- quarter, I should say, if you have the three-quarter, then people will be able to take that left when they're heading south, and head in there because of the people that are turning with the left hand turn to nowhere from Access B. Kathleen Krager: No, I'm sorry, I'm sorry Mayor you misunderstood me. The southbound left turn at Access B. which will be a fairly heavy left turn, not everyone will make the left turn at Rose Crossing because not everyone is that well organized. Mayor Kennedy: My concern is this, the traffic that's heading south from Whitefish to Kalispell... Kathleen Krager: Yes. Mayor Kennedy: At Access A. Kathleen Krager: Yes. Mayor Kennedy: Trying to take a left hand turn into the development, you've got traffic that's in the northbound lanes of Highway 93, heading straight up, and quite, accelerating fast. Kathleen Krager: How does that work? Mayor Kennedy: I'm afraid that what's going to end up happening is we're going to have so many intersection accidents there with people trying to turn left, that are heading south, that that's going to create if not an additional signal there, really a traffic hazard. Kathleen Krager: You know it's a common... Mayor Kennedy: And I'm not a traffic engineer, so... Kathleen Krager: No, it's a common concern, and when three-quarter movements were first suggested, it was a concern of the traffic engineers that suggested it, and I know because I was one of them. They were first suggested under an experimental program from the federal government in Denver and put on Arapahoe Road. If any of you are familiar with South Denver and Arapahoe Road, it is a very high volume, six lane, high-speed roadway. It's rather scary. That was where the first three-quarter movement went in and we all went and took a deep breath. That went in, in - I have to count back from when I was married. That went in, in 1982 and what surprised us, and there have been lots of three-quarter movements put in since then in Colorado, what surprised us about that first one and continues to surprise us with the ones that were built afterwards, was that they had lower accident rates for their left turns than the signalized intersections did. So, it causes a traffic engineer to scratch their head and go back and look at it and go why is that? And it actually turned out to be a fairly simple reason. When you make a left turn at a signalized intersection, sometimes you get the arrow, it's nice and easy, you go in and no problem, but if you're like me, you pick the longest checkout line in the grocery store and the green arrow always goes off just before I get up to the intersections. And so I'm the person left sitting there waiting for the light to turn yellow so that I can complete my left turn. People are terrible about this in Denver, but you know, I know they do it in Kalispell too. That light turns yellow and you have to ask yourself, will two cars go through that yellow light before I make my left turn and complete it, or will twenty cars go through? You just don't know these days. And it's those people that we tend to get in traffic accidents at signalized intersections for left turns; those, and the people that we call the sneekers. They're the ones that when the light first becomes green, they go through real fast even if there are cars coming at them. If you're at a three-quarter movement, you don't have that pressure. You don't have to worry that I've got to make this turn because I'm sitting in the intersection and the cross -traffic is going to start coming at me soon. You can sit there and wait until you're comfortable that you have a gap in traffic and make the left turn at that time. So when do you get a gap in traffic? Well, because you have a signal here, you get the same gaps in traffic that this signal has. When southbound left turns get a green arrow to go into the Lifestyle Center, there's no traffic going northbound through on 93, they're all stopped to let the left turners through and these folks get that same opportunity to make that left turn then. And that's when most of them make the left turn. Others will make it during adequate gaps in traffic. But the history in Colorado over the last 25 years is lower accident rates at three-quarters than at signalized intersections and we really believe that's the reason; it's because people aren't pressured, they can make the turn when the gap is available. Mayor Kennedy: Those would be demand lights? Kathleen Krager: You know, they'll be on demand as far as like getting a left turn arrow, that type of thing, but they will also be interconnected so that just because someone pulls up here, doesn't mean they get a green light instantly and mess up the progression on 93. Mayor Kennedy: Thank you. Tim Kluesner: I think we have a three-quarter interchange already, and Tom might be able to confirm it for me. When we're going north on 93 there between Costco and Lowe' s you have that intersection that's between the two lights that turns into the roundabout at Lowe's. Kathleen Krager: You do. Tim Kluesner: And that is called a, is considered a three-quarter intersection? Kathleen Krager: It is. Tim Kluesner: Okay. Because I actually, I use that one largely because there's no light. But, okay, so that one is a three-quarter? Kathleen Krager: That is a three-quarter. It's a good modern design. You have a really old, bad three-quarter and if you don't know that one, I won't point it out to you. Okay, I'll tell you because it's not; it's not in Kalispell it's in Evergreen. There is an old three-quarter movement to K-Mart that is in a terrible location and very poorly designed and I find that one to be pretty scary. But the one at Costco is a modern design three-quarter and works properly. Randy Kenyon: Thank you. Could you speak to the speed limits? Kathleen Krager: Sure, because I think that's a really crucial thing. You, here at Reserve you're at 45 mph, which is what you want to be at a signalized intersection, and then currently you're going up to 65 to 70 mph on 93. The, with the signalized intersections, you want this area to be 45 mph and Montana DOT is going to want it to be 45mph as well. That's a safe speed to go through signalized intersections. So it is going to mean that you're going to extend your 45mph zone for and additional mile beyond what it currently is in order to accommodate these. However, let me tell you the reverse of that. Can we go to Figure 4? If you put an interchange here, and people tend to drive, most importantly, at a speed that they think that the design is telling them to drive; so, if you build the autobahn, but you sign it at 25 mph, forget it, people are going to drive 100 mph because that's how you designed it. Well, if you put an interchange here, you're telling southbound traffic, hey, I'm on a. I'm on a freeway, I'm on, I'm going, my, I've got my cruise control on, I am driving. But they are coming very close to a signalized intersection. By work with Junior Interchanges and signalized intersections, would tell you, you should not have a Junior Interchange, or any interchange this close to a signalized intersection because you're encouraging people to speed into that signalized intersection and that will end up increasing your accident rates at the signalized intersection, also your severity of accidents. Mayor Kennedy: Hank? Hank Olson: My biggest desire in all of this is to get as much traffic out of there, not on Highway 93. How much work has went into putting it into other places? I think that's the key to this thing. If we've got 100 cars to move, or only 50, then we're better off with the 50. So, tell me about your plans of how we're going to get that traffic off of 93 and filter into all these other roads that we have. Kathleen Krager: You're right there. If I only had 93 as access to this area, it would be really