10/07/02 City Council MinutesA REGULAR MEETING OF THE KALISPELL CITY COUNCIL WAS HELD AT 7:00
P.M. MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2002, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL
IN KALISPELL, MONTANA. MAYOR PAMELA B. KENNEDY PRESIDED. COUNCIL
MEMBERS JIM ATKINSON, DON COUNSELL, BOB HAFFERMAN, RANDY KENYON,
DUANE LARSON, FRED LEISTIKO, HANK OLSON AND JAYSON PETERS WERE
PRESENT.
Also present: City Manager Chris Kukulski, City Attorney Charles
Harball, City Clerk Theresa White, Assistant Police Chief Roger
Krauss, Public Works Director Jim Hansz, Parks Director Mike Baker,
and Tri-City Senior Planner Narda Wilson.
Mayor Kennedy called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
AGENDA APPROVAL
Kenyon moved approval of the Agenda. The motion was seconded.
There was no discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon vote.
CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL
1. Council Minutes - Regular Meeting September 16, 2002
2. Firefighter Confirmation
Cory Horsens has successfully completed his probationary
period with the Kalispell Fire Department and Council
confirmation is required.
3. Recognition - Fire Department Promotions
Kevin Hadley has been promoted to Lieutenant and Byron Guy has
been promoted to Captain.
4. Proclamation - Fire Prevention Week October 6-12
5. Acknowledgment - United Nations International Day of Peace -
September 21, 2002
Olson moved approval of the Consent Agenda. The motion was
seconded.
The motion carried unanimously upon vote.
STUDENT ISSUES
None
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 1
HEAR THE PUBLIC
Ben Baker, 2470 Highway 93 South, said he'd like the City's help
with connecting the Valley Victory Church to the Evergreen sewer
district and he asked for a letter of permission from the City.
Bonnie Buls, 1518 8th Avenue East, requested City water connection,
but asked for postponement of annexation until Greenacres is
annexed.
Tim Anderson, 1816 Stag Lane, Greenacres Homeowners Association
President, relayed his concerns about the City taking over services
of Kelly Road, Willow Glen and Woodland Avenue.
Nancy Osler, 1425 West Reserve, spoke on the West View Subdivision
and its impact on traffic on West Reserve and West Valley School.
The following people spoke in favor of Resolution 4742, Sunnyside
Subdivision Preliminary Plat:
Erica Wirtala, Sands Surveying, representing Owl Corporation,
stated the developer has followed the letter of the law and read a
statement in support of the Sunnyside Subdivision Preliminary Plat.
(Letter is attached and by this reference is made a part of the
official record)
Don Peterson, 113 Trevino Drive, stated he is the real estate
broker handling the Sunnyside property and it was purchased
specifically because it was suitable for R-4 zoning, and affordable
housing. He said there is a serious lack of affordable housing in
Kalispell and asked the Council to approve the preliminary plat.
The following people spoke against Resolution 4742, Sunnyside
Subdivision. Several stated they did not receive notice of the
planning board hearing from the planning office:
Dale Pierce, 1015 Ashley Drive, spoke against the subdivision
adding that his family's concerns were listed in a letter sent to
the Council (letter is attached and by this reference is made a
part of the official record)
Cheryl Pierce, 1015 Ashley Drive, spoke against the Sunnyside
Subdivision and the zone change for Debbie Willis, adding that she
is opposed to any overcrowding.
Lila Kruckenberg, 1204 Sunnyside Drive, stated that crowding so
many homes into such a small area is not conducive to a well
planned subdivision.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 2
Angie Kruckenberg, 1116 Sunnyside Drive, read a statement to
Council. (Statement is attached and by this reference is made a
part of the official record)
Ty Fromm, 308 Bismark Street, read a letter she had sent to the
Council. (Letter is attached and by this reference is made a part
of the official record)
Ray Delong, 310 Bismark Street, commented he's not against the
subdivision, but he is against the number of units proposed and he
would like to see the project scaled back.
Scott Cairo, 1955 Bluestone Drive, said he would like to see Denver
Avenue closed between Bluestone like it was originally. He said by
opening that connection, the Council got its bypass and people use
it for a speedway.
Nancy Fryer, 1923 Bluestone Drive, agreed that Denver needs to be
closed off because the traffic has gotten out of hand.
Eugene Burns, 110 Denver Avenue, also stated that Denver Avenue has
become a highway.
Kai Burns, 110 Denver Avenue, said because of the traffic, the area
has become an unsafe place for children.
Kim Wilson, 117 Boise Avenue, said she's also not opposed to the
subdivision, but she is opposed to the density.
Anthony Hill, 121 Boise Avenue, asked the Council to reconsider the
number of units planned adding he doesn't want to live "in the
projects".
Scott Creekmore, 307 Bismark, stated this is a great area to live
and but this project is trying to stuff "ten pounds of you know
what into a five pound sack".
Norman Kruckenberg, 1116 Sunnyside Drive, said the roadways weren't
built as planned in the beginning and because of that, he opposes
the density of this project.
Mike Harris, 111 Santa Fe, spoke against the preliminary plat and
said the first he heard about this was September loth. Harris also
sent a letter in opposition. (Letter is attached and by this
reference is made a part of the official record)
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 3
Keith Eades, 106 Santa Fe, said he's a contractor and isn't against
the project, but he is against the density.
*Letters in opposition received from Bruce and Anne Schomer, Sue
Paulson, Leota Mae Sudan and Dolores Aadsen are attached and by
this reference is made a part of the official record.
PUBLIC HEARING - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - KALISPELL CITY
AIRPORT
Council accepted comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment
which summarizes the potential environmental effects of the
proposed City Airport improvement project.
Per Federal Regulations, the following minutes of the Public
Hearing are verbatim as provided by Goodman Reporting:
PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A.I.P 3-30-0043-02
Held at Kalispell City Hall
312 First Avenue East, Kalispell, Montana
Monday, October 7, 2002 - 8:00 P.M.
Reported by: Bambi A. Goodman, CSR, RPR, CRR
GOODMAN REPORTING (406) 863-4828
P.O. Box 1182 Whitefish, MT 59937
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 4
1
2 MAYOR KENNEDY: We now are opening up our
3 public hearing. Our public hearing is the Kalispell City
4 Airport and the City of Kalispell plan to request federal
5 aid for the future development of the city airport. A draft
6 environmental assessment summarizing the potential
7 environmental effects of the proposed airport improvement
8 project
has
been prepared
by Robert Peccia and Associates
9 and has
been
available for
review since September 7th. This
10 is the time in which the Council will accept any comments on
11 the draft environmental assessment.
12
Anyone
wishing to
address
the Council,
please
13
step to the podium,
state your
name and
address for
the
14 record.
15 MR. PORRINI: Mayor, members of the Council,
16 my name is Phil Porrini. I'm a civil engineer with Robert
17 Peccia and Associates out of Helena. With me this evening
18 are Dan Norderud, our environmental documents division
19 manager, and Bill Burklund, professional engineer and
20 project engineer on this particular project.
21 Several years ago we were hired by the City
22
of
Kalispell.
Basically,
we had two tasks
in front of us.
23
Our
mission was
one, first
to evaluate the
best possible
24
airport site for a general
aviation airport
for the City
of
25
Kalispell which would meet
federal standards
and second,
to
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 3
1 take a look at that best possible site and to evaluate all
2 of the environmental issues that surround that site and that
3 proposed action.
4 Our work came at the heels of a Master Plan
5 that was done for the Kalispell City Airport, the conclusion
6 of which was evaluated by the FAA, and they recommended
7 that, number one, a site selection study be done to assure
8 that the current site is the best site and then, number two,
9 to further that by doing an environmental assessment on
10 that.
11 At the conclusion of our site selection
12
study, we did present to you
and to the FAA
our conclusions
13
and our proposed action, and
we were given,
basically, the
14
go ahead and the direction to
follow up and
to proceed into
15 the environmental assessment.
16 Tonight, following a brief summary by both
17 Bill and Dan on the site selection study and the
18 environmental assessment, the public will be given the
19 opportunity to comment. This is part of the public hearing
20 process, and it will become part of the final environmental
21 assessment.
22 When Bill and Dan are done concluding, if I
23 might be able to come back and just draw some final
24 conclusions prior to going into the public comment period.
25 MAYOR KENNEDY: That would be fine.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 6
I MR. BURKLUND: Madam Mayor, City Council,
2 Bill Burklund with Robert Peccia and Associates. We
3 completed a site selection study beginning with these five
4 sites in the valley subjected to an impartial matrix of
5 aeronautical and nonaeronautical concerns. From that we
6 selected a single preferred alternative that moves the
7 runway 600 feet to the south and rotates it at the north end
8 about 5.6 degrees clockwise; would widen the runway to 75
9 feet and increase the distance between the runway and the
10 single taxiway. This option would increase safety spacing
11 and qualify the airport for federal 90-percent airport
12 improvement program assistance. It would also lower the
13 City's long-term costs of maintaining their airport. It
14 affects 18 property owners, five businesses, nine
15 residential units, 23 personal property moves, and will
16 require the removal of radio towers that the FAA has deemed
17 a hazard to air navigation.
18 With that I'll pass the mike over to Dan
19 Norderud.
20 MR. NORDERUD: Thank you, Bill.
21 I wanted to just make a couple of brief
22 remarks, provide a little background information on the
23 environmental assessment, why it's necessary that we do
24 this.
25 First of all, environmental assessments are
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 7
1 federally mandated in this case. The documents are required
2 by the FAA to help them determine whether or not a proposed
3 action improving the Kalispell City Airport will have
4 significant environmental impacts or have the potential to
5 cause them.
And the EA itself provides
the documentation
6 analysis necessary for them to see how --
see the
7 conclusions
that were presented in there
and to have an
8 opportunity
to analyze that before making
decisions to spend
9 federal funds and advance this project.
10 What's included in an environmental
11 assessment? Basically, there's a description of the
12 proposed action. That's what's proposed to be done by the
13 city in this case. The purpose and the need is a very
14 critical part of the document. It expresses those problems
15 that exist at the airport and why things need to be done to
16 resolve those. In this case, the future expansion
17 possibilities at the existing airport are limited without
18 acquiring new land. The existing airport also
19 has -- requires significant modifications to bring that into
20 compliance with the FAA's current design and dimensional
21 standards for airports.
22 The alternative section is another key
23
element of
the document.
That
discusses ways
to
address
the
24
identified
problems. In
this
case, we looked
at
options
to
25 reconfigure and expand the airport itself; develop the
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 8
1 airport at a new location. Bill alluded to the site
2 selection study that was done. The use of other alternate
3 nearby airports was also considered. Using other modes of
4 transportation to substitute for aviation activity at the
5 airport was considered.
6 The EA identifies what the sponsor, the City
7 of Kalispell and the airport board, are proposing to do with
8 the use of these federal funds, if they were available.
9 The EA also includes the option of doing
10 nothing. This is something that is always included in
11 environmental documents and provides a basis for comparing
12 and contrasting what you're proposing to do with the option
13 of not advancing any type of project.
14 The part of the EA focuses on what are the
15 existing conditions in the vicinity of the airport and what
16 would be the environmental effects of implementing the
17 improvement project.
18 The consequences section or impact section
19 really looks at the direct impacts, indirect and the
20 cumulative effects of what is being proposed.
