10/04/82 City Council MinutesTHE REGULAR MEETING OF THE KALISPELL CITY
OCTOBER 4, 1982, IN THE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS
COUNCILMEN WERE PRESENT.
APPROVE MINUTES
COUNCIL WAS HELD AT 7:30 P.M, MONDAY,
AT CITY HALL, MAYOR McDOWELL PRESIDED
ALL
Councilman.Nystul moved that the minutes of the September 20, 1982 meeting be approved
as presented, Seconded by Councilman Zauner, Motion carried,
Councilman Nystul moved that the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 22, 1982
be approved as presented. Seconded by Councilman 5averud, Motion carried,
PUBLIC HEARING - Heller -Mattson Zone Change Request
Mayor McDowell explained the location of the Heller property at 690 Sunset Boulevard
and the Mattson property at 754 West Wyoming, The request isto change the zone from
R-4 (Residential) to B-2 (Neighborhood Professional), Mayor McDowell asked for pro-
ponents,.
John M. Heller, 230 4th Avenue West, addressed the Council by stating that he had
taken the liberty of placing a diagram of the area and a list of permitted uses in
R-4 and B-2 on the desks of the Mayor and Council, Mr, Heller continued, "This re-
quest for a zone change has turned oiat. to be a highly charged emotional issue, pr,i
marily because of the dangerous intersection that exists at the corner of Wyoming
and Highway #93." Mr. Heller stated that a traffic light at this location has been
an issue for many years. It had appeared that the light at the Catholic School might
be moved to this location, but now that appears to be in jeopardy. If there is a
hazard, it is egress and ingress at Wyoming Street, He will place a cable fence along
Wyoming Street, leave a walkway between the street and fence and use only 2nd Avenue
W. N. for an access. If the zone change request is allowed, he will gravel the front
and allow the children to continue to use it as a short cut,Mr. Heller stated he is
concerned about the safety of the children, but feels that a B-2 zone will not stimu-
late as much traffic as an R-4. Mr, Mattson is grandfathered in for his business,
but the Heller lot is the only piece of property on Highway #93 from the Golf Course
to the National Guard Armory that does not have some kind of commercial application.
The day after Mr. Heller purchased the lot, he applied for a zoning change and did
every -thing he could to expedite it, He had to move the building from its original
location by May 31st. It was necessary to dig a daylight basement for the building.
When he applied for a building permit, he stated that it was to be an office and
followed the commercial building code in its entirety. If he is not allowed to
operate as a business, he has no use for the property and will sell it as residential.
The School. Board and Russell PTA has gone on record as opposing the zone change. If
it is for the safety of the school children, that is O,K., but if they are opposing
it on the basis. -of what it could possibly be at somefuture date, there are strict
zoning regulations on what kind of businesses can go into a B-2 and he cannot go
along with this supposition,
In conclusion, Mr. Heller stated that he feels that a neighborhood professional office
is safer for the children than a residence, with the strict zoning laws and with the
restrictions placed on it by the City County Planning Board and the Zoning.Commission.
Attorney Todd Hammer repxesantai!ng Heller -and Mattson, was asked by Mr. Heller to
address the zone change on the --legal aspects, Mr, Hammer stated that before he did
this, he would like to make a few preliminary remarks, He stated that he knew some
of the. members of the City Council are either directly or indirectly concerned with
the school. Possibly they are employed or their wives are employed, or have some
kind of affiliation with the school, We are asking --we realize that prejudices and
concerns for the welfare of children is instilled in us- this is a common interest
that we have--all--.of us together. We ask you to set aside your concerns purely out
of arbitrariness and see the rationale of Mr, Heiler. Mr. Mattson and Mr. Heller
are very concerned about the safety of the children in this area. They would do
nothing to increase the danger to children at this site,
On the legal aspects, Attorney Hammer stated that he views this request as an oppor-
tunity for the City Council to further restrict the use of this property, "As it
stands now, from my'observation, the property can be put to more uses than with the
restrictions you can impose on a B-2, You will notice from the Zoning Commission's
recommendation, there were three provisos provided therein; all of which has to do
with guaranteeing greater safety to and from the property. Should the City Council
approve this petition for a zone change tonight,.:....: there will be greater protection
for the children at the crossing, namely because the access is prohibited by way of
Wyoming Street, I guess what I am saying, in summary, is that the Council has an
opportunity tonight to decide exactly how they want this land to be used, They have
the opportunity to say, 'Look, Mr, Landowner, we are going to restrict your access: -
to and from this property on Wyoming Street, thereby providing a better way for your
children, to cross at this particular intersection'. I imagine the Council members
are,.. very- familiar with .cases dealing with spot zoning, and of course; you have a
large decision before;.you- tonight concerning the ta'll., T would remind the zoning'
council that .every' .decision' the. council makes with respect to a petition for a change• ,
a.n zoning must not be arbitrary or -capricious, We all know that we have to have
rational e.to, _deny zoning .petitions. You have to have .rationale for justifying those
denlafs.or appraving..of them.. I would submit to you tonight that two things justify
you to, approve Mr. -He.11er's'-petition .for a zoning change, One is that the surrounding
-uses:Qf this land 99v'.vf the uses of ;laxid surrounding .this- area are commercial. - it
does not- make sense to ;spot zone Mr, Heller .or Mr', Mattson out `of a commercial nature.
- -Number two: ,with'the.City Council's approval of the Zoning Commissions proviso, that
this -property will be made safe: more safe than it is now, I would submit to anyone
here tonight that has.'a concern fox.public safety, that the property is safer since the
access.to•and from thb property is restricted under the approval of the City Council.
You all kztow that this particular body is a legal body and touch in the same way we
create private easements on land., 'bhis body by adding to its approval of this
,petition fora zoning change,the three provisos for:restricting.access,in a sense
creates an easement•in favor of the public to haVe and know and be able to guarantee
-that the property is going to be used in -a certain fashion. It is not going to be used
in away that permits cars from. Wyoming Street to use that property. It will be used in
a way that will enhance the. safety of everyone concerned,"'
Dick Mattson, Lakeside, stated that he and'his wife had sold Mr. Heller -the property.
Some years ago he'was granted a variance to,build a real estate office on his property
and there has beer! no problem or it would have been'brought:to our attention. -I do not
-see people or vehicles running around.. He asked the Council to consider the request
seriously. ;
Mayor McDowell asked_ for opponents..
Keith Allred, representing School District #5, statedthat he asked the Board of 'Trustees
to consider this request only as a safety factor for the children, On September 7th, a
motion was made.and passed to oppose the request.
Mary Gibson, Chairman of.the Board o,f Trustees, s:tated.that they tried to remain neutral,
except for the sa£-ety'of the children,
Councilman Palmer presented the three,provisos recommended by the Zoning Commission as
follows:
1. Vehicles using off street parking on Loot 12, Block 235, will not have
access or egress onto Wyoming Streets A -physical barrier, such as curb-
ing along the! roadway,or bumpers within the the (sib.) property line,
should be.installed.-along Wyoming to guarantee this recommendation.'
in appro.ximat'e:lot0t on of -the stingy dr�vewatparkingshould be
-....---
2. Yfuture access -
'
to the intersection of Wyoming and Sunset Boulevard),
3. Vehicles,leaving off street parking should not�back-out onto streets
or avenues.
Councilman Palmer also presented the evaluation of the FRDO based on statutory criteria:
EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA;
'The.application is further -reviewed in terms of criteria stated in zoning statutes
and the following evaluations are made:
1. DOES THE REQUESTED ZONE COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?
In accordance with Ordinance #953 of the'City of Kalispell, the ap—
piication of the B-2 zone in areas designated "Urban Residential"
is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Z. IS THE REQUESTED ZONE DESIGNATED TO LESSEN CONGESTION.IN THE STREETS?
Generally, business zones generate higher volumes of traffic than
residential. zones. The proximity of the subject properties to Sunset
Boulevard (U.S. Highway 93), will allow these properties to capitalize
on the existing traffic volumes presently passing the properties.
The intersection of 14est Wyoming -and Hibhway 93 is the main school
crossing for Russell School and measures are presently being con--
sidered by the State Department of.Hfjhways,and the Kalispell Area
Traffic Advisory Committee to,improve safety conditions at this inter;
section. These safety conditions exist and would be compounded by
either residential or commercial use of the subject properties.
F
,--
i
WILL THE -REQUESTED ZONE SECURE SAFETY FROM FIRE, PANIC ANDOTHER
DANGERS?
The requested B--2 zone should not result in any increase in fire panic
or an other dangers if the Ordinances and Codes are imposed and
ingress -and egress are properly provided.. See letter from the City
Fire Chief, attached.