tough. But fortunately we've come up with a system that I think really helps to work. We have the roadway that extends to Reserve Street and will end at a signalized intersection at Reserve that helps carry quite a bit of traffic. Rose Crossing will now go across not only to Whitefish Stage, but it continues on to Highway 2, carrying that traffic. We've tried to develop basically a grid system, if you would, so that we can take full advantage of getting people out to Whitefish Stage, getting them to Reserve, getting them to Highway 2 as well as getting them to 93. In addition, we've added the connectivity so that future neighborhoods in the area can take advantage of the street system that this developer is putting in and have a way of getting around that North Kalispell area besides just a single driveway that goes to 93. Mayor Kennedy: Anything else Hank? Hank Olson: I don't know, let us get into that a little deeper but ... I think we need to create ways to drive people off the highway, get them to go the other directions, you know, not ... I don't know how to go about that, but my thought is instantly, I wouldn't use the highway, I'd go down Reserve or West Reserve Drive or Whitefish Stage or somewhere, only because I live here, but we need to help the people that are going to cause the problem and that's the people who don't know where else to go. Maybe there's proper signing that can be ... I don't know. I just think we need to move more cars off of the Highway 93 that we can. Kathleen Krager: This is this is a common occurrence, not just at Kalispell. But the truth of the matter is you're right. Locals are going to be much more likely to use Whitefish Stage or Reserve, but if you're coming down from Canada to spend your money in Kalispell, chances are you're on 93 and you're going to get here from 93 and we want to make sure that we've provided for that because if I give them signs that say, okay now, take this over to Highway 2 and then take this to Whitefish, they're just going to get lost and drive through your neighborhood and irritate you. So, I need a good way of getting people on and off the highway that are truly the highway travelers. But the local people, I want to give them as many options as possible to get to this center. Hank Olson: Right. Mayor Kennedy: Jim. Jim Atkinson: When you did the traffic counts on the accesses onto 93, were they considering the traffic that you considered? That you thought would go off of Rose and the other one and Reserve? Was that taken into consideration and reduced from that number? Kathleen Krager: Right. We did, we did distribute traffic to all directions based on where we felt the population was coming from, how convenient the trip would be, that type of thing. Typical trip distribution, so it goes ... traffic ended up in all four directions going somewhere. In addition we included some background trips. We connect Rose Crossing for the first time and we're going to have some people from the airport that use Rose Crossing to get all the way over to Highway 93 for the first time. So we increased traffic to account for that type of trip as well. Jim Atkinson: Another question, on Access B you say would be signaled and Rose Crossing would be signaled... Kathleen Krager: Uh.hmm. Jim Atkinson: ... on Access A you said would be three-quarter turn until, and then I thought I heard you say, until there was such an increase in traffic that it would need to be signalized also? Kathleen Krager: No. You would never hear me say that. One of the reasons why three-quarter movements were developed in the first place, besides they turned out to be a good idea from a capacity standpoint, is they provide the maximum amount of access while assuring a signal would never be warranted. And the reason is, is that we warrant signals based on the uniform manual of traffic control devices and that's based on a whole bunch of silly things, but the one thing it all comes down to is left turns out. You have to have a lot of left turns out at your intersection before you've warranted signal. So if you build an intersection where you don't allow left turns out it never warrants a signal. MDOT does not want quarter mile spacing because it doesn't progress well there. Chad would buy me extra drinks tonight if I stood up here and said, yeah, that would be a great place for a signal, but I'm sorry, it's not going to happen. The purpose of the three-quarter is to provide access without ever signalizing it. Mayor Kennedy: Randy. Randy Kenyon: Thank you. Just a different kind of a question, are peer reviews common in this business? Kathleen Krager: Yes. Randy Kenyon: You know, I don't think it would be a bad idea if we spent a few dollars, somebody spend a few dollars, to have some other traffic consultant just give a quick review to this because it's hard for us. You know and to be perfectly ... you're being paid by the developer, and not to insinuate that you wouldn't be unbiased in this... Unknown speaker: Yeah. Randy Kenyon: But in effect somebody might, other professionals, might have a different opinion in this and I don't think any of us here are qualified to be very critical of, obviously a very technical business, that none of us here are ever going to really, truly grasp. And the one thing that I've learned over the last eight years in traffic stuff is the concept of unintended consequences. Kathleen Krager: That's right. Randy Kenyon: And so ... could you speak to that? Kathleen Krager: Sure, peer reviews do happen from time to time. I will tell you that Chad would love it if I were a little less opinionated and just went along with whatever he said, but I don't know, it doesn't go that way with me. You do get peer reviews from time to time in traffic engineering. However, I will tell you that the full traffic engineering section from Montana Department of Transportation in Helena has reviewed this. Not just the local office in Kalispell, but their traffic department in Helena, and they have some excellent traffic engineers in that section who have reviewed it. So you probably, in this particular case, you probably already have a very good peer review from MDOT, but peer reviews are done. Randy Kenyon: But I was under the impression recently that the highway department kind of left it up to us. Kathleen Krager: No. They've done a full review, they've asked me to address a few things which I have done, and they are still reviewing before they write permits to their highway. Sort of technical details on how long the left turn lane should be - that type of thing. But no, it was reviewed by the traffic engineering section of Helena under their major case projects. Randy Kenyon: I guess we haven't seen that, are not familiar with that. Kathleen Krager: You know, I don't know... Unknown speaker: There's a letter from Dwane Kailey, is that right? Kathleen Krager: That's right. Unknown speaker: There's a letter from Dwane on MDOT letterhead stating they've reviewed this situation and they're in support of it. Randy Kenyon: Okay. I was just curious about the concept in general of peer review. Kathleen Krager: Where I see peer reviews most often would be in small communities that are unable to afford traffic engineering, a traffic engineer of their own and it wasn't on a state highway, so it never went into a state review and really no one other than the political officials got a chance to look at it. Randy Kenyon: Okay. Thank you. Mayor Kennedy: Jim and then Hank. Jim Atkinson: I want no more traffic lights from Reserve to Whitefish. What would it take to make that happen? Kathleen Krager: Honestly, I think the first thing it would take is for you to change your land use plan. Because you have planned for a rather urban area of development for a mile north of Reserve and the concept of no traffic signals is really a