21 The EA document that we prepared also
22 includes a determination of significance for a number of
23 environmental considerations. The FAA has provided guidance
24 that says you must address certain aspects of the
25 environment in the document itself and provides us with a
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 9
1 threshold level that we can use to analyze whether or not an
2 impact is approaching significance or might be significant.
3 The other portions are basically to document
4 that public involvement has occurred in a coordination with
5 other agencies that may have special interests in this
6 project are documented.
7 What did the EA show us? In a nutshell,
8 there is additional land that is required to move forward
9 with this project. we identified that approximately 72
10 additional acres of adjoining property must be acquired or
11 otherwise controlled to allow the facility to be developed
12
to meet
the FAA
standards. Accomplishing this does not
come
13
without
effects
on adjoining businesses and residences.
We
14 identified nine potential residential relocations affecting
15
in the neighborhood of
20 people.
There were
five business
16
relocations identified,
and there
were also 20
-- more than
17 20 personal property moves that would be necessary for this.
18 Federal assistance is available to ensure
19 that those businesses and residences displaced by the
20 project are adequately compensated or there are suitable and
21 adequate replacement homesites that are homes available to
22 those people.
23 Our environmental document identified that
24
the
KGEZ towers also are --
pose a
hazard to air navigation
25
at
the particular site in
the city
airport and
that there
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 10
1 must be some way taken to remedy that situation. The EA
2 speaks to various methods that might be accomplished, either
3 through using -- sharing existing broadcast towers, using
4 experimental technologies or removal of the towers
5 themselves. The EA recommended that the removal of the
6 towers was probably the most feasible action, at this point
7 in time.
8 A couple of other notable impacts that I'll
9 breeze through fairly quickly. Our surface transportation
10 impacts access to the airport would be changed from
11 Highway 93, as it exists today, to the west off of Airport
12 Road.
13 There were also air quality considerations to
14 be given to this project. Kalispell, as you may know, is a
15 designated nonattainment area for PM-10. And documentation
16
was required to
-- or analysis
documentation
coordination
17
with the Montana
Department of
Environmental
Quality was
18
required
to show that we weren't
-- this
airport project
19
would not
contribute to or worsen
the PM-10
situation within
20 the community.
21 Aircraft noise is also another obvious
22 effect. Detailed noise modeling was done as part of our
23 environmental assessment. That included modeling scenarios
24 that involved future fleet mixes that might include jet
25 traffic or some degree of jet traffic at that particular
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 11
1 site. It also looked at what changes would happen with the
2 reconfigured airport itself.
3 The conclusion is that while the aircraft
4 noise would be obvious and unavoidable on adjoining
5 properties, the noise levels of concern, those that are
6 above 65 decibels, would be confined to the proposed airport
7 property.
8 Flood plain effects. There is a designated
9 flood plain associated with Ashley Creek that is in the
10 area. While our preliminary work showed that we would be in
11 proximity to that, it's not apparent to us at this point,
12 without doing a detailed survey and a design for the
13 airport, whether or not there would be any effects. If
14 there are, they are one of those things that would have to
15 be involved in the permitting process for flood plains.
16 On the natural resources side of things, this
17
site is very benign
as far
as wildlife
impacts go. We
18
received clearance
from the
US Fish and
Wildlife Service
19 with respect to potential impacts on threatened and
20 endangered species. We have -- we also would not be
21 affecting wetlands or directly affecting any surface waters
22 in the vicinity of the airport.
23 A cultural resource survey was done for the
24 property, and there were no significant cultural sites
25 identified.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 12
1 The conclusions that we came to as a result
2 of our work for the EA were that the level of impact would
3 not be significant. I should preface that by saying that
4 none of the thresholds that the FAA has provided us would be
5 approached or exceeded, based on our analysis. The FAA has
6 not yet agreed with those conclusions. That's something
7 that they will have the opportunity to do after public
8 comments on this project are collected and analyzed and
9 responded to.
10 However, the FAA has reviewed a preliminary
11 version of the document and has given us comments on that,
12 and no indication has been received that they cannot approve
13 this document.
14 What's next after today's hearing on this
15 project? Basically, we are accepting written comments on
16 the EA until next Tuesday, October 15th. As Mayor Kennedy
17 expressed, the document has been available for public review
18 since September 7th. After the comment period is done, we
19 will review all the comments that we have received, address
20 them in an appropriate manner and include them in our
21 responses and prepare a final environmental assessment.
22 After all of these activities are completed,
23 and it's still obvious to us that there are no significant
24 impacts associated with this, we will submit the document on
25
behalf of the city to the FAA and request that they make a
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 13
1 finding of no significant impact. That will be the last
2 step in the process for environmental compliance
3 that -- environmental documentation, I should say -- that is
4 necessary for this project.
5 And what a FONSI is is simply the agency
6 stating that there would be no -- they are
making a
finding
7 that there would be no significant impact
resulting
from
8 this project.
9 Once the FONSI is received and notice is made
10
of that
to the public, the City
and the airport board, if
11
they so
choose, can move forward
with the project. The EA,
12
if it's
approved, remains valid
for a three-year time
13
period.
But
if no actions
-- major actions
are taken to
14
implement
the
project, then
a re-evaluation
of the document
15 is required.
16 I guess, with that, I would turn it back to
17 Phil for some closing remarks, then we'll accept comments;
18 thank you.
19
MAYOR KENNEDY:
Thank
you very much, Dan.
20
MR. PORRINI:
I'll be
brief, since this is my
21 second time up. Up to this point, there have been no
22 obligations, except for the study work that has been done by
23 Robert Peccia and Associates and previously by
24 Morrison-Maierle -- no obligations towards acquiring federal
25 funding. But should the FONSI be issued by the Federal
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 14
1 Aviation Administration, and if the City chooses to move
2 forward, they would stand an opportunity to be eligible for
3 federal funds.
4 In the Federal Program for Airport
5 Improvements, up to 90 percent of all eligible work is
6 funded by the federal government, and the remaining ten
7 percent needs to
be funded
through local
funds or
through
8 state aeronautics
funds.
To this point,
I'm not
sure if
9 Bill or Dan had mentioned, but the proposed action that we
10 addressed is roughly 7 million dollars. Meaning that if
11 everything was eligible, roughly $700,000 would be needed to
12
come from
the
local community or from
state aeronautics
13
funds, and
a
remaining 6 million -plus
dollars would come
14 from Federal Aviation Trust Fund monies. It's important to
15 note that the federal dollars are earmarked dollars from the
16 Aviation Trust Fund. They come from ticket taxes that we
17 all pay when we buy airline tickets and also from aviation
18 fuel taxes. The local funding, of course, is money that
19 you're well aware of where it comes from. And also, state
20 aeronautics money is similar to the Federal Aviation Trust
21 Fund money in that it is available through their grant loan
22 program, also coming from aviation fuel taxes.
23 And, finally, the last concluding statement I
24 want to make is that this is your city airport and it is
25 certainly in your hands as to what decisions need to be
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 15
1 forthcoming. What we've presented up to this point are the
2 steps and stages that you need to have before you to make
3 good decisions. And also, they are the requirements of the
4 federal government in order to participate in their federal
5 program.
6 So with that, I guess it's going to be open
7 for public comment; not necessarily question and answers,
8 but we would certainly be willing to answer questions
9 probably at a later date than this evening. And if people
10 want to contact myself, Phillip Porrini, at 447-5000 with
11 Robert Peccia and Associates, or get a hold of Chris
12 Kukulski, and we can arrange yet for another meeting if the
13 public is so inclined, and if you are as well. Thank you
14 very much.
15 MAYOR KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Porrini.
16 Is there anyone wishing to address the
17 Council with regards to the airport environmental assessment
18 this evening? Mr. Porrini is correct, this will not be a
19
time for questions
and answers. It will
just
be a
time to
20
state your comments. They'll be entered
into
the
record,
21
and then if you do
have any questions, you
certainly
can get
22
a hold of the City
of Kalispell. We can
give
you
the
23
address for Robert
Peccia and Associates,
and
they
would be
24
more than happy to
answer your questions.
So
with
that,
25
please state your name and address for the
record.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 16
1 MR. JELLAR: Peter Jellar, 143 Welf Lane, and
2 I'm at the end of where this airport is supposed to be and
3 probably one of these residents that they're saying that
4 there's not going to be not much of an impact.
5 I worked all my life at pretty low-income
6 jobs around this valley and saved up enough money to buy a
7 house, you know, thinking that I could raise me and my two
8 kids there at this place. Now I got another agency of
9 bureaucracy wanting to close in, you know. And I look at
10 this and I look at -- I found out from my neighbor today
11 because she heard about it on the radio. I ran up to the
12 library to see this draft. Now, where was this draft? Why
13 wasn't the draft sent to these people so they could see what
14 possibly might impact their lives?
15 Does the City of Kalispell not think about
16 anybody's lives? From what I heard on this Sunnyview Lane
17 deal and stuff, the City of Kalispell is just absolutely
18 atrocious. They're just trying to take up whatever they can
19 so they can get more tax dollars.
20 I'm very upset with this city. I'm hurt. I
21 got out of the military hoping to come back to a good place,
22 and I bragged about it. But you know, I'll tell everybody
23 right now, stay away from this area. It is not worth moving
24 into. It may be pretty, but it will just rip you apart.
25 That's the way I feel about our city now. I
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 17
1 was raised here in this valley, bragging about this valley.
2 Now what is this city coming to?
3 I hear something about the United Nations.
4 We're one nation under God. One nation under God. And we
5 are not to be taken up with the United Nations. And I heard
6 this in the very beginning in some pledge or something that
7 the city was. Are we part of the United Nations now? Are
8 we -- are we the U.S.A.? You know, this is an American
9 dream, a house. And these -- you got an airport that's
10 perfect. Leave it where it's at. Why do we have to expand
11 an airport? We have an international airport out there.
12 Now, the other question is, I'm sitting
13 there, been fighting for my sister on the other side of
14 Kalispell on the south end. She is living on the south end
15 on Highway 93 where the road comes down to a two-lane. Now
16 the State of Montana is wanting to claim eminent domain on
17 her property for something that was done by a citizens'
18 group, a nonprofit organization. Now, there is a law out
19 there that nonprofit organizations cannot influence
20 government. And they are. And if this nonprofit
21 organization has any influence on this, I will come right
22 down to the conclusion on this and I will fight with every
23 last thing I got in my heart to stop this.
24 MAYOR KENNEDY: Thank you very much. We
25 appreciate your comments this evening.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 18
1 Anyone else wishing to speak to the Council?
2 Anyone else?
3 MR. BISSELL: Good evening. My name's
4 Gilbert Bissell. I reside at 76 Stafford Street. And I'm
5 sure most of you know how I stand on the airport.
6 Before I start on my comments, I'd like to
7 read in a letter here. Mike Strand was not able to attend
8 tonight, but he's asked me to get a letter into the record.
9 And I don't have his address, but it's Strand Aviation,
10 Kalispell City Airport, Highway 93 South, and it reads.
11 "Dear Sir;
12 "I have spoken and written dozens of times as
13 a long time proponent of Kalispell City Airport improvement
14 so my position is well documented. My advocacy of the city
15 airport goes back to 1964 when I first worked there as a
16 charter and instructor pilot. The facility has served since
17 1929 with only minimal city involvement capital improvements
18 and maintenance. The very survival of this facility is a
19 testament to its value as a part of the basic infrastructure
20 of Kalispell.