4. WILL THE REQUESTED ZONE PROMOTE THE GENERAL HEALTH AND WELFARE?
These lots do not meet the minimum size requirements of the existing
or requested zones. This factor, coupled with the location, presents
a deterent for residential development and, because of the facing
on a major highway, are more appropriate for a business use. The grant-
ing of the zone change would crake the use on Tract 82--1C a conforming
use and will permit the commercial occupation of the presently vacant
building on Lot 12, Block 235 and increase their value and use potentials_
The welfare of the residential uses on the West half of Block 235
shall be preserved by the six foot.high fence required between the
adjoining business and residential zones, as per the City Zoning
Ordinance. Tract 82-1C is already fenced from the school playground
adjoining on the West. The present traffic conditions in the area
are a further deterent to residential use of these properties. The .-
..Ordinance will require off street parking for commercial uses of the
:subject .properties. The area around the'scbool presently.experiences
.; ,.a parking problem during school hours.
See comments .from the Mayor, Director of Public Works and State Highway
-Department, Exhibits F, G and H, attached.
3.. WILL THE REQUESTED ZONE PROVIDE ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR?._
The building height and setback -requirements of the requested B-2
zone are the same as the existing R-4 zone and will provide for the
adequate light and air in this location,
6. WILL -THE QUESTED ZONE PREVENT OVERCROWDING OF LAND? .:'_...,...._ ..__.
74
The requested zone will not result in any increase crowding of land;
as the beight. and setback requirements- are 'the same- in the R-4 and
:rB_'2 zones Total impact, 'now or in the future, will ire restricted
by the bulk, dimensional and off-street parking requirements of - the
- City Ordinance -The permitted lot coverage in -the B-2 is 100% after:
<r. setbacks, where the R-4 is 35T.
: 7. : `; WILL THE REQUESTED- ZONE AVOID UNDUE CONCENTRATION OF -POPULATION?
ems.
{ The requested B-2 zone should result in a lessening of potential
residential population in the area. However, it may result in are increase
.`in transient'population in the form of clients of the proposed busi-
..
$:'. WILL THE REQUESTED ZONE FACILITATE THE ADEQUATE PROVISION OF TRANS.
PORTATION, WATER, SEWERAGE, SCHOOLS., PARKS AND OTHER PUBLIC REQUIREMENTS?
All services are available to the properties. However, there are
no East --West sidewalks along West Wyoming, on either property.
9. DOES THE NEW ZONE GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA?
The requested B-2 zone will adjoing existing B-2 zoning on the East
and is considered compatible with the residential zones. -Therefore, -
the requested zone will not alter the character of the*area which
is predominatly single family residential with professional offices
along the highway,
10. DOES THE REQUESTED ZONE GIVE CONSIDERATION TO PARTICULAR SUITABILITY
OF THE PROPERTY FOR PARTICULAR USES?
The subject properties are adjacent to a busy highway and are'small.
in size. They are not residentially suitable and do lend themselves
to professional office use.
11.
IS THE ZONE CHANCE REQUESTED WITH A VIEW TO CONSERVE -THE VALUE OF .
BUILDINGS?
The proposed zone will preserve or enhance the value of -buildings
located on the subject properties'and may indirectly preserve 'the
value of adjacent residential properties by providing a buffer from
the highway.
12. WILL THE REQUESTED ZONE ENCOURAGE .THE MOST APPROPRIATE USE OF LAND
THROUGHOUT THE MUNICIPALITY?
The request.is compatible,with the Comprehensive Plan which is de—
signed to encourage the.most appropriate use of land throughout.the
City, of Kalispell and vicinity.
Councilman Palmer reported that he has. petitions for and against the request. Some
names are not valid] some have no addresses, none are printed, Two letters of protest
'from K. Harrington and_E. Mungas.-If'this request.. is denied, the other alternative
would be a residence and garage and that may not be desirable either.
:Since this is.a public hearing, Councilman Palmer moved to table'until the -next meeting.
Seconded by Councilman Zauner,
Councilman Vidal protested a postponement since we. have. all the input.
Question called: Councilmen Ny"stul,'Palmer and Saverud voted aye. Councilmen.Grainger,.
Ruiz, Zauner, O'Boyle and Vidal voted nay. Motioxi defeated.
Councilman Palmer moved to approve the request fora zone change from R-4 to B-2 on
the Heller -Mattson property, with the three provisos recommended by the Zoning Commis -
Sion, plus proper, curbing;. sidewalk and fencing. .Seconded by Councilman Ruiz.
Councilman Ruiz stated he is an employee of.School. District #5 and if anyone is question-
ing his integrity,. most people know "I vote my own'mind".
Councilman Palmer asked Mr. Heller if he was aware that he would have to pay his own
sidewalk and curbing expense. Mr. Heller replied that he was not. There is no other
sidewalk in the -area.
Councilman Vidal stated that in a response to a call from Mr. -Allred, she checked with
former Building Official Shoemaker'to see how sidewalks or curbs are requested or ordered
in and how paid, Residence or commercial property can either request sidewalk or
curbing, or cah"be ordered in by the City Council, It is always at the expense of
the property owner, -The owner can have the work done by a private contractor to city
specifications or if not done in 30 days from an order by the Council, can be done by
the':City. Owner has 30 days to: -gay or it is pro -rated as a special assessment on tax
notices over 8 years... Mr. Allred: indicated the school may request a sidewalk,
Councilman Nystul asked Mr. Allred if he:liad changed his.opinion. Mr. Allred replied.
.that he was speaking for the Trustees and'did not know*if they would or not. They
knew about the proposed fence.
Councilman Palmer moved to amend his -motion to strike...sidew•alk, curbing and fence.
Seconded by Council'man'Nystuli More discussion on'curbing in lieu of fence as a
barrier when icy' -,.bumper blob_ks-in lieu of,..fence...-,.ad'dressing two pieces of property:.
Question called on, amendment. 'Covncilten.Nystul;:and Palmer voted aye. Councilmen
Grainger, Ruiz, Zauner, O'Boyle; Vidal and Saverud'noted nay,
Question called on.motion. Councilman Palmer voted'.aye. All other councilmen
voted nay,. Motion defeated.'
PUBLIC HEARING - Small Animal Clinic
The Kalispell City Zoning Commission; at `Its regular meeting on August 10, 1982
considered the following request from the City -of Kalispell Annexation Committee:
'°That ''Small .Animal Clinic' be included in.Appendix B as conforming in a C-311.
After careful.evaluation the Commission resolved to recommend: "That Appendix B,
Part II, Section 7.24(c)C-3, Kalispell City Ordinance, be amended to provide for
'Small Animal Clinic' as a permitted use in the C--3'(Central Business) zone.
Mayor -McDowell .called for proponents There were .non-e
Mayor McDowell called for opponents. There were..none;
Councilman Palmer moved to amerid Ordinance B, Part -1.I:, Section 7.24(c) C-3,. ,
_.. Kalispell City Ordinance to provide for 'Small:Animal Clinic' as.a permitted use
-.. in the`C-3 zone.. Seconded by Councilman Zauner,. Motion carried,
ADDRESSING THE -COUNCIL
Mayor -McDowell made, three -calls fox anyone'wishing',to address the Council. No one
responded.
1
1
COMMITTEE REPORTS
SAFETY
Councilman Grainger had no report.
SEWER 4 WATER
Councilman Ruiz reported a Sewer & Water Committee meeting at 4:00 P. M. Thursday,
October 7, 1982. Agenda is the rate study on sewer and all Council members are urged
to attend.
FINANCE
Councilman Nystul moved Council approval of a request by First Northwestern National
Bank to arrange for the release of the following securities which they have pledged
to the City in safekeeping with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis:
State of Montana 4.20% 5 @ $5,000-due 11/1/82 $25,000.00
because they show sufficient pledged securities at this time. Seconded by Council-
man Ruiz. Motion carried.
Councilman Nystul reported that the Finance Committee has discussed and agreed that
the Countywide Administrative Board CCAB) should be amended to allow members of the
City Council or a City Manager to attend meetings and that the.formula for a pro=rata
share of cost should be determined by using the taxable value of the preceding year.
It is the:same formula, except that it was only changed once every five years - now
it can be figured each year on the preceding year. These suggestions have been sent
to the County. If they agree, it will be brought to the Council for a vote.
APPROVE CLAIMS
Councilman Nystul moved that all claims found to be in order by the Finance Com-
mittee be approved for payment. Seconded by Councilman Ruiz, Carried.
URBAN COALITION
Councilman Nystul reported that Mayor McDowell and Councilman Ruiz feel we should not
support both the Coalition and the League of Cities & Towns. We presently pay the
League $2,100.00 and the Coalition wants $1,200.00,
Councilman Vidal stated that we are the only major city that does not belong. With
the budget crunch, she would like to see us join,
Councilman Ruiz stated that if we join the Coalition, we should get out of the League.