very rural concept. So you're transportation plan is then in conflict with your land use plan. Jim Atkinson: I-5 going through Tacoma doesn't have any lights on it. That's terribly urban. Kathleen Krager: Yes. So... Jim Atkinson: Explain to me what it would take as far as... Kathleen Krager: So what it would take, what it would take honestly. We've seen that the Junior Interchange doesn't really work. Okay. And the reason is, let me explain the purpose of Junior Interchanges is to keep through traffic on the highway from having to stop at a signal that would be considered, sort of, pop out of nowhere if it was in the middle of a rural highway. So it would catch people by surprise and become an accident location. That was the purpose of Junior Interchanges, is so that you didn't have those, sort of random signals out in the country. They're not to provide high capacity; they don't do a good job of that. If you were not going to have a signal in an urban area, it would mean having an interstate or freeway design. But you can't just start a freeway in less than a mile. So, back up and put an interchange design in at Reserve and keep going. Because you don't want to switch from a high speed interchange type design to signalized intersections very quickly, because anytime we make that switch quickly, we catch drivers by surprise. They aren't prepared for it and the accident rates go up. Did that help you with it? Jim Atkinson: Well I just kind of formulated the questions now, but I caught on to the need for maybe an interchange at Reserve, which maybe was needed with the bypass in the first place, but that's water under the bridge. Kathleen Krager: And it's so far gone under that bridge that it's... Jim Atkinson: Can you move to the Junior Interchange picture? Kathleen Krager: Figure 4. Jim Atkinson: I see where you have to, if you're on Rose Crossing then you have to come down, you actually have to stop perpendicular to the road and then either turn left or turn right or... gain speed, etc. Why couldn't you put two roads, well, okay, going north put a road up past that stop, I mean before the stop and so that you could come off the highway at a rapid rate of speed and then onto the, onto Rose Crossing. And then put a road from Rose Crossing right down to the highway so that you could go down? Kathleen Krager: Sure, and that would be a more standard freeway design. You're probably talking about like a diamond interchange there which would be a more standard freeway design. It has higher capacity; you could put two signals at the top of the diamond to control traffic. However, now were talking about a much more expensive design and acquiring right of way from the National Guard facility and property across the street. A Junior Interchange, we usually hope that we can get them built for $5 million, if you don't have grades working in your favor, it may take more than that. A diamond interchange these days, a typical interstate type diamond interchange, you're looking at over $20 million dollars in expenditures. Jim Atkinson: No, I'm not talking about a diamond, maybe a half diamond because anybody that was going from east of Rose Crossing and wanted to go to Whitefish would go down and stop... Kathleen Krager: Um-hmm. Jim Atkinson: ... and then start their way. Kathleen Krager: Yes. Jim Atkinson: So it wouldn't be a full diamond because there would be no other ancillary roads north of Rose Crossing. Of course that sounds like $10 million dollars and if you've got a half of diamond, right? Kathleen Krager: Yeah, and if you have half a diamond that means that you're not allowing traffic from one direction. Jim Atkinson: No you aren't. Kathleen Krager: No, a buttonhook has traffic from both directions, but if you... just a half of diamond doesn't allow ... yeah. Jim Atkinson: Well I'm talking about a modified buttonhook rather than a diamond. Kathleen Krager: Yeah, which is what I've got there and you can play around with the design of that buttonhook all you want to, but the basis is still there. You still end up with really long Qs trying to get onto the buttonhook and you still are facing the problem that you sort of, you tried to do this for safety, but you defeated it because it's only a mile away from a signal. Mayor Kennedy: Okay. Hank. Hank Olson: Thank you. Going back to Randy's point, I think where this council sits, we, we had all this approval when we built the intersection at 93 and Reserve and look what a mess we've got. It's been approved by every government agency they ever built. And so when you say this is okay with them, we think, God we didn't do very good the last time, so unfortunately you're in a position where there's more show and tell this time. Kathleen Krager: Yeah, I know. Hank Olson: And I'm not blaming you, I'm just saying, and certainly we, I don't, because ... but we can't live, we just got in a big fight over taking some of the bypass money and help to improve that problem. That they approved; the state did. So to tell us that it's approved by the state scares the hell out of me. Kathleen Krager: Hey, I, I understand... Hank Olson: So I think Randy's point of getting a separate opinion that would help all of us maybe. Kathleen Krager: I understand completely. I know exactly what you're talking about and... Hank Olson: Why do they even allow that to happen? That's the part I can't understand. We put stop sign, or we put signal lights in and they don't put the left turn lane in, so then we've got to call them again and they come finally they put the turns in, and you just got done saying they don't work unless they've got a left turn. Kathleen Krager: You have to ... yeah. Hank Olson: Somebody down there ought to know that too. Kathleen Krager: And I'll tell you I have told MDOT that there are future improvements that have to be made at Reserve and Highway 93. Now they've planned on these improvements as part of the 93 bypass, but I have informed them that these improvements are needed probably before the 93 bypass goes in and they need to be looking at that closely. Sorry. Hank Olson: Yeah, we've got crazy trouble there and that's a problem. Mayor Kennedy: Randy. Randy Kenyon: Thank you. I read this part of the traffic, or this part of the report, the traffic study, I didn't study it, but... Kathleen Krager: I'm pretty impressed that you read it. Randy Kenyon: But I didn't see anything in here, I could be mistaken, but I didn't see anything in here referencing the bypass in relationship here. So did you bring the bypass in and not mention it here or is it in here, or could you speak to the bypass and how it might relate to this? Kathleen Krager: It's in here, and probably the breathtaking narrative in this, probably you just got swept up in the romance of it all and just, and missed it. What you will find is in the description of background traffic and how it, background traffic refers to the traffic that's going to be using the street system except for everyone from this development. So that's everybody else except for these guys and to develop the background traffic for this area I started with the traffic projections of the 93 bypass study and then added new developments that had occurred since that model was run and then added our numbers to it as well. So the bypass study and the bypass model numbers were my basis for everything in this traffic study. Randy Kenyon: Do you see any problem with people coming off the bypass and running into this... Kathleen Krager: No. Randy Kenyon: ... headed north? Kathleen Krager: No because it would be one thing if they were coming off the bypass in a large fly -over ramp that they maintained 55mph and got onto 93. But they don't, they're making a left turn a signalized intersection and if signal progression is correct, they've had to stop at that signalized intersection