21
22
23
24
25
"Now is the time to take the steps necessary
to trigger federal money for this airport. The funds are
available and are in fact largely held in trust for this
type of project. Many airports, including our own Glacier
International Airport, have tapped into this fund, as have
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 19
1 Polson, Ronan, Eureka and hundreds of other airports. These
2 are not general tax dollars but have been generated by
3 aviation fuel and ticket sales. It is time for us to get
4 some of this money back.
5 "If I can be of assistance in expediting this
6 project please let me know." And I'll give this to Theresa,
7 I guess.
8
From my
own standpoint, I've been on
the
9
airport advisory board
for, I don't know, seven or
eight
10
years. I know when I
started I had more hair and I
didn't
11 wear glasses. But it's been a long project, it's been
12 several administrations, and a lot of help from City staff
13 to get as far as we've gotten, a lot of help from Phil
14 Porrini and his staff and Morrison-Maierle before. And
15 we've come to a point now where we feel that the money is
16 there, the project is doable, and we'd like to continue to
17 go forward.
18 One of the things that we probably haven't
19 been doing as an airport advisory board these past years is
20 selling the benefit of the airport. And I think those of us
21
that
are involved on
a day-to-day basis in that
airport know
22
the
benefits of it,
but the average citizen on
the street
23 doesn't. And I think if you look at what goes on at that
24 airport and the benefits to the community and the economic
25 benefit to the community of the airport, I think a lot of
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 20
1 people would be surprised if we really did a complete study
2 of the benefits of that airport.
3 I own a business. Everybody knows the Aero
4 Inn on the airport. I get some benefit from the airport but
5 not a whole lot. I mean, I sell some rooms in the
6 summertime to pilots. But I guess my love of that airport
7 has been my previous life I was an airline pilot and I flew
8 charters quite a bit, so I know what a small airport can do
9 for the community. And I can tell you if I didn't have a
10 business on the airport, I'd still be fighting for the
11 airport.
12 I've said all along that there's three things
13
the
City can do
with
that
airport.
You
can improve
it, you
14
can
ignore it or you
can
close it.
And
probably the
worst
15 thing the City can do is ignore it. I would strongly urge
16 you to go forward. You've got an opportunity now to
17 leverage City money into a ten million dollar project. I
18 think we're crazy to not get the money. The airport -- the
19 EA that we've just completed and the Master Plan that we've
20 completed have proven that it is a doable project.
21
Yes, there are some
hurdles ahead
of us, but
22
I think we've got some answers how
to accomplish
that. And
23
I know the airport -- a lot of us
have a vision
for what
24 that airport could look like and what a benefit it could be
25 to the community, and I would just urge this Council to just
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 21
1 keep on going forward as you have for the past about ten
2 years that you've been involved; thank you.
3 MAYOR KENNEDY: Thank you very much,
4 Mr. Bissell.
5 Anyone else wishing to address the Council?
6 MS.
KEESER: I'm
Jacquie
Keezer,
545 Second
7 Avenue East. And
I have those
airplanes
buzzing
over my
8 house right now, as they are over this building. And I see
9 one of those circles right now flying over my house. And my
10 biggest concern is that this airport will be open to jet
11 planes. And I realize they'll be smaller jets, but I know
12 that I will hear them. They will come over my house. And I
13
can't believe that just
the properties
that
are sitting
14
right by the airport are
going to hear
that,
because they
15
come from way up above and
they circle.
And
I just know
16
that they're going to be
over my head, and
I
can't even bear
17
it. And I think that we
shouldn't get
into
that position,
18 right now, of allowing jets to come in, because the jets are
19
going to get bigger,
and then we're
going to have to expand
20
the airport again in
20 or 30 years
to accommodate those
21
jets. And here we are now building
around the airport on
22
three sides, and we're putting more people
right in
the path
23
of the airplanes. And, you know,
quality
of life
is the
24 most important issue. And with jets going over my head,
25 that is the big issue to me. Thank you.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 22
1 MAYOR KENNEDY: Thank you, Ms. Keezer.
2 Next?
3 MR. BROWN: My name's Neal Brown. I live at
4 670 Wolf Creek Drive in Bigfork. I've been involved in
5 aviation most of my life, mostly in the maintenance end.
6 I've been a builder of aircraft -- experimental aircraft,
7 several of them pretty famous. One hangs in the Smithsonian
8 Institution. The pilot of that aircraft, Dick Crutan who
9 flew around the world nonstop refueled in 1996, stops in
10 here once in a while for a visit. And he really likes this
11 airport. It's a special airport. He visits small airports
12 all across the nation and, in fact, around the world. And
13 his comment on this airport is it's really great. He can
14 fly in, find accommodations and not have to wave down some
15 farmer to haul him in and out of town. It's a real asset.
16 But he had one thing to say, and it's
17 emphatic. Is those towers at the end of that airport have
18 to go. They're a real hazard to aviation. And so I deliver
19 that message on his behalf.
20 I would caution you, however, though, I think
21 they need to go, but that doesn't mean they're a gold mine.
22 You know, as far as I'm concerned, you know, they're value
23 of scrap metal at Pacific Steel. That's not because of what
24 emanates them is the equivalent to what scrap is if you take
25 the S off, but it's because the business is just not a huge
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 23
1 money maker. And I think with further investigation, you'll
2 find that to
be true.
And use
our tax dollars wisely
when
3 you purchase,
replace
or find a
suitable solution for
the
4 removal. Thank you very much.
5 MAYOR KENNEDY: Thank you very much,
6 Mr. Brown.
7 Next?
8 MR. CAIRO: Scott Cairo, 1955 Bluestone. I
9 just wanted to tell you that I'm really happy that you're
10 looking at improving this airport. A new pilot myself, I
11
look
at the
Kalispell City Airport as
a
big
opportunity for
12
me.
Living
in the South Meadows area,
I
got
the same planes
13 buzzing over my house. However, I made the decision to move
14 there knowing that the airport was there, knowing that I was
15 going to deal with the noise. That's a part of moving near
16 an airport.
17 So many times do I hear, being from
is
Minneapolis, people
complain about airport noise.
If you
19
have a problem with
the airport noise, don't move
there.
20 It's gonna happen. The airport, right now as it sits, once
21
again, being
as a new pilot, the runway does
need to be
22
improved. I
would really, really like to see
it improved
23 just because it's a close, convenient airport for me to fly
24 out of. It saves me miles and miles of driving up to
25 Glacier, and eventually could be able to hangar our plane
Kalispell city council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 24
1 out there at the city
airport.
So I
just want to tell you
2 go ahead, if you can,
get this
done;
thank you.
3 MAYOR
KENNEDY:
Thank
you very much.
4 Next?
5
MR. RISTINE:
My name's Wayne Ristine, 2898
6
Highway
93 North. I own lot
2G, so I'm one of the 18
7
property
owners that's affected
by this project. And I'm
8
here to
support the project.
And I've supported it since
9
day one;
thank you.
10
MAYOR KENNEDY:
Thank you very much,
11 Mr. Ristine
12 Next?
13 MR. GOODE: Hi. I'm Brett Goode, and I live
14 at 1639 Highway 2 West. I don't have much to say, but I
15 started flying when I was about eleven years old. Had it
16 not been for the city airport, it probably wouldn't have
17 happened. I'm planning a career in aviation. Again, had it
18 not been for the airport, most likely I would not be flying
19 today. Glacier's too far, and our airport, as it sits, is
20 not adequate.
21 Flying anywhere in Montana, especially -- I
22 was just in Thompson Falls two weeks ago, and it's
23 unbelievable the difference in airports and the standard of
24 Kalispell City. It needs to be improved. Just the
25 integrity of the city, I think, depends on it. You can fly
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 25
1 anywhere, really, in the state, a city with a couple
2 thousand people has an airport twice the quality of our own.
3 So I really think something needs to be done. And it's a
4 major part of my life.
5 I do feel for some of the people that live
6 there. I can understand that as a concern. But at the same
7 time,
the benefit is
long outweighing the
consequence. So
8 it is
a big part of
my life, again, and I
hope to see it
9 move on as it is.
10 I think the towers are a huge problem. I'll
11 admit myself that being a human, I have made the mistake of
12 being absent-minded, and those towers have played a big part
13 in some of my flights. So I really think that definitely,
14 if all else fails, those towers need to go. And I
15
understand
that, you know,
maybe
somebody
doesn't
want them
16
to go and
they're being a
hard nose about
it, but
I think
17 it's pretty crucial. If it stays the way it is, don't
18 ignore those towers; thanks.
19 MAYOR KENNEDY: Thank you very much, Mr. Goode.
20 Next? Anyone else?
21 MR. RICHARDSON: My name is Scott Richardson.
22 I live at 192 Fairway Boulevard in Kalispell, and I have the
23 privilege of being the chairman for the Kalispell airport
24 board. And I'd kind of like to address some of the concerns
25 and, I guess, generalize -- maybe some of this will be
Kalispell city council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 26
1 redundant to some of the comments previously indicated.
2 The airport in any community is a source for
3 people
who are
on vacations,
on business
to arrive
quickly,
4 do what
they do
and leave.
We have two
airports,
obviously,
5 in this area, Glacier Park International Airport and
6 Kalispell City
Airport within
somewhat
close proximity.
7 Glacier Park is
designed more
towards
the commercial large
8 jet liners such as Delta and Northwest. Kalispell City
9 Airport is designed more around general aviation. The
10 advantage to this is, as we talked about, some of these guys
11 learning how to fly. It's a very easy airport to learn how
12 to -- where a person can learn how to fly. There's not that
13 issue of talking with the tower. And trust me, when you're
14 trying to solo for the first time, talking with the tower is
15 a very stressful, scary thing.
16 Kalispell City Airport, a lot of folks have
17 wondered well, why don't we just use Glacier Park
18
International
Airport?
We've
got another airport,
a great
19
facility, and
it is --
indeed,
Glacier Park is an
excellent
20 facility. Some of the reasons that Kalispell airport is an
21 advantage to the city proper of Kalispell is because it does
22 provide a stress -free destination for pilots coming out of
23 the area. A lot of these folks that own airplanes are
24 relatively well-to-do people, that have money in their
25 pockets to spend on the community.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 27
1 Another reason that the Kalispell City
2 Airport works so well for this particular area of Kalispell,
3 in particular for the pilot community especially, is a lot
4 of times Glacier Park International Airport has fog in the
5 morning and especially in the wintertime. There are a lot
6 of commercial folks, such as Federal Express, such as some
7 of the government
officials
when the governor comes
to town,
8 that utilize our
airport.
The fog issue at Glacier
Park and
9
the
fact that
this airport
is so close
to Kalispell are
two
10
huge
benefits
to the city
airport. I
know there are a
lot
11
of folks that utilize this
just from our
own community who
12
have other offices within
the state they
need to attend to.
13 In the middle of summer when we have our
14 tourist season, it's easily a 30-minute drive, 30 to
15 40-minute drive, going out to Glacier Park International
16 Airport. Then, to deal with the tower issue and getting out
17 of that airport adds an extreme amount of time for someone
18 trying to save time. Kalispell City Airport is very close
19 to downtown businesses, and it's a very good airport for
20 someone who's trying to quickly -- Missoula to Kalispell is
21 a 30 to 40-minute flight. Round trip, that's just a little
22 bit over an hour. If you add another 40 minutes both ways
23
to the 30
to
40 minutes
both
ways, you're
adding another
24
hour just
in
drive time
down
to Missoula.