Councilman Vidal rebutted that there are multiple reasons for staying with the League
and felt it critical to stay with them.
Finance Director Swanson reported that we are working with the Coalition by furnish-
ing them with our financial statements covering the past few years. Councilman
O'Boyle stated that it still takes money for the Coalition to go to the legislature
to lobby for some new -kind of revenue for cities, For $1,200.00 we may possibly
recoup a good amount of revenue.
Councilman Ruiz stated that he attended one meeting of the Coalition and heard the
same as he heard at the League meeting and feels that if we spent $10,000.00 it
would not help. We should figure out our own way to acquire new revenues.
Community Development Director Gallagher stated that he shares Councilman Vidal's
concern. You need strength to lobby for funds.
Councilman Vidal stated that the legislature has so much power over city finances
that the more we lobby the better.
Councilman Nystul stated that the Committee will discuss further and report back.
Councilman Nystul reported that we have received word that our anticipated Revenue
Sharing funds for the year have been reduced by $21,000.00.
EMPLOYMENT
Councilman Zauner had no report.
ANNEXATION
ORDINANCE #1018
Councilman Palmer moved first reading of Ordinance #1018, an ordinance to extend the
City limits to include the Hutton Addition, proposed college campus. Seconded by
Councilman Zauner.
Councilman Ruiz asked if the Annexation Committee had addressed such things as the
size of the area, the additional traffic, utility installation and do we have enough
safeguards?
Councilman Palmer read the five conditions for annexation: 1) the college will
install and/or improve extensions for water and sewer in accordance with the City of
r
Kal;ispell's Standards and General Provisions for Design and Construction; 2) the
college will waive the right to protest the creation of S.I.D.'s for storm sewers and
road and right-of-way .improvements; 3) will analyze traffic flow in accordance with
City Standards, and develop approaches to Highway #93 and Grandview Drive for approval
by the.State Department of Highways and.County.Road Department, based on anticipated
use; 4) will present site development plans for review and approval by the City Build-
ing, Engineering and Fite -Officials, noting the comments in the FRDO Annexation Report;
and 5) the disposal.of any or all of the land must be approved by the City Council.
Dr. Gatzke explained that the Highway Department will study the traffic needs fox the
area.
Director of Public,Works Hafferman explained that in the total plan, any area is not
short-changed by putting in too small water mains or inadequate roads. Standards and
General Provisions will provide proper utilities,
Councilman O'Boyle stated he would vote favorably on first reading, however, he wants
to hear from the State Highway Department before the second reading.
Question called. Roll call vote. All voted aye.
Meeting recessed at 9:00 P. M.
Meeting resumed at 9:07 P.M.
ANNEXATION (Continued)
Councilman Palmer reported a problem with Idaho Forest Industries Annexation. City
Attorney Neier is investigating an ownership change and also a landlocked area which
affects the annexation.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT'_'(Continued from 9/20/82)
Mayor McDowell asked that those in the audience addressing the Comprehensive Plan
amendments limit their speech to 3 to 4 minutes,
RESOLUTION #3443
Hearing no objections from the public or the Council, Councilman Palmer moved to adopt
Resolution #3443, a resolution to approve the amendments'to the Comprehensive Plan for
Areas 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 and 14, as approved by the County Commissioners, Seconded by
Councilman Nystul. Roll call vote. Councilman Vidal voted nay, All others voted aye.
Resolution adopted.
Councilman Palmer explained the remaining Areas 1, 2 and 15. Areas 1 and 2 have been
changed by the County Commissioners to Urban Residential from Agricultural. Area. 15
has been changed from High Density Urban to Commercial. Areas 1 and 2 border on sub,=-
divisions and it will' -be practical to extend city utilities to these areas, Area I5
is the proposed mall property.
Councilman Saverud suggested that the Council vote onAreas 1 and 2 separate from Area
15, as he felt it inappropriate to consider Areas 1 and 2 with Area 15. Tf the areas are
considered separately,.there will be no -question of spot zoning. He stated he finds
Areas 1 and 2 to be a totally different character than Area 15.
Councilman Saverud moved to concern Areas I and 2 in a separate motion. Seconded by
Councilman Palmer.
Councilman Nystul asked if we are going to vote on Areas 1 and 2 and then vote on Area
15 and put them all in one resolution,. or put them in separate resolutions. Decision
to adopt separate resolutions.
RESOLUTION #3444
Councilman Saverud changed his motion to adopt Resolution #3444, a resolution to
approve the amendments to the -Comprehensive Plan for Areas 1 and 2, as approved by the
County Commissioners. Seconded by Councilman Palmer. Councilman Palmer explained that
the Comprehensive Plan is used for general guidelines -- property boundaries are also
guideleines and may be changed by amendment at any time or be extended 200' as long as
they do not overlap another zone designation.
Question called. Roll call vote, Councilmen Vidal and Ruiz voted nay. All others
voted aye. Resolution adopted,
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - AREA 15 - The area east of the intersection of North-
ridge Drive .and Highway 93 North - owned by Developers Diversified, who intend to build
a mall - Resolution passed by Flathead County Commissioners designated the area be zoned
"commercial" with a greenbelt buffer.
Councilman Palmer noted the following letter to Francis T, O'Boyle, Council President:
1
LAW OFFICES -
MIjRPlIY, ROBINSON. HECKATHORN & PHiLLIPS ^
- - ONE MAIN BUILDING -
TALVIN S. P09!NSON
1, JAME'S HEC7(ATHORti -
C_ EUGENE PHICLIPS '
JOktt S. OWNS. JR.
DAN1EL 0 JOHNS
DONALD R. MURRAY. JR.
CANA L. CHRISTENSEN
STEVEN V. CL'h•MiNGS .
- P. O- BOX 759 '
KALiSFELL. ?,10Ni n:1A
October 1, 1982
) £LEPI40SE
755-664A
AREA CODE 406
jAI,ITS E. 14uRPNY
OF COUNSEL.
Mr. Frances T. O'Boyle, President
Kalispell City Council.
P. d. Box 1035
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Re: Developers Diversified, Ltd.
Dear Mr. O'Boyle:
This letter is submitted on behalf of Developers Diver-
sified, Ttd. in an effort to address concerns expressed by
you in the present and past pertaining to mall development
on Buffalo Hill.
l._ The Revised Site Plan prepared subsequent to comple-
tion of the Environmental Impact Statement by the Montana
Department of highways.and now before the Council incorporates
changes recommended by the State for U.S. Highway No. 93,and
mall, entrances and exits. These include adding deceleration,
acceleration and turning lanes on U.S. Highway No. 93 near the
mall entrances. Further, two traffic signals are to be
installed,. one each at the intersections of the highway and
Meridian Road and Northridge Drive. All these .improvements
are.to be financed by Developers Diversified.,.
2. The Revised Site Plan also shows.a redesigned inter-
section of Meridian Road and U.S_ Highway No. 93. This, too,
will be done in accordance with the plans and specifications
,developed by the Montana, Highway Department. Cost of the
improvement will be prorated by the State between itself and
Developers Diversified.
' 3. Developers Diversified will also construct a -'walkway
the full length of the property along its west boundary. This
will facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic on the mall
site, as well as provide safe movement for individuals
(particularly school children) who now walk along the highway
and across the existing open field. A walkway along the
south edge of the property is also a possibility, but we
would like the opportunity to first discuss this with the
Council since at this time such a walkway would receive little
or no use.
4. Storm runoff on the site is presently planned for on --
site handling. Catch basins with sand filters will exist
throughout the site to aid this process. Final approval
will, of course, be obtained from appropriate state agencies
and final design approval will be subject to their scrutiny.
5. A green belt will be constructed around the property.
By annexing and zoning this project as a planned unit develop-
ment, the Council may participate in the specifics of its
design and dimensions.
6. In the event West Evergreen Drive is ever connected
with Grandview Drive, Developers Diversified will participate
in discussions •to consider contributing to costs incurred
in erection of a bridge across the Stillwater River. It is
impossible to commit further at this time since this improve-
ment is speculative and uncertain as to time and specifics.
_.,.--�_.•_ '_- -.. _ ,. -,., - -.__ _. -.._-_-�._.... .. vs-_..�__...,,.a,�..�...._ ..... _._._.._.ate.. ��.. �
* r 7.. Developers will, execute upon annexation a waiver
480 of protest t�o future special-`, mpr'ovement districts including
the., ma
8.. Developers will provide a one-half acre tract on.-h
malls to :for use as a fire substation.. Exact location will
be determined followifiq discussion with. the Council and Fire
_ .. Chief .
If:additional items, come to mind or. furtherc3axzficahion
3s .needed.; . please call.
Very truly yours.