because signal progression allows the through traffic to go through and the left turn stop and wait for an arrow. So everybody coming off that bypass has come through a signalized intersection and has at least slowed down to 15 mph to make the left turn, so the fact that they might be reaching two more signals is what they're expecting. Unknown speaker: Yeah, good point. Mayor Kennedy: The reality is that the bypass needs to be brought up to Church and go through the Junior Interchange at Church. Kathleen Krager: Okay, but I have to tell you, if you do that then you need to rip out your Junior Interchange and put in a full interchange, okay? Sorry, but it wouldn't be enough for you. Mayor Kenndy: Okay. Wayne. Wayne Saverud: Well, changing the subject just a little bit, I'm concerned about how much traffic will be added onto Whitefish Stage, especially realizing that Whitefish Stage north of Reserve is extremely narrow and fairly heavily trafficked already. What type of impact do you expect this would have? Kathleen Krager: Well, we took a very close look at Whitefish Stage because, you know at what point do you add lanes to a road like that? What we found was the problem with Whitefish Stage is it's narrow not because you're driving north/south on the roadway; it's narrow because people want to turn off the roadway and there is no turn lane. So what we found was that we got good levels of service, you know the kinds like, A' s and B' s that we want to see, as long as we added left turns and right turn lanes onto Whitefish Stage Road and not an additional through lane which would just encourage speeding on that road. But if we add those left turns and right turns at any intersection we have - including the intersection down at Reserve - then it operates a lot better. You also increase the safety of a road like that a great deal when you add your turn lanes. Turn lanes are so important to that. Chad Wolford: Just to clarify on that, I mean, I think obviously, it's probably expected anyway, but we have no problems paying for those upgrades, just to clarify that. Kathleen Krager: I love to spend Chad's money, it's one of my favorite things to do. Mayor Kennedy: Tim and then Jim. Tim Kluesner: That was actually where I was kind of going, is that maybe that you were going to go there, but what are the planned upgrades to Whitefish Stage? Mayor Kennedy: Is that further in the presentation outside of the traffic? Kathleen Krager: You know, why don't we plan on, when we present on January 7tn, why don't we plan on giving you a graphic that shows you each of the improvements that is recommended for this developer, and then I can also show you improvements that, you know, we're hoping someday that MDOT would step up to the plate and do some of the things that they need to do as well. Tim Kluesner: That sounds great because I think we're probably, a lot of us who drive Whitefish Stage every now and then know that it needs improvement. Kathleen Krager: Yeah. Tim Kluesner: And then probably Rose Crossing as well... kind of a switchback across the bridge. Okay, thank you. Kathleen Krager: No problem. Mayor Kennedy: Jim. Jim Atkinson: I'm going to pass on that because my question was the ditches, I'm scared to drive that road because you fall off in a ditch and get killed. Mayor Kennedy: So we'll wait and hear about Whitefish Stage at another meeting. Okay, does anybody have any other questions about the traffic issues that have just been presented to us? Kathleen Krager: It's been a pleasure talking to you tonight, and I know that the rest of the team is available if you have questions other than traffic. And ask something other than traffic and make me not feel like I'm the only person on the spot, okay? Thank you. Mayor Kennedy: Do you have more of a presentation? Kathleen Krager: No, I think that finishes the formal presentation, but as I say, the rest of the team is available for questions tonight if you have any. Mayor Kennedy: Very good. Kathleen Krager: Thank you. Mayor Kennedy: Thanks very much. Okay, council, other questions outside of traffic issues about the development. They've got their whole team here. Must have some architectural questions or engineering questions. Jim. Jim Atkinson: Unfortunately, I think its still traffic ... and have you speak about the four and not six accesses to the development to the north. Unknown speaker: Well in all defense it started off with two and I said we need to have at least four without reviewing the project, so I want to let them know that I did say four at one breath. Having studied it I came back and said 16 (sixteen) and they said how about four. Unknown speaker: We foresee, there's another 40 acre tier up here, 40, 80 120 acres of land that butts up into Ponderosa, and then the city's kind of done urban expansion to the north. This isn't a trust, trust, trust. We probably envision a road somewhere along that line up here going over to Whitefish Stage. We said this neighborhood not unto itself. This is part of Kalispell so as we breathe this way, we should breathe that way. But you will count seven roads coming down here- ironically- seven roads come down into here. Great circulation connection to this road, so we said why not seven roads going north out of here. So we've been in negotiations, well how about six? Two per quarter mile gives you about 550-650 foot spacing. To wrap your arms around what that looks like - two blocks of east side Kalispell is about 600 feet, 650 feet - so every two blocks you'd have a road coming through. So we just felt that was important. But now what we don't want to do is put all the traffic into one area, because all the traffic comes into one area and you tend to scare a buyer scouring a neighborhood if traffic tends to go through there. If you present many options you have many opportunities for people to drive through and intermingle, connect, take a road, find the path of least resistance. So that is what we're trying to do, create a neighborhood feeling not only to here, but up to there. There was a concern that maybe the quality of housing wouldn't be the same up here as down here, I suspect that the land' s going to drive a lot. So that's what we look at, we look at creating connections all the way around. That was a very near and dear issue to the Planning Board in terms of having that interconnected neighborhood so that we could have relationships; so we don't require people to drive everywhere or focus their movement. So that's really where it came from. Jockeying back and forth we finally said six, they said four, we said six, they said four the Planning Board said six. So the recommendation coming to you is six along up here. No, these are floating arrows, so as the land develops, and this is, I think this is a phase that's five, six, seven, eight years from now. So in one sense we're kind of fighting a battle that's probably going to be repeated and reviewed in the future, many years down the road. But, as land up here develops, there's going to be those kinds of understandings. Really it's, where they actually go, is really the first person who starts developing the land, but right now it's a concept. Jim Atkinson: I also saw a road going east and west between those two subdivisions. Unknown speaker: Right in through here. Yeah, the idea is this whole area comes out; right in here. This is a significant belt through the parkway. There was some resistance about penetrating a park where there was a trail system through here, but we still said to get around to here, to get up over to here, we need to provide access for people to get around. Pedestrian traffic ... we said road traffic. The same thing happened here; this right now is the Easthaven Church. This road parallels, so there is really no issue right here. Separate tract up here; that is