25 One of the things that this whole process is
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 28
1 attempting to do is, mostly, to increase the safety of this
2 airport. Obviously, the talk of towers, the towers have
3 been designated as a safety of air navigation. In addition,
4 where this airport is located, by moving it south, by
5 turning it, it's going to give us wider taxiways and a much
6 safer airport for general operation.
7 The initial design for this airport -- I made
8 the mistake of not getting my facts and figures. I'm going
9 to ask Gibb, is it an additional hundred feet from where we
10 are now, or Phil?
11 MR. PORRINI: Six hundred feet to the south.
12 MR. RICHARDSON: How long is the runway
13 compared to the way it is?
14 MR. PORRINI: The same.
15 MR. RICHARDSON: Okay. What the FAA has
16 required us to do is purchase additional property so we have
17 the availability for future expansion, if we so desire. The
18 original design of this airport is the same length, 3700
19 feet, as it is now. That is a detriment to folks that are
20 trying to drive -- fly jet planes. We won't have Delta Air
21 Lines coming in and out of here. And it would be very
22 difficult for most jets to land with the existing runway
23 that we have, with the new runway that is proposed going in.
24 What the FAA wants, however, is the ability for us to be
25 able to expand if at such time in the future the City
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 29
1 decides that the need for a large runway is necessary,
2 they'll have the ability to expand. If they're going to put
3 7 million dollars into an airport, they want to make sure it
4 does allow for future expansion at a later date.
5 The completion of this airport -- one thing
6 that's been real neat about this airport project and has
7 been real exciting to me, being on the advisory board, is
8 the fact that this airport is a self-sufficient airport, tax
9 wise. It is supported by the users of the airport. And the
10 consensus on the airport board is that we continue to
11 maintain a self-supporting status. The City doesn't put
12 money into this airport. In fact, over the last several
13
years, there's been airport property
that
has been
sold, and
14
the City has received the profits of
those
sales,
the monies
15 from those sales. And when we talk about the money that the
16
City
puts back into the airport, really, if
you
look at the
17
land
that's been sold and chipped off from
the
airport
18 throughout the years, we have more than enough to
19 accommodate the request for the City funding for this
20 particular airport. I don't see any reason why this airport
21 cannot continue to maintain a status of self-sufficiency and
22 not requiring the taxpayers to bear the expense on this.
23
And beyond
that,
I highly
support,
24
personally, this airport,
and I
thank you
for your
25 consideration of this project.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 30
1 MAYOR KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Richardson.
2 Anyone else wishing to address the Council
3 with regards to the environmental assessment for the airport
4 this evening?
5 Anyone else wishing to address the Council?
6 MR. BLAYLOCK: Hello. My name is Keith
7 Blaylock. I live at 535 Creston Hatchery Road. And I'm a
8 member of the Glacier Eagle Soaring Club, and we use the
9 airport for a basis of operation for flying our glider. And
10 I'm not completely sure that we need to have the airport
11 expanded and improved, but if that's what it's going to take
12 to maintain the airport or to keep that airport intact, then
13 that's what I would want to do. Because we use it, you
14 know, at least six months out of the year. And we use it to
15 get access to the soaring in the mountains on the other side
16 of the -- on the west side of the airport. So it's
17 important to us. We've been using the airport for twelve
18 years. And it's a real nice airport, and I think the City
19 needs to keep it. And if you need to do the improvement to
20 get the federal money in to keep the airport, then that's
21 what we're for. That's all I have to say; thank you.
22 MAYOR KENNEDY: Thank you very much,
23 Mr. Blaylock.
24 Anyone else wishing to address the Council
25 this evening with regards to the environmental assessment
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 31
1 for the airport?
2 Anyone else wishing to address the Council?
3 One last time. Anyone else wishing to address the Council
4 with regards to the environmental assessment for the
5 airport?
6 The public hearing is closed. The Council
7 will not be taking any action with regards to the airport
8 and the environmental assessment this evening.
9 (Proceedings concluded at 8:45 p.m.)
10
Ffl
12.
BAMBI A.
GOODMAN, RPR,
CRR and
13.
Official
Freelance Court
Reporter
14.
Residing
in Whitefish,
Montana
15
16
Fb/
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 32
RESOLUTION 4742 - PRELIMINARY PLAT - SUNNYSIDE SUBDIVISION
This is a request for preliminary plat approval of a 62-lot
residential subdivision located at the south side of Sunnyside
Drive and west of Ashley Creek and Denver Avenue. The property
contains approximately 10 acres and was annexed into the City on
February 4, 2002.
Leistiko moved Resolution 4742, a resolution conditionally
approving the preliminary plat of Sunnyside Subdivision, more
particularly described as Assessor's Tract 8 in Section 19,
Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana.
The motion was seconded.
Wilson gave a staff report, emphasizing that the notification
statutes were followed exactly. She explained the different phases
of the subdivision and stated it would be constructed to City
standards. She said that she and a staff member measured the roads
around Sunnyside and got the same figures as the County did. Wilson
went on the explain that the density of the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the 1986 Master Plan. She spoke of the road issue
at length, including a request that Council require a traffic study
as one of the preliminary plat conditions.
Kukulski spoke on the notification issue also, and the Attorney
General's opinion on the growth policy and its effect. He explained
the standards of infrastructure and the differences between
subdivisions built in the City and those built in the County and
later annexed. Kukulski stated the Council should encourage
developers who want to abide by the Master Plan and build their
developments to City standards.
Atkinson commented that everyone who spoke tonight was frustrated
with the amount of growth in the City, and the only way to deal
with it is to play by the rules.
Hafferman said that he has many questions and read a written
statement for the record. (Written statement is attached and by
this reference is made a part of the official record)
Olson remarked that Hafferman made some good points and that the
problem lies with Sunnyside Road. He said he hopes the traffic
study results in a solution.
Mayor Kennedy stated she has concerns about the traffic and density
issues, but her greatest concern is with the lack of notification
to surrounding property owners.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 33
Larson said he also has some concerns, but he will support the
resolution. He added, however, that he would like to see a work
session on cash in lieu of parkland and how often it gets used.
Counsell said he will support the resolution because the
surrounding properties are primarily R-4.
Kenyon stated he will also, reluctantly, support the resolution. He
said he hopes the issue of Sunnyside Drive doesn't turn into a
fiasco and he questioned Wilson as to what Phase will have the
greatest impact on the road.
Wilson answered the plat has a seven-year build out with the
greatest number of units in connection with Phase 3.
Kenyon then asked where the new road and Ashley will meet in
relation to the Sunnyside Hill?
Wilson stated there were two hills, and she felt it was probably in
between the two rises on Sunnyside.
Kukulski said the traffic analysis will provide feedback on the
intersection and site distances.
Peters commented "welcome to a growing community". He said even
though he has concerns with the roads, he will vote in favor of the
resolution because the R-4 zoning is compatible with the Master
Plan.
Mayor Kennedy stated that she appreciates the fact that the
developer came forward with affordable housing and that it will be
built to City standards. She said that she does have concerns
regarding the lack of notification and density and that she will be
voting in opposition to the Resolution.
The motion carried upon roll call vote with Leistiko, Olson,
Peters, Atkinson, Counsell, Kenyon and Larson voting in favor, and
Hafferman and Mayor Kennedy voting against.
ORDINANCE 1437 - INITIAL ZONING - WILLIS - 2ND READING
Debbie Willis has requested a zoning designation of R-4, Two Family
Residential, for approximately one acre of land located on the
south side of Sunnyside Drive and the west side of Denver Avenue.
Ordinance 1437 passed on first reading September 3rd, however, on
September 16th, Council voted to table the second reading until
additional information was provided.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 34
Leistiko moved to remove Ordinance 1437 from the table. The motion
was seconded.
Hafferman explained he will abstain since there was no extension of
services plan prior to annexation.
Larson stated he will support the ordinance for the same reasons he
supported in the previous resolution.
Peters stated he has mixed emotions because the Council has already
been through the process with Sunnyside, but with this zoning
change, the Council knows from the start what some of the problems
are. He said he's reluctant to further propagate the problems in
the area with this ordinance.
Leistiko commented this is just one lot, not a huge subdivision and
he will vote in favor of it.
Olson stated the purpose of tabling the ordinance was because of
the roads, not the density, and asked to hear the staff report.
Wilson presented a staff report.
Peters asked Harball how the Attorney General's opinion affects
annexations.
Harball explained that under the AG's opinion, the City can annex
property without a current growth policy so long as the annexation
is requested by a property owner.
The motion carried upon roll call vote with Leistiko, Olson,
Peters, Atkinson, Counsell, Kenyon, Larson and Mayor Kennedy voting
in favor, and Hafferman abstaining.
RESOLUTION 4743 RESCIND MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT WOLFORD
The City Attorney's office is recommending the Council rescind the
Master Plan Amendment for the Glacier Mall until a growth policy is
in place.
Leistiko moved Resolution 4743, a resolution to rescind Resolution
4717 adopting a recommended amendment to the Kalispell City -County
Master Plan. The motion was seconded.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 35
Larson said he believes a motion to rescind has to be made by a
Council member on the prevailing side, and Leistiko voted against
Resolution 4717.
Leistiko withdrew his motion. The second concurred.
Atkinson moved Resolution 4743, a resolution to rescind Resolution
4717 adopting a recommended amendment to the Kalispell City -County
Master Plan. The motion was seconded.
Kukulski explained the reason for rescinding both the Master Plan
amendments is that the Attorney General's opinion suggests Master
Plan amendments are illegal without a growth policy, and that it
would not be worth the City's time to take it to the Supreme Court.
Mayor Kennedy asked Harball for a staff report.
Harball stated there are inconsistencies in the Attorney General's
opinion and there is room to challenge it. He added, however, that
we could have a growth policy in place or the legislature could
change the law long before the Supreme Court renders a decision. He
explained the reason for rescinding this is that the legal
landscape has changed and we are in an unusual place right now.
Hafferman commented that with all of the controversy surrounding
the growth policy, he doesn't understand why the City is rushing
into this. He said he feels we're opening ourselves up to more
problems and referred to a letter received this evening from Ken
Kalvig. (Letter is attached and by this reference is made a part of
the official record)
Mayor Kennedy asked what happens with the lawsuit and the petition
to get the mall issue on the ballot if Resolution 4717 is
rescinded.
Harball explained that both the lawsuit and the petition would be
moot issues, however, he emphasized that should not be the
reasoning behind the rescission.
Olson said even though he understands the reasoning behind the
rescission, he would really like to see this issue go before the
voters.
The motion carried upon roll call vote with Leistiko, Peters,
Atkinson, Counsell, Kenyon, Larson and Mayor Kennedy voting in
favor, and Olson and Hafferman voting against.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 36
RESOLUTION 4744 - RESCIND MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT - WEST VIEW ESTATES
The City Attorney's office is also recommending the Council rescind
the Master Plan Amendment for West View Estates until a growth
policy is in place.
Larson moved Resolution 4744, a resolution to rescind Resolution
4719 adopting a recommended amendment to the Kalispell City -County
Master Plan. The motion was seconded.
There was no discussion.
The motion carried upon roll call vote with Leistiko, Olson,
Peters, Atkinson, Counsell, Kenyon, Larson and Mayor Kennedy voting
in favor, and Hafferman voting against.