MURPHY', ROBINS-ON:,.HECKATHORN & PHILLIPS
1
Daniel D. Johns `
DDJ:da
cc Mayor McDowell
City Council Members
Jim- Karabe c _
Councilman Palmer noted the following Analytical Evaluation:
ANALYTICAL EVALUATION TO ESTABLISH'.NEED AND LOCATION
FOR:A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER IN THE KALISPELL AREA
The following:is a'summary of the considerations given by the Flathead Regional
Development Office in determining the potentials for locating a major shopping
center in Kalispell.
THE NEED:
The City of Kali:.spell, due to its unique geographic setting, serves, or has
potential to serve, as a retail trade center for an unusually large region. The
retail. tra.d:e....a.rea....of._Kalispel.l is .conceived-to.,.,b.e,.compr.ised of Flathead., Lake .. .
and Lincoln Counties. According to the 1980 census, the total population within -
the service area is 88,774. This represents an,.increa-se of 23.4% over the 1970
population. Based on this growth trend, it is estimated that the population in
the retail service area should be over 100,000 by the year 1990. In additions
the service area'also has significant transient population in the form of
vacationers and conventioners. It also draws a considerable number of shoppers
from Canada. J.
R The planning standards suggest a service area population of 100,000 or more
for a regional shoppingcenter and .a gopu.lation size of 50,000 or more for a
community shopping center..Based on the above -stated analysis, Kalispell and_
its vicinity s`deemed to have .adequate population within the service area to,
support a community shopping. center and.should have adequate population by 1990
to support a regional -shopping center. The size considerations for these two
types of shopping centers are:
MINIMUM LEASEABLE .NUMBER OF
SITE AREA AREA STORES
Community Shopping Center 10 auras 100,000 to 15--40
300,000 sq.
ft.
Regi.onal.Shopping Center 30 acres ;300,000 to 40-80
1,000,000
sq.. ¢ft.
(The Buffalo Hill shopping center: is proposed:on .52„acres-with approximately
300,000 square feet •of gross l.easeable area).
TBE LOCATION:
having established the need,, the hext.phase_,ixi, the planning process is to"
determine. optimufti4ocation for such aq center within or near Kalispell.
A regional shopping center should m.eet'.the �.llow.ing .criteria:
1'. Should be centrally locare.d•within"the region;
cress b3l: ty.; .. .A„=.._. .
1
1
1
3. Should be in the growth direction of the community;
4. - Should have adequate residential areas nearby or should have potential for such
deve Iopment ;
5. Should not be in an already congested area;
6. Should be sufficiently away from any existing major commercial developments
to avoid congestions and adverse impacts;-
7. Should have the availability of municipality services such as water,
sewer, police protection and fire protection;
S.. Should have zoning in the surrounding area to protect the.investment and
to have a low insurance rating.
The City of Kalispell has developed along its two major highways, U.S. Highway
#2 and U.S. Highway #93, the Central Business District primarily located
at the intersection of these highways. At each end of these highways, at the
entrances into the.City, are major commercial complexes except at`the northern
end of U.S. Highway #93. Kalispell's growth axis has been predominently towards
the North and Northeast. This is primarily due to the strong interdependency
and proximity that.exists between Kalispell, Whitefish and Columbia Falls. There—
fore, the optimum location for regional facilities, including a'shopping mall,
isdetermined to be in that direction of Kalispell's vicinity.
Having established the general area in which the regional shopping center should
be located, and implying the criteria that the shopping center should have direct
access from a major highway, two potential locations were considered for further
evaluation. These locations were, (i) U.S. Highway #93 North of Kalispell and,
(ii) LaSalle Road, North of Evergreen. Upon applying the previously delineated
locational criteria, the location on U.S. highway #93 was found to meet all the
criteria to some degree, while the LaSalle Road location was.found to be deficient
in terms of criteria numbers 4, 7 and 8. Therefore; the U.S. Highway #93 north
location.is,,preferred over the LaSalle Road location.
THE. SITt:
after having determined the optimum location for the regional shopping center,
'detailed analysis was clone to determine the most desirable site along U.S.
Highway ##93 North.
The criteria applied toward this objective were:
L. Should be of adequate size and shape to provide flexibility in design
and avoid congestion;
2. Should be located in such a place to have safe and convenient ingress
and egress;
3. The cost of providing municipal services to the site should be comparatively
minimum;
4. Should have unobstructed visual exposure from the highway;
5. Should be relatively flat land to facilitate convenient traffic circulation
on the'site;
6. Should be compatible with adjoining land uses;
7. Should result in compact urban growth;
$. Availability of the site for shopping center -development.
Three potential sites were considered and comparatively evaluated by applying
the above —stated criteria. These sites were, (i) Developers Diversified site at
Buffalo Hill, (ii) the site in the northern vicinity of the intersection of U.S.
Highway #93 and Grand View Drive and, (iii) the vicinity of Highway #93 and Reserve
Drive.
The site number (iii) was found to be lacking in. terms of criteria numbers 3,.
6 and- 7.
The site number (ii) was found to be lacking in terms of criteria numbers
2, 3 and' 4.
Site number M was found to meet almost all criteria as explained below:
- --T7 7- -
62 Criteria #1•__ ADEQUACYOFSIZE AND SHAPE: .A
The site is approximately 50 acres and by far exceeds the size criteria of. 30 acres
for a regional shopping center.
Criteria#2: SAFE AND CONVENIENT INGRESS AND EGRESS:
Site number (i) adjoins Highway #93 where it has four lanes and before it starts
converging into two lanes. Availability of four lanes will provide room for
turning lanes: Further, the highway at this location has comparatively less -
grade and good sight distance.
Criteria #3: AVAILABILITY OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES:
1T.11 municipal services. are available on the site or adjoining the site. No sewer
lift station shall be needed because of comparativelyhigher elevation of the
site. The City of Kalispell has plans of providing a fire substation in the
vicinity of this site.
Criteria #4: EXPOSURE FROM�THE HIGHWAY:
The site dimensions are almost in a 1:2 proportion with its longer side adjoining
the highway. This will provide full exposure'of the mall and its anchor Stores
from the highway. -Further, the site dieing on a -high elevation should be com-
paratively better visibly to approaching traffic from the North.
Criteria #5: SITE PHYSIOGRAPHY:_
Most of the site is relatively flat with only a slight slope. Such a site con-
dition is favorable, as it will facilitate surface drainage as well as a safe
and convenient layout of parking areas and on -site traffic patterns.
Criteria #6: COMPATIBILITY WITH ADibINING.LANDUSES:
The site adjoins.a..vacant tractof land in the East, medical buildings and vacant
land towards the South,. Highway #93 on the West with a church and professional
offices across thehighway and a residential development to the North. The shopping
center would be compatible withthe adjoining land uses except for re-_,idenitial
development -to the North. This handicap can be overcome by requiring the developer
to provide an adequate greenbelt as a buffer between the shopping center and
the residential area.
Criteria #7: COMPACT URBAN.GROWTH:
The site, although presently unincorporated, is surrounded on three sides by
the Kalispell City Limits. The development of this site as a shopping center
and its annexation into the City would -result .in achieving a desired compact
development -anal growth of the City, as it will eliminate an undeveloped island
within the urbanized area.
Criteria #8: AVAILABILITY FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT:
The site is owned by Developers Diversified, who are involved nationwide in
the development of shopping centers and have expressed their desire to develop
a major shopping center on this site. Designating this site for a shopping center
would have a better chance of actual development than the other sites considered.
THE BENEFITS:
The development of the shopping center is anticipated to provide the following
benefits for the City of Kalispell and Flathead County.
The shopping center and downtown would combine to become "joint nuculei"
of. the trade area. The two would combine to increase total market share
and trade area.
The shopping center would enhance the local economic base and would create
additional employment in the area.
The shopping center would.curtail the economic leakage resulting from trade.
being drawn away to more distant shopping facilities.
The shopping center development North'of-the City would curb strip com-
mercial developments occuring in that direction -because of existing demand,
but lack of planned commercial areas in that. location..
The shopping center'wift supplement tourism, which is a major segment of
local economy. Shopping centers with specialized shopping faci-lities are -
considered desirable to enhance tourism.
REFERENCES .USED:'
' 1.. . Urban Land 'Thlstitute, "COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HANDBOOK".
2:. 3oseph'.. Chia.va and Lee Kop'pelman, "URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN CRITERIA":
3'. Up1aor, Midwest' .Council,' "SHOPPING CENTERS AND MEDIUM SIZED CITIES".
#; _ Clare:A.,Gdniri, "VACATIONSCAPE DESIGNING TQURIST REGIONS".
.Following -is a copy ,of an Opinion Pall : .
FLATHEAD COUNTY PUBLIC OPINION POLL
Research Methods
1. The Flathead County Public Opinion Poll completed interviews with
237 registered voters in Flathead County on September 21-23, 1982.
f 2. All interviewing was dome by telephone between the hours of 5:00 pm
ind 9:00 pm.