vacant access in here. Planning Board did say that they'd like to have a road that came in here at mid -point. Planning Board said that that would be important, but it's up to you guys to decide if that's important. Same thing here, there's some access points in here. This is a piece of land in here that only has access on Whitefish Stage, we feel it needs to have access here and here for it to function in the future. We need to be thinking of Whitefish Stage, think of Whitefish Stage as a significant traffic carrier in the future. So when we say they've got a single access here, they need more than one single access for this whole neighborhood to work. Whitefish Stage isn't going to be the quaint, rural road that we all love today. Unknown speaker: That it used to be. Unknown speaker: So anyway, that's what the plan was looking at. We also talked about more access here. This is in the SemiTool area. SemiTool does not have a traffic light. If SemiTool came in here, found a light, came up here, it's a major, it's a major market for these guys. Jim Atkinson: Next question has to do with the sidewalks. Unknown speaker: Yes. Jim Atkinson: I understand that there was some resistance to sidewalks around, not within, the Life Center, but around the Life Center. Unknown speaker: Yeah. They did a really good job up in the residential areas up here with sidewalks, with trail systems. When we got in closer to the Lifestyle Center itself, inside the Lifestyle Center, there's walk -ability, but this area around here, Planning Board staff raised some issues. We actually coded a map, we don't have it here for you tonight, but we coded a map where there wouldn't, where there were not proposed sidewalks on one side or the other, and went down the list with the Planning Board and said what's in what's out, what's in, what's out? So that recommendation will be coming forward to you. Primarily though, we said, for example on this ring road around, we said on the inside, which is up against the parking lot, there'd be sidewalks on the outside. Though where we've got business or commercial we'd like to see sidewalks, a road like this coming in, sidewalks on both sides. In other words, a more traditional sidewalk concept versus the no sidewalk concept. Again, that's an issue that was pretty darn dear with the planning board that issue. Jim Atkinson: Lastly, can you address the size of the parking lots in the, whatever those buildings are on the south end. Unknown speaker: You know this would be a typical box store like a Wal-Mart or a Target or something like that; or a Costco. So if you look at their parking lots out here, the Planning Board did ask for additional landscaping in here. The applicants had originally proposed significant landscaping on the outside, really hadn't done a lot of definition of work on the inside. So the Planning Board, you have a recommendation coming to you for more landscaping on the side of these areas here. Same thing, there is going to be some more landscaping proposed by the Planning Board in these areas here. These are the much, much less - these are fairly significant. I don't have that number you, it was up here once... Unknown speaker: It's definitely a football field. Unknown speaker: It's a football field. Unknown speaker: So, Chad has agreed to, well Chad didn't contest... Chad Wolford: If I might just add about that, what he's referring to, the power center down there, that is highly, highly conceptual at this point. We took some footprints that we knew of and kind of made a cohesive center there based on absolutely no deals on the table that we're working with. I mean that is three to five years out, so we haven't even, it's all as conceptual as it can be. The condition that's in there, I mean, I have no problem with that. Unknown speaker: It doesn't come back to the board. It would come back to site review and if he does subdivision in here it would come back through the process. So we were concerned, so we put some anticipatory conditions on it to address that in the future. This is a Home Depot/Target size project. If you look at it, if you wanted concept size, I would think that would probably be a good way of explaining what you're getting your arms around in a size like that. Jim Atkinson: And it's hard to get your... Unknown speaker: It's ... yeah, yeah. It's a small project and if we put it in life size it would be like 485 acres. Mayor Kennedy: Okay, we've got Tim, Kari and then Randy. Tim Kluesner: You were pointing up towards the north; we annexed Valley Ranch in, so... Unknown speaker: Valley Ranch parts right here. Tim Kluesner: Okay, that's, that's the piece where it connects. Unknown speaker: National Guard sits, the armory sits right here. Tim Kluesner: Because there were concerns of that about connecting roads coming in there, so theoretically when Valley Ranch gets going, and this going, we'll have those connecting roads and... Unknown speaker: They could connect, yes. Tim Kluesner: And then Valley Ranch even will go out onto Highway 93 as well, correct? Unknown speaker: Valley Ranch could come this way and go that way, it could come this way and go that way, it could come back up that way and go up that way... Tim Kluesner: We really don't have a road system laid out? Unknown speaker: Valley Ranch had, well it's pretty obvious that Valley Ranch goes up to 93 up there, so that they really have, at that point, those are the only three ways, Valley Ranch has been told right -in, right -out only up here. And again that was, they never went forward with it. Mayor Kennedy: Okay, Kari. Kari Gabriel: Thank you. Tom, up on the top there where the four arrows are, Planning Board wanted six, they've got four there, where would the other two go? Tom: We just set out a rhythm. We weren't going to redesign. The last thing we want to do, it's a concept, pretty nice concept. So we said two per quarter section. If you look at these blocks, that's a quarter section, that's - there's hedges here - that's a quarter section and that's a quarter section. We said two per quarter section so as the developer comes in they can add or place as appropriate for design. We didn't say it should be here and here, we said there should be six at a rhythm of two per quarter mile. So there could be one right along here on the line and then there could be in the middle, here there could be one, two, they can be just varying. We're not going to design the project. We're trying to get a degree out there for a concept and a rhythm. Two per quarter section; a quarter section is a quarter mile. Kari Gabriel: So then with the four that are there and the difference in the four and the two, is it because of the cost of adding two more, is it because of aesthetics? Tom: There are probably two or three reasons. One was the concern about loss of lots, and we explained to Chad that commercial property sells by the square foot, residential sells by the lot. People tend to redefine, reconfigure lots. This is a normal thing for us to see. The developer has not done a lot of residential, we see these types of conditions all the time so it was kind of a, oh. Second one was, you know, we're requiring to have so much open space when you put a road access through, that chews up open space. The extra, all the extra accesses here might be seeing two acres. So he was concerned that that's two acres of land that's gone. We said no, if you're putting roads in an open space area, if you had to forgive 73 acres you'd only get 71 acres of open space. So we're not going to penalize you doubly for putting an access in and providing more open space. So it's more of a loss of design. And the last one really was just, they were really happy with their residential design kind of going in, and they didn't want to have a lot of extra traffic going through. Our