02-11-97n KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
FEBRUARY 11, 1997
CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City -County Planning
AND ROLL CALL Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by
President Therese Hash. Board members present were Robert Sanders,
Joe Brenneman, Jean Johnson, Mike Conner, Pam Kennedy, Therese
Hash, and Robert Lopp. Milt Carlson and Walter Bahr were absent
(excused). The Flathead Regional Development Office was represented
by Narda Wilson, Senior Planner and Steve Kountz, Senior Planner.
There were approximately 30 people in attendance.
APPROVAL OF The minutes of the meeting of January 13, 1997 were approved as
MINUTES submitted on a motion by Kennedy, second by Johnson. By acclamation
vote, all members present voted aye.
NORTHWEST The first public hearing was introduced on a request by Northwest
HEALTHCARE / Healthcare for a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of a day
CONDITIONAL care center in an H-1, Health Care zoning district. The conditional use
USE PERMIT / DAY permit would allow the expansion of the facility to serve a maximum of
CARE CENTER 24 children. The property is located at the southeast corner of Conway
Drive and Highway 93 North, and can be described as Lot 1, Highland
Park 2nd Addition located in Section 6, Township 28 North, Range 21
West, P.M.M., Flathead County.
Staff Report Wilson gave a presentation of report #KCU-97-1. The application was
evaluated in accordance with the necessary criteria and based on the
findings, staff wholeheartedly recommended the conditional use permit
be granted subject to two conditions.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the project.
In Favor Nancy Greer, manager for women's and children's health care services
for Northwest Healthcare, spoke in favor of the proposal, and was
available for questions.
No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the request. The
public hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board discussion.
Board Discussion The Board asked if the day care facility had opening, if would serve those
from outside the employees' pool?
n Mrs. Greer replied that with 1200 employees at Northwest Healthcare,
/ that was not an issue, however, if it came up, it would be addressed at
that time.
Motion Kennedy made the motion to adopt staff report #KCU-97-1 as findings
of fact and recommend that City Council grant the conditional use permit
to Northwest Healthcare, subject to the two conditions set forth in the
report. Conner seconded. On a roll call vote the Board voted 7-0 in
favor of the motion.
ANDERSON The next public hearing was introduced on a request by Anderson
THEATRE Theatre Company, Inc., for a zone change from R-1, Suburban
COMPANY / ZONE Residential, to B-2, General Business on approximately 5.25 acres of
CHANGE / FROM land located in the Evergreen Zoning District. The property is located on
R-1 TO B-2 the west side of LaSalle Road and south of Evergreen School
approximately 100 feet on the east end of the property proposed for
rezoning and adjoins the school property along the east end of the
property. The property can be described as the west 180 feet of
Assessor's Tract 1L and all of Assessor's Tract ILA in Section 4,
Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County.
O Staff Report Wilson presented an overview of report #FZC-97-1. The statutory basis
for review of a zone change was evaluated and based on the findings,
star recommended the request for a zone change from R-1 to B-2 be
granted. Staff amended her recommendation to include in the zone
change, the western portion of Assessor's Tract 1LC, thus eliminating
that island of R-1, which would result if the zone change is granted.
A letter was received from the school in support of the zone change.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the zone change
request from R-1 to B-2.
In Favor Jim Lynch, was in favor of the zone change request. That is obviously a
commercial piece of property. No one would want to put a home there.
It lends a tremendous opportunity to the Evergreen School. With a
theatre next door, I can envision a partnership going on between
Anderson Theatre and the school. It offers an efficient travel for the
consumers of the area.
Tom Hines, representative for Anderson Theatre, spoke in favor ,of the
proposal. They bought the property eight years ago with the idea of
putting a twin theatre on it. We are envisioning a 4-plex theatre,
designed to be added on as the capacity allows. Addressing the school
issue, the kids go out in those woods to smoke and whatever, and the
2
school board is excited about removing this as a public nuisance. We are
— probably about two years from actually building the project.
There being no other speakers either in favor or in opposition, the public
hearing was closed and opened to Board discussion.
Board Discussion The Board was in agreement that the requested zone change was logical.
Motion Lopp moved to adopt report #FZC-97-1 as findings of fact and
recommend to the County Commissioners that the zone change request
from R-1 to B-2, be granted, including the western portion of Tract 1LC.