3: All interviewing was done from the offices of Authors and. Anihropolo-
gi's'ts Services.. Interviewers were super wised.
&. Legislative Districts 15 and 17 were over -sampled. Percentages sl-..i:•wn
in tabl.es for county -wide races and for county -wide opinion questions
are based on weighted statistical procedures to reflect accurate voter
representation according to actual voter registration by precinct.
,5. The survey has an estimated overall accuracy of 95 percerit. Data
for legislative districts is estimated to have an accuracy of 93 percent.
>> FLATHEAD COUNTY PUBLIC OPINION POLL <<
The data in the Aa.ble bel„w*:is based stir+ 4.r?37-. telephone interviews.
Interviewing was done on 21--23 SEPT 82.
FLATHEAD VALLEY NEEDS A NEW SHOPPING SHALL
-pie of respondt'nt
ALL VOTERS .
MEN
WOMEN
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
LIBERTARIANS
INDEPENDENTS
VOTED IN PRIMARY
UNDER.35
35--5 4
OVER 55
-KAL I SPELL
C. FALLS/WHITEFISH,.
----Percent of r•e_ pc riderits indicating ----
AGREE
DISAGREE
DON'T -KNOW `
51.9
33.4
14.7
44.5
41.4
14.1
57.6
27.1
15.3 --
49.0
29.'
21.9
62.2
3'2.4
5.4
B M S
B M S
C M S
42.4
38.2
19.3
51.3
34.5
14.3
56.7
36.2
7.1
51.9
33.0
15.0
46.8
34.6
18.6
59.3
24.4
16.3
3*. 3
53.0
14.6
!�rilluc1--ed, t f--
:AUTHORS, & ANITHrR� }POLE iGI STS SERVICES
P. O i E! c,x 919
yu
MT 59901
'Pfi 755-1857
{> FLATHEAD
COUNTY' PUS'LI C
OPINION POLL :<
The data in the table
below is based
on 237 telephone
interviews.
Interviewing was d-me
on 21-23 SEPT
82.
SHOULD ZONING BE CHANGED TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT
OF A
SHOPPING CENTER
NORTH C
----Percent
of 'resporident;
indicating -
of re Pendent
YES
NO
DON'T KNOW -
rtiE_.L VOTERS
55.0
8.1
14.3
45.7
29.2.
23.2
b; 'MEN
6 .
27.8
7.6
DEMOCRATS.
67.7
19.B
e.9
REPUBLICANS
62.2 -
25. 0
9. 8
L I BERTA R: ANS
Q M S
8 M S
a M IS
INDEPENDENTS
43.7
35.7
18.7
VOTED IN PRILMARY
56.3
28.3
12.9
UNDER 35
68.5.
23. 6
5.9
35�54
49.0
27.7
21. 4
OVER 55
53.7
31.4
11.4
KAL I SPELL
62.2.
26.3
10.4
Ca EA.LLS/14HITEFISH
42.7
35.4
17.1
1
'Su rve r_ r c,ridu to d by ---
AUTHORS & ANTHROPOLt fG I S ; SE RV I CES
P. (). Box 919
i:a 1 i= Pe l 1 i MT 59901
PhoriL 755-1857
CALVIN S. ROBINSON
1.JAMES HECKATNORN
I.
. EUGENE PHILLIPS
HN B. DUDIS. JR.
NIEL D. JOHNS
vONALU R- MURRAY. JR.
DANA I. CHRISTENSEN
STEVEN E. CUMMINGS
LAZY OFFICES
MURPHY. ROBINSON, HECKATHORN & PHILLIPS
ONE MAIN BUILDING
P. O. Box 759
KALISPELL. MONTANA 59901
September 29,.1982
TELEPHONE
756-6644
AREA CODE 406
JAMES E. MURPHY
OF COUNSEL
Honorable Mayor and ,
Members of Kalispell
.City Council:
Two attachments are enclosed for your information which
support my argument that a shopping mall in Kalispell is
needed and that at its proposed location broad -based support
exists.
1. ' Reecho Treixd-s iii the Flathead Economy. This
article was published. in the winter, 198 ssue of the
Montana Business Quarterly. It shows that during the
decade '1970 -'1980 population in Flathead County
increased from 39,700 persons to roughly 52,000, or 31
percent. Nonfarm labor income grew at an annual rate
of 5.6 percent from 1970 -- 1973, at an annual rate of
9.5 percent from 1975 -- 1979. On an individual basis,
per capita income rose at a 3.1 percent average annual
rate during the 1970's.
Thus, more people earned more income in 1.980 than in
1970, both as a county -wide population and
individually. However, during that decade the export
component of retail trade actually declined. 'In short,
Kalispell was unable to attract shoppers from rural
areas to any degree. "We may speculate that the
increase in tourist expenditures was more than
counterbalanced by the decline of Flathead County as a
retail trade center. The regional shopping mall in
Missoula, which opened in 1978, may have put local retailers
at a disadvantage in terms of their ability to attract
shoppers from rural areas."
2. 'Authors and Anthropologists Public Opinion Poll.
On September 21-23, 1982, a public opinion survey was
conducted (unbeknownst to the undersigned) regarding
residents' preferences for a mall. on Buffalo Hill. The
overwhelming response was in favor of the proposal. In
Kalispell, 59.3 percent agreed that a new mall is needed,
whereas 62.2 percent believed Buffalo Hill to be a good
location. Only 24.4 percent and 26.3 percent disagreed on
those issues, respectively.
..... Continued
Honorable Mayor and
MP.mbe!j -ro. f Kalispell
City C
C . .. ounc.ii
-Page -,2
:September-.
.29, 1982
n I: light of the unrelenting...Pursuit on this'issue b
� _'! .. Y
proponents and opponents.,, it is important to bear in
mind the,pre-ferenced of'.the,public. These are the
individuals who spend, the dollars permitting all
a- 0
busln6sses, be they retail, professional, service or
otherwise., to succeed. They are also the voters whom,
I.'respectfully submit, have elected you to represent
their interests. Bycasting your.vote in favor of the
proposedcomprehensiveplan amendment,, I submit that
your action is not onlybased,on fact, but in the best
interests of Kalispell and the surrounding area..
If you, have. any questions:,.please contact me.
Very truly yours,-
14URPHY, ROBINSON, HECKATHORN
& PHILLIPS
Daniel D. Johns
DDJ/kn
(Article entitled "Recent Trends in the'Flathead County Economy", by Paul E. Polzin,
Research'Associate Bureau of Business and Economic Research, and Professor of Manage-
ment, Sthoo.1 of Business Administration, University of Mbntana, Missoula, is on file
in the office of the Ci.ty,Cle rk,')
Councilman Palmer:tepprted the -following letter of. protest from Dr. Vranish:
FAMILY"REALTH CARE, P C. Telephone 755-8120
LOREN S. VRANISH,M.Di, F.A.A.F.P. 1291 Burns Way Kalispell, MT 59901
JAMES R. MARKETTE, 14. D.
RICAARD Cr WISE, M. D.
September 27,.,.19152. J
Paul Palmer
605 11th stre"et'East
Kalispell, MT 59901..
Dear Mr. Palmer:
I am vqriting.thisletter with regards to my oppo - sition to the zone change that would
allow a mall on,8uffalo Hill. In no manner am i opposed pposed to future developement of
our community but it should be done ' in an orderly, logical and environmental way.
We already have available several Other commercial areas in.the city that are termed
commercial and, are,._located in,_a,developed local,In•., addition;' witic the new I improve-
ment. of Main street and the possibilities of
some topnotch developers downtown where
it is more condusive,to an organized growth of1the community, I see no reason to
approve this change
.-I have read a recent article that has shown that malls across the nation are becoming
outdated. The:reason's:for.this are, first of all, communities no longer want mall-
developement., Pecondly,.theyhaVe proved not to be.economically feasible. This
brings to, point, with the poor econoiftiC envlronment'and. the nation wide declin . e 'of
palls, there is -a very likely.possib,iiity.that.6nce the designation of commercial
property is giver ,,it will not he used for mall developemerit.- - Instead,I it could be,
used: for 'strip de'velopemerit. The' -last thing -uy*e ne,ed, is another strip developement
leading into Kalispell, With a shopping mall,and the addition of the colleg&-in this
area traffic patterns drastically and'i .,feel that this is not best for
the traffic
flow in,the community.,`, With this portion of Buffalo Hill asphalted water
drainage could also 'be a problemm
C
Z fIx _12
The final poiztt i -would. like'to make is'. that the people. in this area have repeatedly -- .
,gone-agaa.inst this motion: Some groups. Iiave even. brought lawsuits against it. For f
-what- reason.-should'an out. of town.and out -of state.busi.ness cram down our throats
something ttzah.'the .neighborhood is drastically against;
i would appreciate.your vote against this change in zoning.