concept was if we can spread the traffic around everywhere, we don't have a lot of traffic going into anywhere. So some philosophical differences. I always said this is Kalispell and this is our Planning Board and this is what we talked about for a while. That was kind of ... I summarized down about four months of talking. Mayor Kennedy: Okay, Randy. Randy Kenyon: Thank you. Tom... Tom: Yes. Randy Kenyon: Two questions. One of them just came to me, how many residences are proposed for Valley Ranch, do you remember? Tom: Valley Ranch was basically 3 00? Two hundred - probably two hundred or so. At one point they were talking about assisted living. They're talking about maybe some concepts of very high end apartment living like condos. Like in the Meadows we just approved, some projects like that. We could see 300, they've got 80 acres and four density. Randy Kenyon: Let's just call it 300. Do you know if the traffic ... and it's right -in, right -out on 93 ? Tom: On 93 they were limited to right -in, right -out. Randy Kenyon: So if you have 300, approximately 300 homes, and a fair percentage of them wanting to come into town, they're going to have to travel through that northern subdivision. Do you know if the traffic study took that Rose Crossing, took that into consideration? Tom: Yes. Kathleen Krager: We included Valley Ranch. Tom: When you do that you look at the adjoining land use that you might have and that was one of those imminent parts. Randy Kenyon: And then switching topics, has, I just briefly read Sean's letter responding to some concerns of the developer, could you talk to signage for a second? Have there been any debates, is that going to become an issue before us? Unknown speaker: Wars have been fought over signage. Unknown speaker: Thousand acre projects get approved, but it boils down to signage. Tom: The applicant originally had proposed a major entrance right here and it was near and dear that there be a pylon sign right here. That's first issue. Well, when this became a minor and these to lighted major intersections up here, we said, yeah, major sign here and major sign here, it makes sense because you've got to tell the public what's going on and where. I think this becomes a monument sign, showing right here. And the applicant was okay with that advertising the internal project. There was discussion along the highway about these properties right here. The applicant did want to have monument signs for the, let's just say that there's - I don't know if there's ten or fifteen lots go on there, ten lots - wanted to be able to have monument sign exposure along the highway here. There is a hundred foot set back - landscaping, trails a little bit of burming and stuff. Planning Board said no, and when you look at the other projects we've been approving, if you look at the last project we approved, which was Costco, Lowe's, Kohl's, there are no monument signs out there. What we did say was that on these buildings, you could have up to - 50 percent of your signage - could be on the building facing the highway so that you could have highway exposure saying we're out here. The Planning Board said they did not want to see the monument signs coming along the highway here from that standpoint. So the applicant asked two times and we said yep, that sounds like a good deal. Put a monument sign here so that the major traffic can get in and see Glacier Lifestyle Center or Glacier Village or whatever they want to call it. That's going to be in there, with that here. Inside here that has not been an issue? Has that been an issue inside? Unknown speaker: Well if I could just add just a little bit, do you want me to stand up there ... Everything that Tom has said I would agree with. What we asked for with the Planning Commissioner, Planning Board was to have our out partial turns have the option to have their monument sign either on their property, thus a hundred foot plus set back from the highway, either have their monument sign on Highway 93 or on the internal road, their choice. One or the other, not both. And then also, so that was one issue, and to me that's not a huge deal if they've got to have them on the interior, I'd prefer that they could have the option since they're set back a hundred feet, but if not that's not the end of the world to me. Where I still have a point of disagreement on that would be in the size of those monument signs. As you'll see in the mound of paperwork we've submitted there, there is, per your growth policy, I believe a signage package. As I recall, the language in your growth policy called for a unified monument sign package. Typically in these types of developments we would let the out partial user decide. We would put a size regulation on it, but in terms of architecturally what that sign would look like they would have freedom of choice to make it their national brand type sign. In recognizing your growth policy we decided okay, let's create the architecture for the sign for them. So we went through and created three monument signs. All of, for a monument sign I think, you know, if you can have beautiful signs, they are very pretty signs. I mean they have, you know, dramatic, I guess a lodge -type architectural theme to them. They have stone bases and things of that nature. I believe overall the general size of those three concepts was 8 feet by 12 foot, including all of the architectural embellishments. And I believe what was approved in the Planning Board and what staff had recommended was reducing those signs to six foot by six food including architectural embellishments. The problem that I have with that is when you get that far back from the road you get, you know even on the internal ring road, and all that stuff, when you talk about a six foot by six foot sign including architectural embellishments, you don't have any room for any writing of any size for that business to be recognized at all. Six foot by six foot is miniscule. It just doesn't really do any good for that tenant. So I guess our request would be, okay if you want the signs off of Highway 93, fine, we can live with that. If we could just have the size of the sign that we proposed that would be something that we would see as a good compromise, personally. Unknown speaker: Is there going to be a sign on West Reserve? Unknown speaker: Yes. Unknown speaker: That's the other issue too. The West Reserve, all these monument signs we proposed fell under one monument sign package, all the same size. So Access A and West Reserve, there is no difference in the size of those monument signs. So Access A there in the middle, a hundred foot or fifty foot or whatever your code setback for the sign is - I can't recall - a six foot by six foot sign saying Glacier Town Center at Access A. I mean that's just, you won't be able to read that at all from the highway. And then West Reserve, I think you'd have the same problem. Nobody would know that that was, until they were right on top of it, that that was an access road to that project if they weren't familiar with the area. But other than that though, I mean, signage for us is, outside of just asking to get the size we were requesting. Mayor Kennedy: I've got two things I'd like to have addressed if I could. One would be building height and what's being proposed. Unknown speaker: During the time there were no exemptions or exceptions requested? Tom: I'm not an expert on the topic, so I might ask Ian if he can help on that. Ian McCaskill: Would you like me to speak just generally about the... Mayor Kennedy: Yes, please. Ian McCaskill: My name is Ian McCaskill from the firm Architecture Plus, from Monroe, LA. We are Wolford' s architects for the project, working with CTA who are the land planners and master planners. The Lifestyle Center essentially is going to have three department stores. Those