Kennedy seconded. On a roll call vote, Kennedy, Conner, Johnson,
Lopp, Brenneman, Hash, and Sanders voted aye.
STONERIDGE The next agenda item was introduced on a request by Dennis and
SUBDIVISION / Marilyn Bain for preliminary plat approval of a 41 lot cluster
PRELIMINARY development, known as Stoneridge Subdivision, located in the R-1,
PLAT Suburban Residential zoning district. The property. contains
approximately 50 acres and is located on the north side of Foys Lake
Road and approximately 400 feet east of Whalebone Drive. The
property can be described as Assessor's Tract 1H in Section 13 and
Assessor's Tracts 4AA and 6E in Section 14, Township 28 North, Range
22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County.
Conflict of Interest President Hash declared a conflict and recused herself from the Board.
This matter went to the County Board of Adjustment for conditional
approval for the clustering. My husband sits on that Board and felt that
he could not vote on the issue. In order to preserve fairness and avoid
any concern, I cannot sit on this issue as a Board member. This
proposed development will be out my front window, and I feel
uncomfortable presiding over the matter.
Vice -Chair Kennedy presided over this agenda item.
Staff Report Wilson gave a detailed presentation of report #FPP-96-17. The Flathead
County Board of Adjustment took testimony at their February 4`h
meeting on the conditional use permit. The reports to both Boards had
the same conditions of approval which were modified by the Board of
Adjustment. The process was explained. The minutes of the Board of
Adjustment meeting for that agenda item were submitted to the Planning
Board.
The public hearing tonight is on the preliminary plat. The plat was
- revised with regards to the access onto Foys Lake Road as a result of the
comments made by the Board of Adjustment and is before the Planning
3
Board for their review. An additional lot was created where the road
was, originally. Staff received a phone call from the school district
stating that they will accommodate the children from the subdivision.
Staff recommended that the open space in the proposed subdivision be
accepted to fulfill the parkland dedication requirements of the subdivision
regulations. A letter was received from Bob Norwood, asking for
dedication of parkland.
The application was reviewed in accordance with the necessary criteria
and is found to be in substantial compliance with the State and County
Subdivision Regulations. Staff recommended 18 conditions of approval,
modified as follows: #3. That the roadway shown as Stoneridge Drive
be relocated to connect to Rocklev Drive to the west, and that a 30 foot
road and utility easement be provided along the eastern boundary for the
future access for adjoining properties. #4. That approach permits be
obtained from the Flathead County Road Department. #6. The first part
be deleted, and it read "That road and utility easements will not be
included in the open space calculations."
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the proposal.
\\ In Favor Brian Wood, Associated Planning Consultants, technical representative
for the applicants, reiterated that the subdivision is in compliance with
the zoning, master plan designation, and the design of the subdivision is
in compliance with the Flathead County Subdivision Regulations.
Regarding the sewage treatment, we acknowledge that the
recommendation is that the site be dry sewered, however, the developer
is obviously concerned about the cost of that improvement. Not
knowing whether or not the sewer will be extended in that direction.
The extension of service plan does identify the subject property as being
within a potential sewer service area, however, no engineering studies or
cost studies accompanied that extension plan. The sewer and water lines
are in place in Meridian. The city engineer does not know what it will
take, or if that particular location could be connected to the services.
The zoning and the master plan for the area do not support the densities
which would in turn make the extension of services to that area
affordable. We are working with the City to resolve this issue. We have
to meet non -degradation standards for septic systems, and it may not be
possible to do that on that property. We have not explored that
completely, yet. Sewer may have to be run out to the site to facilitate
sewage treatment.
With regards to the school, the 42 lots at build out will generate about 21
students. The Bains anticipate the build out of this subdivision at a
minimum of 10 years, so the impacts to the school district will be
4
incremental. They own Wildwood Building and will be the sole
developers and builders on the lots. They do not have the means to build
more than 4 homes per year. Of those 21 students, we can expect some
of them to be in high school, private schools and possibly homeschool
children. I don't think Peterson School will be getting 21 students at one
time. The condition in the staff report is acceptable, and the Bains intend
to work with the school district to mitigate any impacts they directly
cause.