WATER CONNECTION REQUEST - DAN MCDOWELL & BONNIE BULS
McDowell and Buls are requesting connection to City water on
property located at 1600 8th Avenue East and to postpone annexation
until such time as the rest of the Greenacres area is annexed.
Larson moved the Council grant water connection to Dan McDowell and
Bonnie Buls in exchange for a petition to annex which will be used
at the time this area is annexed. The motion was seconded.
Atkinson asked why this request would even be considered. He said
the Council has set a policy that requires annexation at the time
of service.
Larson said when the City annexes in a hopscotch pattern it creates
problems. He said waiting to annex the entire area is a better way
to go.
Wilson stated there will be compensation because McDowell and Buls
will be paying the out -of -city rate of 120 percent.
The motion carried upon vote with Leistiko, Counsell, Kenyon,
Larson, Hafferman and Mayor Kennedy voting in favor, and Peters and
Atkinson voting against.
RESOLUTION 4745 - STOP SIGNS - 2ND AND 3RD AVENUES WEST
Flathead High School and residents on the west side of Kalispell
have requested the installation of stop signs at the intersection
of 7th Street and 2nd and 3rd Avenues West.
Larson moved Resolution 4745, a resolution approving the placement
of stop signs in the north and south bound lanes on 2nd Avenue West
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 37
and 3rd Avenue West at their intersection with 7th Street West and
declaring an effective date. The motion was seconded.
There was no discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote.
RESOLUTION 4746 - OWNERSHIP TRANSFER OF ROADS
This resolution accepts ownership of certain portions of various
roads from Flathead County.
Larson moved Resolution 4746, a resolution accepting from the
County of Flathead those certain portions of Willow Glen, Woodland
Avenue, Woodland Park Drive and Kelly Road and declaring an
effective date. The motion was seconded.
Kukulski gave a staff report.
Hafferman stated he is opposed to the ownership of these roads
because more roads means more money spent, there's a current
lawsuit over Willow Glen, and he feels this is a subterfuge for
annexing Greenacres.
Olson commented on Kelly Road's constant water problems and stated
he will abstain from voting.
The motion carried upon roll call vote with Leistiko, Atkinson,
Counsell, Kenyon, Larson and Mayor Kennedy voting in favor, Peters
and Hafferman voting against, and Olson abstaining.
RESOLUTION 4747 - SUPPORTING CITY OF WHITEFISH
This resolution supports the opposition to any alteration of the
Whitefish City -County Planning Board's existing jurisdiction.
Peters moved Resolution 4747, a resolution to declare the support
of the Kalispell City Council for the Whitefish City Council's
opposition to any unilateral effort on the part of the Flathead
County Commissioners to alter the Whitefish City -County Planning
Board's existing jurisdiction. The motion was seconded.
Peters said he's not opposed to changes, but he is opposed to the
unilateral effort by the County to alter territories.
Hafferman stated that he was not elected to fight Whitefish's
battles, and we have enough of our own. Hafferman said this will
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 38
I ust further aggravate the County and for the growth policy, will
simply mean delay, delay, delay.
Mayor Kennedy said she's supporting this resolution because we have
already been delayed, delayed, delayed by the County.
Olson agreed.
The motion carried upon roll call vote with Leistiko, Olson,
Peters, Atkinson, Counsell, Kenyon, Larson and Mayor Kennedy voting
in favor, and Hafferman voting against.
RESOLUTION 4748 - RESOLUTION OF INTENT - INTERIM ZONING
This resolution sets October 21, 2002 as the date for a public
hearing to consider whether to pass interim zoning regulations.
Larson moved Resolution 4748, a resolution of intention calling for
a public hearing on adoption of interim zoning regulations for the
City of Kalispell. The motion was seconded.
Kukulski gave a staff report.
There was no discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote.
MAYOR/COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
Olson asked for information on South Meadows and requested that the
church sewer hookup request be put on the next agenda.
Kukulski reminded everyone there will be a work session next
Wednesday, October 16, on the rate study.
ADJOURN /
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.mE
Pamela B.
ATTEST: Mayor
Theresa White
City Clerk
Approved October 21, 2002
Kalispell City Council Minutes
October 7, 2002
Page 39
"PLAYING BY THE RULES"
Good evening, my name is Erica Wirtala, and I work for Sands Surveying as a professional planner, and I
am here tonight representing our client, OWL Corporation with their designee, Mark Owens, and their
subdivision project, Sunnyside.
I would like to entitle this short presentation "Playing by the Rules" as I feel that is exactly what this
developer has done consistently throughout this process. I hope that the Honorable Mayor and the City
Council members will appreciate the lengths that the developer has gone to to design a quality subdivision
that provides much needed "Affordable Housing" here in Kalispell, This is an "Infill development", one that
does not contribute to sprawl, and because it is not utilizing septic systems, is a good and efficient use of the
environment. He has done all of this within the parameters of the complex zoning/annexation/subdivision
process. In good faith that the project will succeed if the rules are followed, OWL Corporation purchased
a piece of property, complied with the annexation and zone change process to the letter of the law and now
has brought forward a subdivision plan which is in complete conformance with the Subdivision Regulations
for Kalispell. He has not asked for a single variance from these strict standards and has adhered to all of the
rules throughout the entire process.
I'd like to briefly address some of the aspects of this project that may seem redundant to you as City Council
members, but may clarify our position to the surrounding neighborhood....
First, the Master Plan for Kalispell is a document which guides growth and planning throughout the city and
its surrounding environs, designates this land as "Urban Residential". The definition of Urban Residential is
to concentrate development in specific areas of Kalispell, at a density of 2-8 SFR and duplexes per acre.
This plan has been in place for almost twenty years and should come to no surprise to the residents of this
area as land is now being built to meet these expected densities. The developer did not amend or change
the Master Plan in any way. He is developing as allowed by this plan.
Our client did change the zoning for this parcel. It was previously designated R-1 under the County's
jurisdiction. This would have allowed for one single family home per acre on the ten acre piece, each with
their own septic system and well. Changing the zoning to R4 and annexing the parcel into the City, allows
hookups to water and sewer, and an increased density on the land. The adjoining landowners were noticed
by certified mail, as well as an announcement in the paper and there was a thirty day protest period, standard
procedure for any zone change. The lots are approximately 6000 square feet in size and are consistent with
those lots found throughout the surrounding area. Please note that this was not "spot" zoning, and that the
R4 designation is the norm, rather than the exception. Sunnyside subdivision conforms completely with the
R4 zoning designation.
Consistent with the Subdivision Regulations, this proposal includes streets built to city standards, water,
sewer, curb, gutter, sidewalks and streetlights. There have been no deviances from these regulations.
There have been many concerns raised regarding the parkland requirement for this proposal. OWL
Corporation is making a "cash -hi -lieu" contribution to the City of Kalispell parks instead of dedicating land
directly for parkland. This is completely within the regulations of the Subdivision Regulations and the City
of Kalispell's Park's and Rec's guidelines. If a subdivision has less than 10 acres in lots, (which once the
roadway and improvements are made, only approximately 8 acres remain in lots), the parkland dedication
would be less than one acre in size. At this time, the Parks department will not accept a park less than one
acre. Furthermore, if parkland were to be dedicated, it would be one that would be owned and maintained
by the FICA for Sunnyside, and children from other neighborhoods would be discouraged from utilizing it.
Making a cash -in -lieu payment ensures that money will be spent directly on improvements, not maintenance,
to the public Begg Park, located nearby.
Traffic volume has also been a large concern for the neighbors, and I'd like to take a moment to address that
situation...
Although this is included in Narda's staff report, I would like to reiterate that in the summer of 1999,
Carter/Burgess conducted a traffic survey and counted an average of 347 vehicles per day traveling on
Sunnyside. The City of Kalispell has concluded that by the year 2015, due to increasing traffic volumes,
Sunnyside will change its current designation and upgrade to a "Suburban Collector Roadway", but that
would warrant traffic volumes of up to 6,000 vehicles per day. This designation would insure that the
roadway would have to be built up to city standards, currently it is at County standards. Furthermore, the
proposed Kalispell by-pass will become a major thorough -fare, and improvements to most adjoining
roadways will be made utilizing federal funding.
The design of the subdivision has taken into consideration the surrounding neighborhood by placing SIR
next to adjoining SFR's. The town homes will be placed near the entrance and central to the subdivision.
The subdivision is to be developed in three separate phases, the first phase to be completed within the 3 year
timeline, and then each subsequent phase completed after another two years.
This is a quality subdivision, proposed by a known developer with an exemplary track record. Sunnyside is
providing a needed product to this community, and there should be no reason that a person who follows the
rules of annexation/zone changes and subdivision review should be held hostage by the surrounding
neighborhood. OWL Corporation has followed all of the rules, drew up a workable, well -planned design
and should be commended for their efforts.
I'd like to ask the Council that when this item comes up on the agenda, that the developer, Mark Owens,
and his representative, Don Petterson and myself will be available to answer any questions.
r s-
September 17, 2002
City of Kalispell
City Manager: Chris Kukulski
RECEIVED
20C2 SEP 19 Ail 9: 18
KALISI ELL CITY CLERK
Since you are an elected official of the City of Kalispell, we hope you will take the time to listen to the
majority of the people around this subdivision proposed by the Owl Corporation.
(62 units on 10.029 acres South of Sunnyside Drive and West of Ashley Creek. See enclosure.)
This land was annexed into the city February 12, 2002, Resolution #4679 and recorded. It was re -zoned
from R1 to R4. As of September 13, 2002, it has yet to be recorded according to an attorney whom is
investigating it. As you all know re -zoning after October 1, 2001, is probably illegal.
There were several people present at the Planning Board meeting September 10, 2002, to protest this
project and it ended in a tie vote. Narda Wilson stated in her Staff Report the Developer has met all
zoning regulations. They Have Not! Please see Road Design Standards enclosed. These are dated May
6, 1996, and are not adhered to. Sunnyside Drive is 50' wide from fence to fence not 60' and the
pavement width is 22' not 28' as required. Ashley Drive which is to be extended South into the subdivision
is only 41'6" fence to fence and again has 22' of pavement.
The lot sizes are to be 6000 square feet for single family dwellings and 7500 square feet for duplexes.
The proposed lot sizes are about 4324 square feet for 24 single family units and 6072 square feet for the
38 duplexes. These figures are from Flathead County Zoning Regulations dated November 15, 1999.
Please see enclosed.
This area is indeed a game preserve and it is frequented by sizeable amount of wildlife coming from
surrounding areas to water in Ashley Creek. Ms Wilson stated that the land is fenced, well the fence does
not stop the game from jumping them!
At full buildout the report says to expect 620 more vehicles per day added to our already traffic problems
we experience on 5th, 6th and 7th Avenues West as well as Sunnyside Drive. As Denver Avenue comes
on to Sunnyside Drive just west of Ashley Creek Bridge, it is a blind intersection looking West. There are
near misses there every day.
This is simply too many houses to put on 7.55 acres. We hope you can relate to our point of views. The
developer, Mr. Mark Owens, indicated they do not want to scale back to a possible R3 or R1.
Who is going to pay for the new sewer plant that is already overloaded at spike times now.
We can address fire protection which is in a quandry since all Rural Fire Districts surrounding Kalispell
have refused to sign a Mutual Aid Agreement with the City of Kalispell. How is the Fire Department going
to respond to these Rural areas annexed into the City without outside help which they no longer have ?