department stores are single story buildings, they're not double story like you do get in some malls. And generally the parapet height is in the order of 24 to maybe 30 feet so that all rooftop units are screened. However, at the main entrances sometimes they have a major feature, which goes higher. But there I think that the height that is specified is a maximum of 60 feet. Mayor Kennedy: For the parapet? Ian McCaskill: Yes. We did not, in any case, reach anywhere near 60 feet on any of those. The general buildings down the main shopping street were in the order of 22 to 24 feet and then at corners where you get accents or special features, they may go up to 35 feet to give accent of sort or to create a marker at a particular corner. Mayor Kennedy: Okay. Unknown speaker: If I could, I think one of the places the 60 foot, there is a condition, I believe allowing 60 foot buildings in certain areas of the project. Where that came from was obviously a mixed use facility like this, we would like to have the opportunity to have hotels and multi- level office buildings. I think in the order of office buildings you are talking two to three levels, but a hotel might be four levels if it's Hilton Garden Inn or something of that nature. So that's kind of where that came from and I think Tom was being kind of fair to us in saying look you can't tell me exactly where this hotel is going to go right now, so the best thing to do is put the exemption allowing it in at this time more generally, rather than, because it was kind of one of those things that we didn't really know how to ask for what we were after. Mayor Kennedy: Okay. And if a 60 foot building goes in there, like a Hilton Garden Inn, that would go before site review? Unknown speaker: It would go before site review and architectural review as well. And as well, the zone itself allows up to 40 feet. By condition of use from it anywhere in this depth it can only go up to 60 feet. The frontage along here is only to about a 27 foot height. Unknown speaker: Correct. Mayor Kennedy: Okay. Unknown speaker: So it's going to be back along here. And another thing, when we talked about height... Mayor Kennedy: That was my concern. Tom: I know the public has a height, because this is kind of a rise up here. How dominant, when you go through there you really don't see past that hill right now. But they are going to take say 35 or 40 feet off the top of this hill, so when we looked it at with the Planning Board and staff level, the top of this hill actually gets graded down and the buildings go back up on top of it. So if you were to kind of go out there today and look at the top of that hill, you would probably be looking at the tops of the buildings. Mayor Kennedy: Okay. Tom: So we say that's almost a no net gain for the majority of it. So we said what more could you ask for than that from a project? Mayor Kennedy: Okay, great. Thank you. Unknown speaker: And just further upon what Tom said, on those Highway 93 out parcels, those are limited by a codes, covenants and restrictions agreement that we have tying up the entire Lifestyle Center element. I believe there's a copy, in there Wayne, there's a copy of that as to the out parcel codes, covenants and restrictions. There's a copy of that in the application and that limits those heights to 27 feet. Mayor Kennedy: Great. Thank you. Ian McCaskill: If there are any other questions I can answer... Mayor Kennedy: Thank you very much. The other question that I had, Chad, was this community has been really suffering with affordable housing, and of course affordable housing is all what somebody wants to claim it is. But some of the larger developments have been working with like Habitat for Humanity, and I think eventually this community would like to have a land trust, which we don't have at this point. But, wondering if you had addressed any of those kinds of needs in your development planning or talks about how you could help contribute to affordable land in this community. For actually being able to deal with some of the service industry employees that can't afford homes that will be working in your Town Center. Chad Wolford: Certainly. First and foremost I would say, I'm not an expert on the topic and don't profess to be. As Tom mentioned we've not been in the housing development business in the past; we're typically commercial. To answer your question I would say we have addressed it to some degree. Just with, in the mixed use areas through apartment housing and condo housing that could be utilized in some form or fashion throughout that. That's still in a very conceptual phase, obviously. I think the first part of it comes up in maybe Phase 3. So, you know, I think to some degree the market will dictate how that goes. In terms of that, the actual single family dwellings having affordable housing and things of that nature in there. I'm not opposed to it, I would just say that what I anticipate you'll end up seeing on that housing is us putting in the infrastructure for the lots, and then partnering or selling to a local builder with a set of design guidelines already in place on that property as its been platted and everything for them to move forward with. And, I think how that all pans out will determine whether the market on this particular site can support affordable housing options. Just to be blunt on it, I mean, I think ultimately it will come down to the economics. If somebody who is qualified in that field can come in and make the numbers work to do some affordable housing there and the market's demanding it, I don't see why it wouldn't happen. CTA: Yeah, and for CTA as the land planners, I think its important to recognize that there are a variety of ways to, of course, provide housing and one of them is to respond to the market. One of them is through potential regulations which might limit some of the market, but the other one is through design and — I want to go back to the land use plan again - to talk about design. One of the things we were looking at when we were looking at the residential component of this project - and we really gave a lot of thought to the residential component as well, even though it's coming in future phases - was that mixture of use. That transition, that trans set zone from the higher intensity, solely commercial uses along 93 and beginning to get more of a multi -family, mixed use type product which will naturally - by design again -tend to be a little bit of a smaller product, and tends to be in markets like Kalispell, more affordable just by design. Not necessarily by regulations or groups of... multi -family, again serving as a transition to this higher density mixed use products. And then as you get further in you get to your single family, and when you get to your single family you're starting at 6,000 to 7,000 square foot lots, so those are pretty reasonably small sized lots for this size project. And again, you do have some larger lots as you get to the outer edges of the project, in part to buffer from some of what we anticipate as being residential uses to the north of this project that might be a little bit of a higher density product. So, again I think to emphasize that by design, this project has a lot of components that are intended to promote , over the life of the project, a mixture of housing types, that hopefully, when they hit the market will provide some amount of your affordable or workforce housing products in this community. Mayor Kennedy: Okay, thanks and when you're speaking about the phasing — could you go to the Phase I? Okay. What part, or is it everything in yellow that will be the road infrastructure for Phase I? So in Phase 1, the middle road that goes out to Whitefish Stage, that will not happen in Phase I? That will happen in Phase 3, is that correct? But Rose Crossing and the