The covenants will deal with the use of the common area. The zoning
ordinance is very specific about the language that goes into those
covenants to assure proper use and maintenance of those areas. Perhaps
the words "common area" should proceed "open space" to make that
clear that it is intended to be commonly owned by the property owners.
Tom Sands, Sands Surveying, was available to answer any questions
about the design and redesign of the plat.
Charlene O'Neil, representing her parents, Chuck and Winona O'Neil,
property owners to the east. We think this is a great location for a
subdivision, that is close to town and relatively gentle terrain. At the
O Board of Adjustment hearing, we were pleased that the recommendation
was that we use a common roadway. Now, the redesign is for one
roadway. Our concern is obtaining an approach permit onto Foys Lake
Road in the future, because it was too close to the other roadway. We
are not willing to abandon our easement.
Jim Lynch, 430 Lake Hills Lane, a subdivision off Foys Lake Road, in
close proximity to this subdivision. This area is very conducive to
residential development. I am familiar with Wildwood Building and I
know the workmanship is of high quality, and without a doubt would fit
into the integrity of the land he proposes to develop.
There being no other proponents, the public hearing was opened to those
in opposition.
Opposition Doug Skoczek, 1097 Foys Lake Road, submitted a petition signed by 18
people who live across the road from this proposed subdivision, in
opposition to the development. He read the petition which is attached
hereto and made a part of the record. The major concerns pertain to
traffic and water quality.
Ron Gardner, 1045 Foys Lake Road, read his letter which was submitted
to the Board, stating his opposition to the proposed subdivision.
5
Mavis Heitmann, 1145 Foys Lake Road, is against the subdivision. Her
major concern is the water quality, as they get their water from a spring.
She is afraid the sewage will drain into the high water table and ruin their
water source. I, too, have a concern about traffic. I have lived there for
23 years, and have seen many accidents on that curve. People have been
killed, and cars have ended up in our yard. It will only get worse with
more people, and accesses. Joggers and bicyclists use the road are in
danger. Even crossing the road to get the mail is life threatening. In the
summer time the traffic is three times as much from people going up to
the lake.
Kennedy stated that she had received a phone call from a member of the
public voicing opposition to the subdivision based on traffic and water
quality concerns. However, she did not state who the person was.
There being no other speakers in opposition to the proposal, the public
hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board deliberation.
Board Discussion Brenneman noted that we have heard many concerns about the traffic
and asked about the criteria used to make the finding in the report.
Wilson answered that the Kalispell City -County Master Plan designates
this as a minor arterial and is anticipated to handle a volume of 5,000 to
15,000 vehicle trips per day. The 1993 transportation plan which is part
of the master plan, estimated traffic volumes currently at about 2,000.
The County Road Department checked out the site for sight visibility.
Sight visibility is much better from the north side of the road because it is
higher. She agreed that people accessing from the south side of Foys
Lake Road would have more problem with sight distance at that curve.
Kennedy asked that the redesign of the road access be explained and to
address the concern regarding the shared easement.
Tom Sands said that they tried to mitigate some concerns which came up
at the Board of Adjustment meeting, with the redesign. The existing
approach has been there for 20 years, where we designed the access. He
explained the redesign, which meets the County road standards.
Johnson questioned the economic feasibility of this project. He had
major concerns with the high water table in the area with regards to
sewer treatment systems, and meeting the State non -degradation
standards for water quality.
\\ Brian Wood informed the Board that no preliminary engineering studies
U have been done, but that the Bains are well aware of the challenges of the
6
site for meeting the standards for sewer and water. The developers are
uncomfortable about putting in a dry sewer not knowing which direction
Kalispell will grow. He knows that the City passed up a chance to
extend the sewer north with the reconstruction of Highway 93, and they
may choose not to go west, as well.
Kennedy stated that the Highway 93 North situation was a cost factor, in
that the City did not want to extend the sewer at the City's cost.
Johnson was very opposed to a dry sewer, as it creates a conduit for
effluent to run into the springs. We do not know if 5-10 years from now
if that dry line will be suitable for city acceptance. I have been involved
with having to dig up a dry line. A properly engineered system would
protect those springs. The State non -degradation law states that you
cannot degrade a body of water less than its current quality. I have a
concern about this site, as Ashley Creek is very degraded now. He
wanted to change condition #9.