When we moved to our present location in 1970, Flathead County did not recognize Ashley Drive as a
county road, in fact, when it was paved in about 1972, all of the people who live on this road had to pay for
the paving. in 1993, my wife's father suffered a stroke in our garage, we called 911 and they did not know
where Ashley Drive was. We finally got street signs and a stop sign in 2001. Now they want to extend
Ashley Drive into this subdivision as a street.
We are all prepared to take this to the next level if it passes this council.
Sincerely,Jn
-/ _;
a
Dale R. Y&heryl A. Pierce
1015 Ashley Drive
Kalispell, MT 59901
enc./3
R-4 Two Family Residential - Page 51
3.12.040 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements (R-4).
1. Minimum Lot Area:
6,000 square feet for single family dwellings.
7,500 square feet for duplexes and all other uses.
2. Minimum Lot Width: 50 feet.
3. Setbacks:
A. Minimum Yard Requirement for Principal Structure:
Front: 20 feet.
Side: 5 feet each.
Side Comer: 20 feet.
Rear: 20 feet.
B. Detached Accessory Structures:
Front: 20 feet.
Side: 5 feet each.
Side Corner: 20 feet.
Rear: 5 feet.
C. A 20 foot setback is required from streams, rivers and unprotected
lakes which do not serve as property boundaries.
D. Increase yard requirements as follows when property fronts:
County Road:* 20 feet.
Federal or State Highway: 20 feet.
* Classified as a collector or major/minor arterial as defined in
the County Master Plan or City -County Master Plan.
4. Maximum Height:
Principal structure: 35 feet.
Accessory structure: 13 feet.
5. Permitted Lot Coverage: 40%.
6. Maximum Fence Height (except as otherwise noted):
Front: 3 feet.
Side: 6 feet.
Rear: 6 feet.
7. Off -Street Parking: See Chapter VI -Parking and
loading.
1-
Design Standards - Page 27
TABLE 1
Road Design Standards for Local Subdivision Streets
DESIGN STANDARDS ARTERIAL COLLECTOR LOCAL
RURAL'
Minimum Right -of -Way x 80 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft.
60 ft.
Minimum Pavement Width 3 28 ft.4
24 ft.'
Maximum Grade 6 % 6 %6 6 %6
6 %6
Cul-de-sac turnaround:
a. Face of curb radius 45 ft.
45 ft.
b. Minimum outside, right-of-way radius 50 ft.
50 ft.
C. Maximum length 600 ft.
600 ft
Average net residential density of 1 acre.
2 Terrain and design constraints may dictate greater right-of-way; all road disturbances must
be accommodated
within the right-of-way.
Design approved by the City Engineer/Kalispell Design and Construction Standards.
Where parking is allowed on both sides of -street, 36 feet minimum roadway width is needed.
Note: Where density exceeds 8 units/net acre, parking is required on both sides
of street unless overflow/visitor parking demands are met elsewhere.
' No parking allowed.
' Road grades may reach 7 % for distances not to exceed 150 feet per 300 feet of roadway.
J. In minor subdivisions where lot access is provided by existing streets,
City Council may require waiver of protest to a special improvement
district (SID) to upgrade the street in lieu of actual street improvements,
in order to avoid upgrading small sections of existing streets.
K. Street intersections shall meet the following requirements:
1. Streets shall intersect at 900 angles, if topography permits but in no
case shall the angle of intersection be less than 75' for a minimum
distance of 60 feet as measured along the centerline.
TOTAL AREA 10.025 AC,
SINGE FA ff IOT5 (24) 3.74 AAC.
TOMMOME LOTS (30) 3.707 Ate,
2oAo 2.577 AG. .
Pa1LpN9gN t9. I m
6umrvl5lox w.xlA I <cos
r ! vt !r
OD%K
NCOM2pW 129.60
� I
xvm me e...w. slx.6ewvoeus+ms Ili rxorvxw ncemveAmriauanw
liw.v Aat to a• TMCroMN oa wwm,
r,uawvo WmamwTO ee rwsn w uw
Ell
October 07, 2002 To the city mayor, the city council members,
My name is Angie Kruckenberg. I live at 1116 Sunnyside Drive, which is adjoining the proposed Sunnyside
Subdivision. I not no stranger to this area. 1 lived at 105 Valley View drive from age 1.0 until I married Norman
Kruckenberg. We built a house on the corner diagonally from the hiking entry to Lone Pine state park in 1953.
Our 6 children went to school in Kalispell, same as 1. We were in business 51 years in Kalispell and Alaska.
I am concerned for this community's welfare and the type and methods of growth processes in effect in Kalispell.
On January 15`h a meeting was held by the Kalispell City Planning Board where they annexed the above 10 acre
parcel to the city. Until. September I had no access or knowledge to the January 8`h staffreport. Item 3 of 12 was
the only fact that was true. At this time it is mute.
Lila Kruckenberg was the only person in the immediate community who was notified of this meeting and thus
notified us. Our property also adjoins this ten acre parcel, but we got no notice of the plan to annex or rezone this
property. Onty Lila, Norman and I were at this January 15" meeting. Obviously no one else knew about it either!
Lila and Norman spoke, but it was like we were not there.
The law is very specific. It says everyone within 150 feet is to be notified at least 15 days prior to the
hearing. I talked to everyone affected and no one recalled any notices mailed to them on this 1.115102
meeting. I cannot believe that the city could be so bold as to not notify everyone who is directly impacted
by this Annexation and zone change from Rural R-1 to City R-4; all at one hearing!
With no advance notice, there was no time to find and examine data to provide information from the community's
viewpoint or to the critic the staff report provided by Tri Cite Planning. Without information there was nothing
we could sav, for or against, this initial annexation and zoning change that was on the Januaryl5, 2002 docket!
As a result Mr. Bechel moved that the Kalispell city planning board and zoning commission adopt the staff report
KA-01-8 as findings of fact and recommended to the Kalispell City Council that the initial zoning for this
property upon annexation be R-4, Two Family Residential. This motion Okayed Gavlon Owens's request full
bore at this January 15'h meeting! And why not Quite obviously, as no other home owner was there or knew.
Tri city's staff report of the proposed action on this property was seen by no one but themselves, Gavlon Owens
and staff, and the planning board. No one questioned or inquired. As it appears, the planning board and city,
council truly believe that Tri City is the only and ultimate, almighty knowledgeable power and the Tri City senior
officer pulled off an annexation for the city with no concern of the impact to the immediate community involved.
The mafia couldn't have pulled off better deal!
On February 4 h, 2002, The city council illegally turned this rural 10 acres listed as R-1 housing which is 1
house per acre(or 43,560 square feet) into R-4 where it can be turned into multifamily dwellings that are to
be placed on 6000 square foot areas for single homes, and 7500 square foot areas for townhouses or
duplexes. However, after 2.577 acres of the proposed extension of Ashley Road is deducted from the 10
acres leaving 7.452 acres multiplied by 43,560 square feet per acre, this now equates to an average of 5235
sq. ft per residence! Not up to code!
These 10 acres should never have been annexed to the city since there was no notification to all home and
land owners within 150 feet of this 10 acre parcel. Nor was a growth plan in place as required by law.
On September, when Narda Wilson was asked why the zoning notices were not sent out, she said they only
send out notices on zoning as a courtesy. Is not zoning something that affects the entire community? Why
in Kalispell, Montana only courtesy notices go out? To whom do they favor with the courtesy notices and
to whom do they deny these courtesy notices?" What a convenient way to slip any shyster into any deal by
excluding courtesy notices to those that legally have the right to know!
As if that was not enough, Narda Wilson told me the state did not require them to send notices. Excuse
Me! The state could care less in this situation. This is a City requirement only. And it is the law. How
many innocent home owners have been shafted by this smooth maneuver of words over the years?
Granted we may not be as educated those who are providing all the facts and figures to those who say Yay
or Nay, but we still have rights.
In cities with growth plans, signage is required to be posted at the property for 90 days prior to the date of the
hearing announcing what is planned as well as dates of hearings. Those affected may investigate; attend hearings
pertaining to the prospective re -zoning and usage of the particular parcel being requested for a zone change.
One news article the day a zoning hearing is to be; is not enough publicity to alert the community affected.
Owens would have you believe in his staff report that there is nothing but grazing land and railroad tracks
adjoining his proposed parcel for development. He states this is rural R-1 county zoning. But he requests
City R-4! Why bring this type of density into this area with estate types housing in place and others being
developed? His proposal for this density will lower the value of every home in this area including those in
Lone Pine Estates which is zoned R-3.
From Ashley creek West and South it should remain Rl as are the acreages to Lone Pine, to Foy's Lake and to
Meridian road are all R-1. This rural community and game preserve can saturate estate like parcels of 1
house per acre, and still remain a beautiful area for all those on the West side of Town to use as their
"Park" and walking trail. This makes good sense since Kalispell and Flathead County find it financially
hard to make road improvements to the city and urban streets. And it appears that Kalispell does not
enforce developers to build the arteries.
Stop any additional subdivisions now. Find areas for housing developments close to hiways that can utilize
the 91% Federal Highway moneys for heavy duty arteries of ingress and egress.
Sunnyside Drive, Ashley Road, and Valley view drive have 86 estate type homes all R-1. R-4 is too abrupt
a change of zone patterns to make any good sense for this community with no growth plan in place, and
already too many tract houses, plus 90 more multi family units from Stratford that are being built now, all
to be using the same totally inadequate county roads for the traffic that is being forced onto them!
I am a concerned member of this community on Sunnyside Drive, in the Lone Pine Wildlife Preserve.
1 along with 426 other home owners from the subdivisions to the South East of us and 86 from Valley View,
Aslrlev and Sunnyside, use the 22 foot wide, shoulder less Sunnyside. Dr. artery to 5�', 6`t . 7�' Ave. tol ls' street
(24'wide with concrete gutters; but no sidewalks). Sunnyside and Valley View are the arteries to town for almost
500 residents, and per counts equal out to 5000 vehicle trips daily.
Note: The planner's estimates are about 5000 vehicle trips a day for these roads. At the meeting on the 161h Lila
reported her count of 8 per minute. (8x60=480x24hr. =l l,520.) Divide in two for day only travel, thus =5760 car
count and Nye are right in with the planners numbers but night travel does go on too.
We have not counted all the foot, bike, baby stroller, horse and skateboard traffic that use these same roads from
early morning to late at night, for recreation, exercise and fresh air. The count would surprise you!
Denver Drive was just recently opened when Stratford's 102 unit development was started and is the outlet for
426 more home owners, from the present developments. The Southmeadows Subdivision Developer never
completed the road to the West from his development. See the plat maps. This additional traffic is creating a
dangerous and unsafe situation for every family whose homes are in the Lone Pine Estates, (33 ) and the Stratford
subdivision (16) and 86 additional units in the works right now. See Kalispell Council minutes on October 2,
2000 which states 102 total for Stratford.
When Stratford is completed and if Owl is allowed to do his 62, that will be almost 600 home units using
Denver, and Sunnyside drive and not one more egress or ingress developed. What insanity!
Road arteries must be first. Otherwise we risk the health and welfare of every person living in this area.
Sunnyside Drive per Narda Wilson's reading of the plat map is 50 feet. And she is correct as far as the plat map
shows, but in real life the usable asphalt part on this county road is only 22 feet wide with no shoulders, all
ditches, over brush and hillside which is impossible usage except by dogs, cats, squirrels, snakes, fox and deer.