Loren S. Vranish, M.D.
LS V/d-%s
Counc Mian Palmer noted the following letter from the League of Women Voters:
y -
LWV of Flathead County.
__.. Box 998
Whitefish, MT: 59937
September 28, 1982
City Council
City Hall
Kal i spel 1, , TIT 59901
Kalispell City Council:
T.he.League of Women Voters of Flathead County is very concerned about the impact
of the proposed shopping mall on Buffalo hill. We are particula'rily concerned .
about the traffic and land use problems.
League is -concerned about the effect of the -increased traffic on access to the
Kalispell Regional Hospital by emergency vehicle*. We,are concerned about the
safety of children traveling to Kalispell Junior Nigh Scfiaol. We suspect that
residential streets'in the area will develop into thoroughfares since the site
is served by only one arterial. There is no way -to develop a circular traffic
flow and eliminate the backup of traffic into the main part of twoh. The two
traffic lights.that are proposed will not allieviate this problem.
The development .of this site for a sb6pping mall is a violation of the Comprehensive
Plan.and an example of Spot Zoning. We feel that it is a dangerous precedent
.to set.. The State Supreme Court.has already ruled on the spot zoning.
We.are concerned about the large amount of asphalt coverage necessary for run-
off and parking. The runoff and sewage also present a threat to the Stillwater
River. : One of Flathead County's major assets is its water and we can't afford.
toendanger any of it.
The 'League is not aware of any changes that makes..this.project any more
acceptable than it was earlier. All the problems concerning the acceptable
use of the land.and the traffic still exist. We hope that the City Council
-will realize this and once again act in the best interests of.the public i-n
refusing this.project. .
Sincerely,
• P-atricia L., darvi, P sident
` LWV of 'Flathead County
a I ryiN IS
The �fol.lowing � l t.ter of protest was.xeceived from Date, W. Haarr:
October 2, 1982
To: The Kalispell City C6unci1
From: Dale Haarr
Re': Comments on Planning Rep-.)rts on Buffalo Hill
I have reviewed the planning staff report to the planning board
and Mr. Verma's treatise to .,justify the shopping center. To
address each point at this time would be redundant. However,
I am compelled to address 5 points ]in these two documents which
are presumptuous and in my opinion .inaccurate..
1. In the.proposdd amendments,.basis for review, under additional
considerations no. 4. "A request from.the Kalispell City -County
Planning board to evaluate Highway 93..from the drive-in theatre
to Reserve Drive."
This request has notbeen addressed as it would require input
on all vacant lands and'a'r.e-affirmation or.proposed change
of the exi.sttrrg land use. To not. do so at this time leaves
us open to review each parcel as it may come up in the future.
The plan was put together with an overview of an entire area
` and if we are to amend the }plan then consider the same area of
influence and re -affirm or recommend change for the balance
of the area.
2. In the same proposal under part III, planning approach no. 2,
"Establish the location'f.or commercial development, recognizing
that "strip" development should be discouraged preferring devel-
opment only'at major highway intersections."
Obviously, Buffalo Hill does not meet this consideration, as
it will promote further strip development and does not meet the
highway intersection specification and in fact will add
conjestion to. the area.
3. In the shopping center report, page 1. Mr. Verma presumes
growth through this decade to match the last decade. Our.
growth of course is not materializing at that rate and is not
expected t6 as projected by the state census reports and Paul
Polzi.n' at the University of Montana. Therefore, .we do not .meet
the minimum requirement of population for a regional mall now,
by 1990.or perhaps even 2000. Perhaps, we should consider a
Community Shopping Center which .requires a minimum of 10 acres,
and this opens up a great many more sites for cQnsiderat-ion.
asyou have noted in the.report; only north side locations are
considered. It is as'i:f the report was written to accomodate
one request, rather than to evaluate all locations and present
a plan..
1
1
1
4. On page 2, Mr. Verma states the issue; "At each end of these
hijzhways. at the entrances into the city. are maior commercial
complexes except at the northern_ end of U.S. Highway #93." He
states that the growth axis has been towards the north and riorth-
east and that this is due to the strong interdependency that
exists between Whitefish, Columbia Falls and Kalispell. Therefore.
he concludes, this is the optimum location for regional. facilities.
To this I say BUINK; the reason residential growth has occurred
to the north is -because there is no -commercial development
and the close -proximity of retail and services on Idaho.and
Main street are not an.tnconvenience for residents.of the
north'area or for Further expansion (residentially) to the north.
In reality, most citizens live here because'of the quality of '
life, and the text book approach to'put a shop�in¢er in
every neighborhood adversley affects that quality. Look at the
other three entrances for evidence; note the deterioration of
residential habitation and lack of new residential construction.. -
adjacent to the other commercial activities'.
As council, persons,'you are only too aware 'of -the comprehensive
plan, and that through citizen input'at literally dozens of
public hearings, input -from the'property.owners, recommendations
from the planning staff and finally approval'by the commissioners
and your council, we agreed to keep the north entrance to
Kalispell in a ,residentiral and public land use. This 'plan of
the people �i_s'_working; the hospital complex, . Kalispell .Junior
High School, the churches, now Flathead Valley Community College
and.well planned residential areas are the proof. I feel. that
Mr. Verma has taken our plan very lightly, in fact,',-- i;.:::
he finds justification to change it as a result of a request
by a developer who could care less about our land use plan.
Mr. Verma should address the adjacent areas that will request
commercial designation as their residential values decline
(i.e. reverse condemnation proceedings in Billings & commercial
spread surrounding Southgate in Missoula.) What -about the
corners of 4 mile and 93, corners of Reserve and 93,.the
-residential south of Weatherford's, the triangle area. Wishers
and even the extra 20 to 30 acres Developers owns? All of
these areas should be addressed, as the doctrine of "highest
and best use" will surely be -invoked as you are requested to
change zones when these properties don't sell as residential.
. ._. _ .. -.... _.F.__... ,.
flo
I submit that the primary reason the north entrance looks
so attractive, is because of the la k of commercial deve.l-
o ment.I would invite Developers to build anywhere else
but there, so long..as it is in or adjacent to a commercial
designation. Surely in the 750 plus acres of designated
commercial property is a suitable location of-10 to 30 acres.
Let them search it out and we will all support their every
effort.
5. Finally,., under criteria #8,..page 4; availability for commercial
development, Developers may be nationwide, but -their cred-
ibility in Montana.is questionable: 'In Helena, their site was
approved two years.ago', and just recently their anchor
O.C. Penny) committed to space under construction in the
Capitol Hill -Mal-l.' Of the last -four malls ,built in Montana
(Bozeman, Bill.inls,-Havre & Missoula) Developers have not'
been involved: Our need for retail in the Flathead is in
quality (higher priced) retailers and not discounters, i.e.
K-mart, Woolco,. Harshbargers, etc., which' arre,the anchors
in Developers "other.". malls..
The provision in the Comprehensive Plan to provide for review
and change is working. The plan is not cast in concrete,•but
remains a guide line, and to test its concepts periodically is
healthy. The responsibility of changing the plan is in your hands
and we as citizens trust you will make those changes in the same
spirit as the plan was derived, -with knowledge of the wishes of
the people affected and with the future of the area firmly in mind.
This plan is a plan,of the people and these .people desire a.quality
of life unique to the Flathead and Montana, that gust may be
different than the request before youi
R spectf�all3r Submitted,
. j
3,-
r 9�
<= The.£allowing Petition was presented
To: Kalispell City Council
b
Next monday evening (October 4) the city council of Kalispell
will be asked to make an important decision about -future growth and
land use. Developers Diversified has requested that the city council
change the current county land use plan by designating a SO acre
tract -in the Buffalo Hills area as commercial. This area and the
entire northern corridor into Kalispell is currently designated
residential.
! We would like the council .to weigh several issues before making
their decision and to consider carefully the nature.and consequences
of their decision. First, the council has been asked to make their
decision as a simple land use question without regard to the more
complex issue of whether we want this particular mall in this location.
In terms of land use, the question is simple: Should we change So
acres on Buffalo Hill to commercial land use? This change would
permit the development of various businesses such as Fars, restaurants
and retail outlets. Phrased in this fashion the answer to such a
question is obvious' --No, we already have three "strips" of,eommercial'
development to the east, west and south as well as a large center area
of commercial establishments. Clearly the citizens of Kalispell
should resist pressure to create yet another commercial sprawl on the
relativelyunspoiled entrance to our community.. We feel that the
citizens of Kalispell, and in particular residents of the Buffalo Hill
area, have consistently resisted changing the land use of this area
for over three years. How.long must we fight this battle?