road out to West Reserve... CTA: Are both proposed within Phase 1. Mayor Kennedy: Will all be Phase 1. CTA: Correct. Mayor Kennedy: Okay, thank you. Randy and then Jim. Randy Kenyon: Thank you. I want to follow up with the Mayor's question. I think in terms of affordable housing this would be an absolutely terrific set-up if you could have people working and living in the same neighborhood. It would assist in the traffic issue, all kinds of things. If you could just have affordable housing for the people who are working in the service industry — which is going to be literally, I don't know, 500 or 1000 people — working in all these stores as service workers. If they could live there and ride a bicycle or walk it would be absolutely terrific. I mean it would just be the greatest thing. So, I would like to somehow see some kind of a mandate or requirement somewhere here that would facilitate that. To make that work. So. I think this is an ideal set-up and an ideal time to go about that. Now I do have a question for Jim. Were there any strong water, water issues at all that, controversial or anything, or has that part been pretty slick? Jim: I can think of nothing that's controversial or difficult that cannot be handled with the technical resources we can throw at the proj ect. Randy Kenyon: Anything like crossing the Stillwater River, or anything like that? Jim: Those are always a challenge because you end up with permitting and those kinds of things depending upon how you're going to cross it and what you're going to cross it with. You know sometimes we bore a utility ... that still involves a permit in many cases, depending upon when we're close to the bank or not. But I don't think that we're lacking for the resources to solve the problems, and I think that this particular team is well aware of the expectations of the community, with respect to ensuring we don't have problems resulting from the work they want to do. Randy Kenyon: Okay, so we haven't run into any major issues? Jim: So far, no. No. I think the term "river meets the road" was used earlier. I think the "river meets the road" when the dirt starts flying out there. That's when you figure out exactly how well the planning you've been doing pays off. Randy Kenyon: But so far, so good? Jim: Yeah, we haven't moved a bit of dirt. Mayor Kennedy: Randy, you're absolutely right. That would be a perfect spot for like those tax credit apartment complexes. Unknown speaker: Absolutely. Mayor Kennedy: Way of getting federal tax credits. We've got to find the right developer to do it. Who wants to battle in, right? Jim. Jim Atkinson: Well, I certainly agree with that. I observed something this Sunday that kind of surprised me. There are no supermarkets north of the southern part of Highway 2. None. Everybody has to travel all the way into Kalispell - which is great - to shop. Is there going to be a supermarket somewhere up there? Mayor Kennedy: We sure hope so. Jim Atkinson: I just thought I'd bring that up for you, Chad, because... Chad Wolford: I couldn't agree with you more. Jim Atkinson: And he's got this grin on his face... Chad Wolford: I try. Mayor Kennedy: Okay, council do you have any other questions for the Wolford team? Any other questions at this time regarding Glacier Town Center? Anything else that you guys would like to say or add to the discussion today? Unknown speaker: Just thank you for your time. Chad Wolford: Yes, thank you very much, we appreciate it. Mayor Kennedy: I'm sure we'll be seeing you again. Sorry gentlemen, that some of you we didn't have questions for you. You got by easy tonight. Consider it a holiday gift from the Kalispell City Council. I want to thank you for coming and giving your presentation tonight. I wish you all Happy Holidays. Have safe travels back to your homes and enjoy your family this season. See you in 2008 everybody. Meeting adjourned. Unknown speaker: Your Honor? Mayor Kennedy: Oh, come on. I was trying to get away with that. Okay, anything from the council? Yes, Hank? Hank Olson: One thing that was brought up about the impact fees on the roads and stuff, where are we at in that process, and when we will we get it handled so that this can be a part of that? Unknown speaker: The impact fee committee, Your Honor, Mr. Olson, the impact fee committee has been kind of waiting for the new transportation plan to be released in final draft form. I think they're there right now. It does need to be approved by council before they complete some of those projects and cost them out and make a full recommendation to council. But we need that plan so that we can update the costs and then they've been looking at a couple ways of doing it. In short they have another meeting or so that they need to get together with our consultant and they'll bring, be bringing their recommendations to council probably February time frame, I would guess. Hank Olson: Is our timing good for this project to fall under that? I mean if talking about impact from traffic, here we go. Unknown speaker: Right, Your Honor, Mr. Olson I think so because... again a lot of this doesn't fall on the developer unless the developer is also the builder. The impact fees are paid at the time of building that issuance, and so it would fall on that specific project, not on a plan like this. So I believe so. We're looking at, if council were to give approval in the next several months to this project, they'd still be in the process of moving dirt and putting in the infrastructure prior to putting up buildings. Hank Olson: So you're comfortable that we've got time yet to make this happen. Because it's just, it's that important. Mayor Kennedy: Okay, Wayne. Wayne Saverud: We received an e-mail today about a council workshop in Polson on the 24th of January. Mayor Kennedy: That's for newly elected, it's through the Montana Government Center. If it's something that you want to attend, get hold of Theresa and she will register you. Wayne Saverud: Okay. Unknown speaker: It's rather spendy. Mayor Kennedy: Anything else from the council? Jim? Jim: Your Honor, council, a couple of meetings ago we mentioned that you'd like to have a public hearing on this project prior to making a decision and so we will, unless council doesn't want us to, we will go ahead and advertise that for the 7th of January on this proj ect. Mayor Kennedy: Are we done with presentations? Or is there going to be another presentation? Unknown speaker: We may have a more detailed presentation at a later time. But that would be at a formal council meeting and not necessarily here. Unless council again wants to take that back to, back to a work session. Mayor Kennedy: I just want to make sure that the public has the access to all of the information. If we hold a meeting, a public hearing, on January 7th, that's not giving the public the access to any information that would be presented to the council. If you're saying that - unless you're going to have the presentation first and then we'd have a public hearing. Unknown speaker: Your Honor, we could do that. All of the information is available. All of this is available on our internet, on our website and it has been for about two to three weeks. And again we've had a public hearing at the Planning Board. Our citizens have been able to go to the Planning Board. We have these available for check out from the council, or from the City Clerk's office. So I think the information is available. Mayor Kennedy: Okay. So council's okay with having a public hearing on January 7th? And there will be no council action that night. Unknown speaker: This is a huge project. We need to, I mean look at this. A lot of this, if you're not an engineer, it's going to take a long time to get through. Mayor Kennedy: Well we've got three weeks to go through it now. We've got no meetings the rest of this month.