The play ground for 426 family dwellings has one piece of play equipment. Why can't the city change the law
and enforce the developers build the parks instead of pay the city 9 or 10 percent of the value of raw land in lieu.
South Meadows has no sidewalks, no boulevards, no curbs and no drainage. Blue Stone is being used as
a speedway since Denver was opened for all the developments to use.
We must insist to build a community that will maintain the quality of life for our families and all the future
families in the Valley. We must insist on proper development of road arteries for the safety of our families
going to and from schools, town, work shopping and all the other places one has to go to. We must protect
the environment for our wildlife preserves, such as Lone Pine Preserve.
In order to build more multi family housing, the developer west of the City airport covered the spring drainage
ponds which bad hundreds of birds and wildlife every year. A friend who lives there took pictures.
Ladies and Gentlemen, help us to make Kalispell the town we have always been proud of. Please don't
allow estate type residences to be given up for crowded cheap housing which create unrest, unhappiness,
and temporary rental housing units. The start of a Ghetto begins when family housing is too crowded, with
no sidewalks, boulevards, curbs or decent close play yards, and most of all if the development is not
maintained, or completed as promised, residents become disturbed and unhappy as it becomes trashed, a
haven for crime, and certainly reduces the value of the communities around them, as well as accelerates the
cost of police and fire protection.
Take a drive down Bluestone, in Southmeadows, cruise through the newest development this year, Great View
Drive, not a sidewalk anywhere! Yet the city says all new developments must have sidewalks, curbs and
boulevards. How can this happen when the city zoning regulations promise people that all new city developments
will have wide streets, curbs, boulevards and sidewalks and play yards. Narda tells me they "grandfathered in on
the old original subdivision." ( asbestos was used in buildings years ago, do you think it could be grandfathered
in an addition now??) How did this get by the planning, zoning and council? Especially since the first phases of
South Meadows are long beyond the 20 year covenants. Did they not require each phase done according to
current wiring and safety regulations? Where are those in power who step in for the safety of the home owners
and their children? Don't cities make changes to regulations as time changes the demands and needs?
Why not plan a development area, with the schools, fire and police stations, water and sewer and limited shopping
areas within the development of residences where these necessary- facilities are available to that community. This
is what responsible developers do to make a healthy growing town successfid. The city is responsible for the plan.
Local planning boards say we will be like Spokane in 20 years. We best make better plans now rather than
be like the big cities who had no growth plans and now are trying to get rid of the Ghettos and rebuild
correctly.
And last but not least. Our town does not need the 62 crowded home units that Owl Corporation wants to
build on that l0 acres illegally zoned to R-4. It best is moved back to R-1.
Kruckenberg, 1116 Sunnyside Drive. My phone is 755-8041 see attachments
f.,
September 29, 2002
Dear Theresa White,
This letter is concerning the requesi from the Owl Corporation, for
a 62 lot residential subdivision on 10 acres south of Sunnyside Drive and
West of Lone Pine View Estates.
I am very troubled with how this all came about. I have read in the
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, " All property owners within 150 feet of the
site of the proposed zone change shall be notified via the United States
mail at least 15 days prior to the public hearing. " I was not notified, nor
were my fellow neighbors. I believe this is called fraudulent deception if
I'm not mistaken.
Under the Investigation ofAmendment (27.30.020)1 do not believe
that the Zoning Commission and City Council followed any type of master
plan in good faith. If this .subdivision is allowed to pass as requested by
the Owl Corporation we will have;
Congestion in the streets: Currently it's extremely
congested now that the road opened up on Denver to South
Meadows. The roads are not adequate. Sunnyside Drive is
an accident waiting to happen, it's very narrow, I
personally have almost hit people walking, running, or
skateboarding due to them having no other choice than
being on the road.
No Promotion of Health and General Welfare: How would
over crowding this area be of any health benefit to the
surrounding families? There is already such a problem
with traffic, in fact I know the police have been called
because of teenage speeder's whom are tremendously
disrespectful of people (including children) on the street,
and to people who have asked them to please slow down.
Then what about the noise and dust pollution? There you
have another problem.
• There will be overcrowding of the land: Look at South
Meadows, would you like to live there? Their developer's
didn't follow through therefore leaving them with no
sidewalks, curb's, gutter's, boulevards, Etc.
• There will nol be adequate provision of transportation, or
schools: Peterson School is busing their students elsewhere
due to overcrowding now. The traffic is appalling, and
quite dangerous.
• Consideration to the particular suitability of the property
for particular uses: To much overcrowding! Look at South
Meadows, No room.
• Adopted with a view of conserving the value ofpropeM-
To except the request of Owl Corporation will lower our
property value. I propose that Owl Corporation build 14
higher end single-family homes on half -acre lots.
This would allow them to still make the same amount of
money as they would with their current proposal. As Lone
Pine is a step up from South meadows, this subdivision
would be a step up from Lone Pine, as Valley Ridge Estates
would be a step up from them and so on.
I would also like to add that Lone Pine View Estates has numerous
children and more on the way. We currently have a nice neighborhood for
these children to run, bike, and play with safety! To open Bismarck Street
and Same Fe Street for through traffic into Owl Corporation's proposed
subdivision will be endangering the lives of all of our children, I plead
with you not to allow this to occur.
Thank you for giving me your time and attention considering this very
significant matter, I truly value you and the job you have been entrusted
in.
RECEIVED
Mr. Chris Kukulski 9-20-02 Ail ip: 31
P.O. Box 1997 pu SEP 23
Kalispell, Montana 59901 KALISPELL CIVi CLERK
Dear Mr. Kukulski,
On Tuesday Sept. 10 , 20021 attended the meeting of the Kalispell City
Planning Board. I was notified of the meeting by registered mail. The part of the
meeting that I was concerned with was property located south of Sunnyside
Dr_ and west of Ashley creek. ( tract 8,sect. 19,township 28 north,range
21 west) to be developed by Owl Corp. This meeting was the first time that
myself and my neighbors found out that the property was re -zoned in Jan. 2002
from R-1 to R-4. No one in the Lone Pine View tract was notified about the
rezoning. Our property is immediately adjacent to the rezoned property.
At this meeting we were asked why we didn't attend the rezoning meeting in Jan.
How can we if we don't know it is taking place? We were told at the meeting that
registered letters were sent to us. This is NOT true. Later a neighbor found out
that letters are sent as a COURTESY only . This is a DISGRACE ! What
happens in my area is very important to myself and my neighbors_
I am sorry to say that Kalispell is beginning to look like what we called
"THE PROJECTS". You should contact Sheriff Dupont about whats happening
in Bigfork at their low cost/high density "PROJECTS" called
Little John Apartments. Drugs, crime etc.
This proposed tract is 62 homes/duplexes on 10 acres of land. The Lone Pine
View tract where I live is 33 homes on 10 acres and is almost crowded.
Mr. Councilman please do not allow this high density tract to continue!
Thank you,
��t�
Phone 755-1586 -�chael S. arris
I I I Santa Fe St.
9i26i02 RECEIVED
nu V - I A� 10` 49
KALISPELL CITY CLERK
Dear Mr. Kukulski:
I'm writing this letter in regards to the proposal by OWL Corporation to develop 10 acres
off of Sunnyside Drive.
The proposal as it is currently being proposed is way out of line! We are talking
extremely high density (62 residential lots on less than 10 acres after the road is taken
out)! No park for the children who will be living there, a very narrow road with no
shoulder for ingress and egress. Kalispell does not need developments, such as the one
proposed.
This type of development will lead to more need for law enforcement and could end up
being the "slums" of Kalispell!
We call Montana "The Last Best Place to Live". It's not called this because of high
density residential developments! It is because of the wide open spaces and beautiful
surroundings!
Please stop this development as it is currently addressed. Many changes are needed, if it
is to continue progressing.
Don't short change the neighbors and adjoining neighbors by letting this one go as is!!!!!!
Sincerely,
?tu e `�
nti. e.
BRUCE & ANNE SCHOMER
115 Boise Ave.
Kalispell, MT 59901
RECEDED 1827 Bluestone
200? OCT - I AM IO: 49 Kalispell MT 59901
September 24, 2002 9AUSPELL CITY CLERK
City Manager
Chris Kukulski
P O Box 1997
Kalispell MT 59901
Re: Zoning Changes and Housing on Sunnyside Drive
Dear Chris:
I read in the paper on September 10, 2002 that there was going to be a hearing on a
zoning change in the area in which I live. I work full-time, and this was the first time I
heard of the proposed change hearing. I was not able to go to the hearing. With multi-
family housing proposed, I am very concerned about the safety of children in the area and
the lack of planning for parks, schools or school access.
I lived in the Greatview Drive townhouse section for approximately 6 months. It is
poorly designed. It caters to young families and there are no sidewalks, no streetlights
and no place for the children to play. It is not even safe for the children to walk to the
park across from Laker Baseball Park.
Now, with another multi -family housing unit (apartments and townhouse) planned for
Sunnyside Drive, I express to you the need for safety and access planning. Traffic will be
increased as parents take their children to school unless children have a safe place to ride
bikes or walk to school. Where will the children from these new subdivisions play?
These children deserve the same play spaces that children in the Buffalo Hills area enjoy.
I recently bought a home in Stratford Village Subdivision. I have now been told that lot
sizes were changed and duplexes will be built in an area that I thought was to be single
family homes with duplexes at least two blocks away. At this time, the duplex is across
the street. I was also told that the area was going to have a park. Now, I am told that
there will be no park unless it is at the holding ponds. I have not specifically looked into
these changes, but I had hoped that the original plan would have been honored without
my efforts to constantly keep abreast of changes.
I am not opposed to change or growth. Nothing remains the same forever. However, the
life valued by people in this community will be extinguished unless people plan and
implement the plan.
Sin erely�
Sue Paulson
17Z -a
7
� N
a o
N O
a ["7
m a m
r F m
m <
m
0
m c.�
October 7, 2002
To. City Manager, Chris Kukulski; Mayor, Pamela B. Kennedy, and City
Council Members
Know I made a big mistake when purchasing a lot and moving to Bluestone
Drive. Had I known that every "inch" of land was going to be developed,
know I would have found some place else to live.
I had hoped to be in a quiet area; this has been anything but quiet. The
big cement, sand and gravel trucks, etc. continue to go by almost day and
night, dropping soil and rocks on the street and off the street, along with
plenty of dust. I am definitely opposed to all this continual traffic.
I did understand that there was a "game preserve" nearby, but am sure it
probably has been replaced with more houses, rentals, etc.!
I feel the subdivisions here should come to a halt until the City can handle
the responsibility to enforce the laws. The developers should be required
to build safe roadways "in and out" without interferring with bordering sub-
divisions. The developers should be improving the access and exit roads in
addition to their plat arterials. it does seem that the developers aren't
carrying their "load" when developing.
Any taxpayer who is affected by a zoning change should be notified in advance
of any change.
It seems that the City should have a growth plan in place before you even
think about more annexation and re -zoning.
I feel this area is already a "mess"!
additional subdivisions in this area,
poration.
Thank you.
40.�
S M.