We ask the council to reject -the requested change in land use
based on the same logic that led to the current county land use plan
and the previous .rejection of'Developers Divers-ified plan. The current
land use plan designates the Buffalo Hill area as residential for
several good reasons. First, the surrounding land is predominantly
resi,denti.al in. character. Second, the area is.served by a single
arterial designed for modest: traffic between Kalispell and Whitefish.
This .highway is not sufficient to accommodate a commercial complex,
and an almost inevitable strip' development, while still permitting
safe ingress and egress for private residents. Such development
would also strain access for both hospital and college facilities_
whose development can be "planned" with an.eye to the future instead
of reaffirming the facts born from unplanned growth. Fourth, there
is a need to concentrate future commercial growth in the presently
developed areas to create the mass necessary to stimulate commerce.
Such concentration is feasible because the space is readily available
in the central area as well as in the south, east and wrest. Commercial
space will be further increased by the relocation of FVCC which will
'release•31,.500 square feet of prime ground floor space, and by the
pending plans to develop some 20 acreas of commercial land oiq ed by
Burlington Northern.
Moreover, as Dale Harr has pointed out,. changing th.e land use of
Buffalo Hill to commercial does not guarantee a big beautiful mall.
1
The developers might well sell the.zand once it is designated commercial
are
or they might develop it in a, manner quite different than they currently
proposing. One is forced to question the credibility of the proposed
development since we have seen examples of their previous efforts in
Dick:"nson, North Dakota. The Dickinson mall falls far short of our
dreams fora regional mall in terms of desi.gn,'construction, type of
tennan.t, and landscaping. It is simply not a quality mall. One must
further question the intentions of the developers when we examine their
actions in Helena. Developexs.Diversifi,ed convinced the city of Helena
to approve their mall site and plan over two years ago. They have yet
to begin this project, and it is quite possible they never will.
Given the possibility of misdevelopment at Buffalo Hill, the council
at the very least should insist on restrictions to a land use change
that guarantees the developers performance and limits their time to
develop the property. At present such restrictions are not possible
without passing special`ordiances in order to control the developments
a commercial planned unit development must.be.in place before the land
use plan is changed. The city of Kalispell.does not at this time have
Finally, the council must realize that their decision 'is not whether
or riot Kalispell heeds a mall --- of coLzr e it doe . Nc itfiz: r arc we
asking the council to pick the best mall or developer. We do-, however,
believe it is the responsibility of the council to plan for the growth
of our city and decide, in our best interests, the future course of
development. In the current situation you must ask yourselves, not if
we need a mall, but what location would be most appropriate for such
growth. We submit that Kalispell needs additional retail space, and
it should be located in one of the exsisting commericial sites, any of
which make more sense than the Buffalo HIM location.
In conculsion, the decision you will be making on October 4,
will have a profound impact on the future growth and development of
Kalispell. In fact, this decision might well be the most important
you will, make during your tenure as council members. We urge you to
consider your actions accordingly. Take the time to obtain all of the
information you need to make an intelligent choice.
Signed by the foll.awing concerned citizens:
The Petition 'carried 325 signatures and are on file in the office of the.City Clerk:,..
.Councilman Palmer reported that the Annexation Committee met last Thursday with FRDO
Director Verma, who presented a.four page report on why.we should amend. Area 1:5 with.
most of. the Council present.
The meeting was opened to comments from the floor, Mayor McDowell asked for proponents
and asked that everyone addressing the issue summarize as much as possible.
Attorney Dan Johns; representing Developers Diversified, stated that he requested the
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on Buffalo Hill to permit commercial development to
that location: Again, for the record, Attorney Johns stated that he does represent the.
City as Labor'Negotiator, but inasmuch as he has represented, Developers Diversified for
32 years_, the .Council has agreed there is no conflict of interest. At the last'Couftil
Meeting the issue was tabled in the wee hours because certain councilmen were requesting
further study. Mr. Johns stated he had no trouble concurring with this, but if any
councilmen were using this time to oppose.the issue,.a public trust has been violated.
The Analytical .Evaluation to establish need and location for a regional shopping mall
in.the Kalispell area by the FRDO'shows the need. There is a need for commercial growth
and no one has disputed that issue. The growth is Northward. and Northeast. The Planning
Board looked, at sites and came up with three. Of the three, this area -was best, staying
on Highway #93. Commercial development is already there. Out past the Stillwater you
have small shops. Tonight you are seriously looking at approving a college just to the
north of the city limits. Mr. Johns stated he was not speaking for oragainst the pro-
posal, but merely wanted to point out that many of us have college educations and have
spent a great deal of time around college campuses. Many colleges are surrounded by
commercial development and by allowing a college campus, you are adding to that demand.
By allowing the mall to be built, you can control strip commercial development in that,
area and by adopting a PUD, can control site plans, -ingress and egress, utilities,
landscaping, lighting or whatever. The site has enough area, good exposure to the high-
way, availability of municipal services and is compatible to adjoining land use. We are
going to have people here tonight tell you that the little red dot north of -Kalispell
looks out of place, but without trying to sound facetious, it's all a matter of defin-
ition what color that spot is. That spot could be orange instead of red if you in-
cluded in the definitions high density or medium density urban commercial development'
such that is. You see, that is what you are doing tonight-. You are approving a college
under 8AG-1. How many colleges are suburban agriculture? ;The Flathead Regional Hospital
a:nd',the doctor's.offices in that area are in an area that.is classified Urban Residential..
x
... .-, .. ,.._. _-....�+Yew—•_..
3-94
Now; --the�reasori ghat �s:.classified'ilrban- Res idential is because the Council has zoned it -
:Res dential-Apartmerit�2. .I believe that allows .a zoning of up to'40.units per acre. There
are no..r sidents in,tha.t area. What we,are proposing.now is additional commercial area,:so
is.no different than. what -is' already there., Only the color an the map.is different.
.The, terin,s.pot.zoning is -over -used .and little understood. Petitions are gamesmanship. A
stir--vey of_273-per9ons ta.ken.by.the Flathead County Public Opinion Poll by telephone, and-
-not "even,.r&gu-ested.,by, Developers Diversified, revealed -more support .now.than than when the
m l,l �?as: proposed• .thr e .years ago, 51% for and 28 a against... C 2..2% favor the mall in that.
J locat p.n, 26. %_ d.o n.bt." In.conclusion, Attorney Johns s'tated..tshat you are hearing from.
people who already have what they want.-I3npose conditions, address a PIED concept, the
co:ntrdls are your: You. people �vex:e elected:by the citizens, :.and these citizens are
telling youthey-are 'in favor, of a. mall. This project has. had 3 z years of scrutiny, e
.:we.have a,300 page Environmental Impact,Study, have talked with the Police Chief, Fire
Chief, State Highway. Department and many others. 1f•the City Council denies our request
`our 'alternative could ;be. to go to, the voters,. By Montana. Statute, the Comprehensive
Plan can.be amended by.'initiative of the.voters, Attorney Johns presented copies of the
!Draft'of theEnvironmentalImpact Statement and the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
.These copies will be on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Mayor,.McD6well-called for any other -opponents. t
Cal Swet stated that`he has property. north of the area and south of the college property .
and has no object.ions to .the mall. It is;a favorable site - problems can be reasonably
solved; growth is in that direction; he'feels that most of the abuse taken by Developers
.Diversified is .oppo:s'i.tion in an emotional.vein, It'has set as a rock pile for-year.s
and has no residents.,,You should reflect on the professional judgement.
Jerry Lyford stated that he owns no property in the area,"but is in -support of the issue.
The voters have approved the college location and would also support the mall location.
Mr:-Lyford stated'that.Developers Diversified.have taken a lot of abuse and he would hope
the Council would take a look at whom they represent,
Rex McMurdo, Secretary -Treasurer of.the Montana Trade Councils stated.that he favored. -.the
mal.1 because the area needs a boost. Construction work is approaching two years of de-
pression in this area.
Douglas R.Johns presented the following letter:
L`M-16,
404
Councilman SaYerud stated thAt 3 years ago he visited the mall in Dickinson, but did
not take the pictures.
Councilman Ruiz stated he t000k exception to the article in The Daily Inter Lake, which
stated that they ran a poll of the council people. He was not called - did not make
a statement that he was in favor of the mall- if you are talking personal preferences,
I am not in favor of a mall in that location, but I was not called and did.not make any
statement. My personal preference is, not even residential; I would rather see a wheat
field, But I am not voting my personal preference, We are in more trouble now than
before. Last time we were voting annexation into the City for a mall development, now
we are looking at a commercial strip. Attorney Johns says a mall will be built and
all I can do is take his word for it. We are addressing a 50 acre tract that calls for
commercial development. It is presently -zoned High Density Urban, I would rather
see a mall than High Density, Whether or not we have enough commercial development,
1 cannot say. We are annexing Forest Service Products property and it could remain
just vacant lots for firemen to check for fire danger. Councilman Ruiz said he could
see no prospects for empty buildings downtown, Downtown is dying. He fools he is
representing the people who.elected.him who expects: him to support the City, increase
the tax base to take care of increasing liabilities, Employee's wages are frozen
this year, we are annexing property for a 40 acre college campus with no tax base and
turning down 5.0 acres with a tax base.
Councilman Grainger stated that it was not.fair that counsel feels I went out and
solicited opposition. He has lived here all his life and listens to the people. He
stated he had already expressed.'to Attorney Johns that PUD is the way.to go. He is
not totally against the mall, but the public that:has,talked to him are afraid to
support the mall without a PUD concept, He. stated he agreed with Norb Donahue
that the County has a job to do which has not been done and it is not fair that City
officials have to take the County's rap. He stated he could not go with the land use
change without a PUD. With it, he could go.
Attorney Johns stated that he is offering the City PUD.
Councilman Saverud took exception to the statement by Councilman Ruiz that "downtown
is dying". Downtown is in a state of change --,it is not dying, In the 3 years 'referred
to, through some efforts of the City and much effort of private enterprise.there have
been:°_.in_.excess of 80 now jobs created and that can be documented. Coast to Coast has
been out of that building less than a month and already very serious plans are being.
developed for that building. I could- on and on about buildings that are in a
state of transition. Referring to Mr. Vermals report that the City is overzoned
commercial, the point has already been made that we w,il1 be adding several thousand
more square feet of commercial property if.and when the college moves out. The
report also goes into an analysis of why we need a regional shopping mall, Without
being trite, its a textbook approach and I would frankly question the copyright on
the textbook,. I think some of the procedures and some of the information are prob-
ably somewhat dated, There has been a trend -,-,a fairly recent trend, ..t,o, be;:;sure ,
that has turned a lot of the commercial development back into the inner cities and
maybe we are not big and maybe we are not great, but 1981 tax code still applies to
Flathead County and the City of Kalispell, and there are many merchants who are getting
interested in doing things downtown because of that tax code, This report also gave
8 criteria for meeting the requirements for a regional mall, The 8 criteria are
pretty well defined. Where I take exception, the author found only one location in
the whole county that met the criteria. With just a surface review, you can find
probably three locations that are reasonably acceptable with little or no change that
can meet the criteria. If you read the Environmental:Impact Statement, it is obvious
who paid for it, but even at that, thexe_are.pluses and minuses in this report, We
are presented a synopsis on the same subject with 100% positive input and I cannot
believe there is any proposed development in this whole area that does not have one
tiny thing that might not be negative; yet we are not given the privilege of that
information. We are confused as to whether this is a.land use question or an economic
question. I raise that because I read the minutes of the Planning Board meeting.
The Chairman asked for comments from the Board just before the vote, The first com-
ment was, "I believe in the free enterprise system", The second comment was, "I
abstain", the third comment was ".I am kind of interested', and the fourth comment
was, "I believe in the free enterprise system". Frankly, I do not believe that the
Planning Board addressed this and wrestled with it .as a land use change. The real
question is whether or not those 52 acres ought to go into a commercial designation.
Councilman Saverud concluded by saying he would have to vote against the amendment
because we would be approving the commercial designation without knowing anything about
the finished product and if the developer was unable to get tenants, unable to get fin-
ancing or for any other reason, he did not build a mall, he could sell it to anyone for
a commercial development without annexation or Council,review, He stated he realized
and was sure that that is not their intention, and.I respect them as honorable people,
but in terms of the public trust we are sitting here making a decision that will affect
future generations. We need protection, we need to know -what the ultimate product will
be. If, in the future, the Council or the community decides on this for land use, then
�.
let the Council enact a PUD ordinance and go that way, This Council, the District
Court and the Supreme Court found this way unacceptable and I still do,
Councilman Ruiz stated that he was going by the lower tax increment, which tells him
that there is not as much downtown as there was three years ago, Mx. Ruiz also stated
that he thinks we have a better handle on the mall project than on the college proposal.
Councilman Vidal stated that she could not dispute the fact that we do need a regional
mall development in Kalispell. On the other hand, many man hours and time were re-quired
to write the Comprehensive Plan. There are other alternative sites for a mall that would
be very appropriate and conform to the Comprehensive Plan. One -of the sites which would
be a good area for a mall is in the Downtown Redevelopment Area, where commercial pro-
perty would be returned to us for tax increment and allow low interest loans to busi-
nesses. I think in terms of sensible planning, in my terms of public trust, T cannot
support a mall on Buffalo Hill, A PUD concept would be a good fallback position, but
at the prosent, there is no machinery or ordinance for one. Tf we were to change the
plan tonight, d:espi`-e assurances from Developers Diversi£ied'made in good Faith, that
they will provide a good mall, we legally cannot force anything until the machinery
is set in motion. Some comments have been made tonight that some of the people are
here and have presented their case emotionally, from their heart instead of their head,
There has also been an indication that some of the members of this Council have been
actively seeking support for one side or the other, Tnformation has been asked of me
and I have given that information because that is my job. The poll taken and reported
by KCFW on the mall was written rather simplistically, It never indicated to the pub-
lic that there were other sites. No alternative was submitted to the people, It was
stated simpiy `do` you want a mall or don't you want a mall and would you change the
zone to allow the mall period! No alternatives were offered to those people they
polled. Unless you spend the hours and hours that we on the Council have spent, the
issues are not clear. As far as a referendum to the people, T would rather not see
it go to a vote because I feel people are tired, Councilman Vidal said she was im-
pressed by Mx. Rauthe's statement that we who are on the Council or who are paid by
commercial interests to come to these meetings do not mind, but people who come again
and again and again for nothing have my sympathy, Another comment that was made to-
night that I take exception to is the issue that downtown merchants are threatened
by the mall. From a personal experience, I will submit that downtown merchants have
everything to gain by the extra traffic created by a shopping mall. People will come
from Canada, Libby, Polson, Ronan and Columbia Falls to the Kalispell area to shop
because these people will not shop just at the mall, but will also come downtown to
shop. So, in essence, the businessmen here tonight speaking against the mall are
speaking against benefitting th:eir.:own businesses in the light of what we want for
our town. We have a Comprehensive Plan and it would be a travesty to ignore it,
Councilman Nystul stated that he represents Ward One, will vote the way the majority
want it and has nothing personal involved,
Councilman Zauner stated he had talked to other people involved with Developers
Diversified. He has had calls both pro and con. He does favor commercial development.
It is far-fetched that downtown is going to pot, He stated he moved for a definite
reason, but stall has downtown Kalispell at heart, A PUD might be the answer, You
might see a different atmosphere if we were to adopt a'PUD ordinance, However, if we
do that, it may involve hiring another person to administer and the City has no funds.
Attorney Johns stated that the building officials see that it conforms. If the City
would enact a PUD Ordinance, it might make a difference in their feelings, If you want
to hold up, you can. Developers Diversified wants you to do what you are comfortable
with.
RESOLUTION #3445
Councilman Ruiz moved to adopt Resolution #3445, a resolution to amend the Comprehen-
sive Plan to change Item 15 from High Density Urban to Commercial, as adopted by the
County Commissioners. Seconded by Councilman O'Boyle, Roll call vote, Councilmen
Ruiz and O'Boyle voted aye. Councilmen Grainger, Nystul, Zauner, Vidal and Saverud
voted nay. Councilman Palmer abstained. Motion defeated,
STREET F ALLEY
Councilman O'Boyle moved to sell bonds for S.I.D, #335 to First Interstate Bank at 12%
interest rate. Seconded by Councilman Nystul, Carried,
PARKS
Councilman Vidal reported there will be a Parks Committee meeting at 4:00 P. M. Friday
October 8th to discusss the golf course and Dry Bridge Park,
CITY DEVELOPMENT
Councilman Saverud had no report.
406,
MISCELLANEOUS
Councilman Palmer moved Council approval of Mayor McDowell's appointment of Harvey
Simpson, 129 Sherry Lane, to the City -County Planning Board to replace Ron Nance,
who resigned as he was leaving the area. Seconded by Councilman Saverud. Motion
carried.
Mayor McDowell proclaimed October Handicapped and Disabled Persons Month.
LICENSE PERMIT BONDS
Richards Heating & Air Condition, Inc. Gas.Installer Bond
Councilman Grainger moved that all License & Permit Bonds approved by City Attorney
Neier be accepted.' Seconded by Councilman Ruiz, Carried.
Doug Rauthe expressed his gratitude to all the Council, thanked them for their
courage, their intelligent approach and stated he was proud that they stood up and
faced the issue.
Councilman Grainger moved to adjourn at 11:40 P, M. Seconded by Councilman Zauner.
Carried.
Approved as'presented November 1, 1982.
,._ NlcIIo� M�yo.r
ATTEST:
Marjori Giermann, City Clerk
1
1