1975 Bluesto e Drive
Kalispell, MT 59901
It is past time to say "NO" to any
including the subdivision by Owl Cor-
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON OWL PRELIMINARY PLAT
I have many, many questions about this Preliminary Plat. I know some of them cannot be
answered tonight to my satisfaction, so I will read my statement and request that it be made a part
of the minutes of this meeting. I hope we don't have to vote on this resolution tonight in which
case I will have to vote no because it appears to me that the taxpayers may have to foot the bill
for some of the situations surrounding this proposed development. I will try to present my
questions and comments in somewhat the order the situations arises in the packet for the meeting.
1. Narda's and Chris's letter.
A. Last line of the second paragraph about cash -in -lieu of parks (Read). What is the
improvements to be made at Begg Park? The Resolution should state what these improvements
are to be and if money is indeed taken for them, the improvements should be made when the cash
is received. I have worked with government long enough to know you can't leave money around
unearmarked.
B. Last three sentences of the 3)' paragraph. (Read). Simply because there are city utilities
in a right-of-way is a VERY poor reason for annexing a road, particularly one that is
SUB STANDARD. Is it the intention that City taxpayers are to be saddled with the expense of
bringing Sunnyside Drive up to standard? Apparently Sunnyside Drive has become a de facto
bypass to and from Airport Road to Meridian Road and the Avenues via South Meadows,
Stratford Village and Lone Pine Estates. The Vicinity Map on the Plat does not show this
connection, but it is there.
C. Second to last sentence of paragraph I of page 2. (Read). If Begg Park and Lone Pine
State Parks are to be considered as a neighborhood park, then there should be walking access to
these areas. Who will pay for these walkways?
D. The first line of the second paragraph of page 2 states (read). This Preliminary Plat
does not appear to me to meet the requirements of an R-4 zone, i.e., 6000 sf lots with 50'
minimum frontage. It is mentioned that townhouse development is intended. Is this suppose to
mean that there is ZERO setback on those lots? Does the zoning Regulation allow this
somewhere? I notice in the regulations that an R-4 allows for duplexes or as a conditional use -
dwelling, assessory, single family. In the City Code zoning regulation, 27-22-020B_I(3), pertaining
to an assessory single family residence, reads. (Read)_ I'm not against zero setback, but first, it
appears, the regulation must be changed. IF zero setback would be allowed, there could be two
separate owners, hence possibly fewer of the sometimes irresponsible renters. Opponents must
realize that there could be considerably fewer lots in an R-4 zone of this development but more
single families if all lots had duplexes. Covenants may help for neighborhood compatibility-
E. In the first paragraph, page 3, last sentence, the road issue was again addressed
(read) -Then in the following paragraph, last 2 sentences, and the third paragraph, first 2 sentences
the Public Works response was (read). Was this study made after the Stratford Village connection
made Sunnyside Drive a de facto by-pass? What was the peak travel rate during that time? I travel
that road once in awhile, and I can assure this body that if there is a walker or jogger on the road
when two cars meet, one must stop. This happened to me. The EXACT mitigations, if required,
should be a condition for plat approval. I have worked on several projects where major road
changes were part of the approval of the preliminary plat. Page 9 and 19 of Kalispell's general
Extension of Services Plan states (read), pg. II-7 of the design standards states (read).
2. Resolution
Condition 9 of the Resolution states (read). The 0.82 acres is apparently the lot area only,
but 28-03-19(D) in the City Code states (read). The undivided, unimproved land is 10.029 acres.
3. Minutes of the planning board meeting
A. One opponent stated that he though the rezoning was probably illegal based on the
Attorney Generals opinion. Since the magic date of October 1, 2001 is the basis for all this ruckus
about a Growth Policy and the AG's opinion also appears to state the same for zoning, how does
this annexation and zone change made in February for this development differ from the rescission
we are being asked to approve in. Item 3 and 4 of tonight's agenda?
B. One the bottom of page 3, on opponent commented that (read). Roman numeral XlH
of the Environmental Assessment states that approximately 93 school age children are expected to
reside within this development. I am generally not in favor of more parkland that the city
taxpayers have to pay to maintain, but without adequate walking trails to Begg Park and Lone
Pine State Park, the opinion expressed by the opponent has merit. It was noted in the
Environmental Assessment the statement that "Lone Pine State Park is within walking distance"
but there are no walkways proposed. What about a neighborhood park maintained by the
homeowners of the development?
4. Hansz letter to Narda
The third statement (read) implies that there has been council action on annexing
Sunnyside Drive. Where can I find this council action?
5. Comments from the site development review committee in the staff report
On page 4 with regard to the sewer, the last two sentences read (read). Why wouldn't the
latecomers agreement be legal? If it isn't legal, new line extensions may become more difficult if a
developer can not recover some of the cost and the City could stand to lose a substantial amount
in hook-up fees, as former city attorney Norb Donahue has told the council several times.
6. Environmental Assessment
A. XII Emergency services, I - 1. 1, (read), since this development is proposed in stages, will
there be fire hydrants available throughout the development so our city crew can handle any fire in
the full 10 acres without assistance from the rural fire district?
B. XIV 2. Economic Benefits. The costs of the homes is expected to be $127,000.
Affordable housing was mentioned in Narda's memo. What is considered "affordable housing"?
7. Letters from opponents
There appears to be some people who did not, for whatever reason, receive a notice of
the public hearing before the Planning Board in February on the annexation and zoning.
According to one letter, when asked about the zoning notices, and I quote, "Narda Wilson stated
on September 12°i 2002 that they only sent out notices on zoning as a courtesy." I hope that
statement was NOT made in the context stated and the Tri-Cities Planning Office does not have a
policy that send out "courtesy notices" This can lead to abuse. This situation needs to be
investigated. Letters sent should have post office receipts.
S. My general comments
Of very serious concern is the lack of neighbor's involvement and the in the public
notification process before the public hearing on annexation and zoning before the planning board
last Winter. When this item come before this COUNCIL in February, no one spoke against the
issue at that meeting and I don't recall there being anyth ng significant in the staff report about the
road at that time. The last sentence of the second to last paragraph of page 2 of the minutes of
that meeting states (read). I was not aware that Stratford Village had created a de facto by-pass
and the City had "no objection" to annexing this road.
I was in favor of this development in February since it is the type of development that
parallels city type development. I believe that it is still possible to get a development that is
reasonably compatible with the existing neighborhood, but it appears to me that some major
problems must be addressed first.
It was at that hearing last Winter where all of the opponents SHOULD have been heard.
Had an Extension of Services Plan been made available to the public 14 days prior to that hearing,
wherein was contained each department head's written statements of what the city taxpayers and
adjoining property owners faced with this annexation and zoning, I am confident that this problem
would not be before us today.
LAW OFFICES OF
KAUFMAN, VIDAL & HILEMAN, P.C.
Leonard L. Kaufman
James E. Vidal
Daniel W. Hileman
James M. Ramlow
Tia R. Robbin
Shelly F. Brander
Ken A. Kalvig
22 Second Avenue West
P.O. Box 728
Kalispell, MT 59903-0728
October 7, 2002
Mayor Pam Kennedy and City Council Members
City of Kalispell
312 1 st Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: Rescission of Wolford Master Plan Amendment
Dear Mayor Kennedy and City Council Members:
Telephone:
406-755-5700
Fax:
406-755-5783
kalvig cr.centuryte] net
I am writing you concerning the agenda for tonight's city council meeting, which includes
discussion on and possible action to rescind the Wolford master plan amendment approved on
July 1, 2002, Wolford Development opposes rescinding this master plan amendment.
It is Wolford Development's understanding that this rescission may in part be driven by
the petition for referendum on this matter as well as the recent opinion from the Montana
Attorney General regarding issues with Senate Bill 97. It would set very poor precedent if the
city council rescinded its earlier decision based upon a petition signed by only 15% of the
registered voters in the City of Kalispell. Successful completion of the petition should not be
interpreted to mean that most city residents are against the resolution passed. It is important to
Wolford Development, as well as any other applicant, that the governing body will stand by its
decisions. Furthermore, rescission based on application of the Attorney General's opinion is not
justified because the Attorney General is not the final authority on the interpretation of Senate
Bill 97 and likely may not have the last word on it. Unfortunately, there are still questions about
land use and zoning that persist or were raised by the Attorney General's opinion. Taking any
action to rescind your earlier resolution, based solely on this opinion, seems premature
questionable.
Wolford Development spent considerable amounts of time and money seeking to get the
master plan amended. Additionally, the Tri-City Plarming Office, several members of the city
staff, and planning board members worked hundreds of hours and sat through lengthy public
hearings and meetings to get this approval. In part, this effort was expended at the advise of the
city attorney. In a letter dated April 11, 2002 Mr. Harball offered the opinion that: the master plan
October 7, 2002
Page 2
was still a valid, governing document and that it could be amended. Wolford Development
subsequently submitted its application for master plan amendment. Having previously discussed
the City's request for an opinion from the Attorney General, the letter states in part:
We can not simply now wait for that opinion to arrive and I therefore
recommend that we continue to operate much in the same manner as the City of
Missoula has continued to operate. That means that unless and until we adopt a
growth policy to replace it, we will assume that our existing Master Plan is the valid
global document to which we will look.
To illustrate the process, I will use the example of a landowner with property
outside the city seeking a plan amendment and annexation. The developer will come
to the City with applications for plan amendment and ... annexation. The plan
amendment . . . would be reviewed and heard by the City Planning Board.
Recommendations for approval of the plan amendment and PUD would be
contingent upon the approval of the annexation request. Because the property will
be brought into the City, the City assumes jurisdiction ....
Wolford Development followed the process provided by the City and incurred considerable expense
going through that process.
If the Attorney General opinion turns out to be final word on this subject and Kalispell had
no master plan to amend, then it seems unnecessary to rescind your earlier resolution. On the other
hand, if the Attorney General opinion is not the final word on the subject, and your approval was
valid, then you have unnecessarily rescinded your approval and Wolford Development would go
back to square one with the City. I do not think it is prudent to assume that the Attorney General's
opinion is the last word on this subject. There are parts of the opinion that are somewhat difficult
to reconcile. For example, if we can rezone property without a growth policy (which the opinion
allows), and Montana case law for the past 20+ years has tied zoning decisions to a master plan or
comprehensive plan, has the Attorney General just done away with over 20 years of case law? If you
speak to Rich Weddle, this is exactly why Senate Bill 97 should be construed to not have done away
with Master Plans --we need some kind of plan to continue to guide the zoning decisions that are still
permitted under the Attorney General opinion. It is entirely possible for these types of issues to be
addressed by a court of law or the legislature.
Not only did the City Council give its approval of the master plan amendment specifically
sought by Wolford Development, but, with its vote, also made a statement about having that kind
of commercial development be a part of Kalispell's future. If the City Council believed its decision
was justified, it should continue to support it. Rescinding the master plan amendment sends a
negative message to Wolford Development as well as any other commercial developer.
Finally, the Attorney General opinion potentially also affects zoning decisions that the City
has made since October 1, 2001. If the City considers it necessary to rescind the Wolford master
plan amendment, it should also simultaneously be reviewing and making decisions on these zone
changes. Not addressing any questionable zoning decisions at the same time it rescinds the Wolford
October 7, 2002
Page 3
master plan amendment, gives the appearance, once again, that the City ofKalispell is not committed
to working with Wolford Development.
I ask that you carefully consider your vote on this tonight.
Sincerely,
KAUFMAN, VIDAL & HILI MAN, P.C.
Ken Kalvie
cc: Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Charlie Harball, City Attorney