Lopp commented that over the years we have encouraged developers to
come in with cluster developments, so I would hate to penalize the first
one that comes before us. However, based on Jean's input, I have a real
Oproblem with condition #9
Brenneman agreed that the Bains should be commended for proposing
this type of development. It is a good location. The traffic issues are
something we are going to have to live with. A pedestrian path would be
desirable. Based on the fact that there are problems with the soil types
out there, I feel it is very important to have city sewer.
Motion Johnson made the motion to adopt report #FPP-96-17 as findings of fact,
and forward a favorable recommendation to the County Commissioners
to approve the preliminary plat for Stoneridge Subdivision subject to the
18 conditions as modified by staff, with the following changes: to delete
#9 and replace with "That the developer be required to provide on the
preliminary plat a building envelope with respect to drainfields and non -
degradation mixing zones." And add the phrase "common area" before
"open space" to condition #15. Sanders seconded.
Discussion on Motion Wilson asked for clarification of the amended condition #9.
Tom Sands addressed the concern. We are not going to know whether it
is going to work until we submit it to the Health Department. We are
well aware of the problems in the area. We aren't ignoring them. If we
can't get septic approval, they will have to consider sewer.
7
There was considerable more discussion on extending City sewer to the
site. The condition was modified.
Amendment to Johnson's motion was amended to have condition #9 read: "That the
Motion developer continue to examine the feasibility of extending water and
sewer facilities to the subdivision with the Cfty of Kalispell". Sanders
seconded. On a roll call vote Sanders, Brenneman, Conner, Johnson,
and Kennedy voted aye. Lopp voted no. The motion carried 5-1.
PACK & COMPANY President Hash returned to the Board to preside over the rest of the
MASTER PLAN meeting. She introduced a request by Pack and Company to amend the
AMENDMENT Kalispell City County Master Plan from "Industrial" to "Commercial" on
approximately 20.657 acres of land east of Highway 93 North which is
located near the southeast corner of Highway 93 and Reserve Drive.
The property can be described as a 20.657 acre portion of Government
Lot 1 in the NW4NW4 of Section 31, Township 29 North, Range 21
West, P.M.M., Flathead County.
Public Disclosure Board member and councilwoman Kennedy read a statement for the
record. "I am employed at Nupac, Pack and Company. My position at
Nupac is administrative assistant. I have worked at Nupac for 14 years.
O Nupac is coming before this Board this evening and then before the City
Council with a request to amend the Master Plan and zoning upon
annexation to the City of Kalispell. I believe that I do not have a conflict
of interest. That I can sit in on this hearing, speak my opinion, enter into
discussion, and make an objective opinion with regards to this request. I
have no financial interest in Nupac. I will gain no economic benefit from
the request this evening. On July 9, 1996, I requested a legal opinion
from City Attorney, Glen Neier, about my appropriateness on votes on
issues involving my employer. He stated section 2.2.125 MCA, which
indicates that if I comply with the voluntary disclosure, that there is no
violation of the code of ethics. I also have a memo dated August 7, 1995
from Glen Neier regarding conflict of interest in the same regard. That
memo ends with "Under the statutes and Attorney General Opinion cited
above, a Councilperson employed by an individual or corporation doing
business with the City would not have a conflict of interest. However, a
Councilperson, owning a business or holding a significant amount of
stock in a corporation, would probably have a conflict of interest if their
business engaged in a transaction with the City." I believe that State law
clearly indicates that I do not have a conflict of interest this evening. I
do not have anything to gain from this proposal. My continued
employment with the company is not dependent upon this proposal this
evening. Pack and Company will continue, and my job will continue, no
matter what happens with this development, I hope. From time to time
U in this community, in a community this size, we are going to have issues
because of a perceived impropriety. I do not believe that there is an
impropriety. I want to preserve the credibility of this Board and believe
that will not be in jeopardy by me sitting in on this proposal this evening.
I intend on staying here, and entering into the discussion and the vote
with regards to these issues.
Statement for the President Hash also made a statement for the record. I went to the
Record County Attorneys Jonathan Smith and Dennis Hester relative to this
matter. After reviewing the codes, I am confident and satisfied that there
is no legal conflict. I think each of us, as a Board member, have to
search out our own decision making processes, and make their
determination as to whether or not they wish to avoid any appearance of
impropriety. I made a decision relative to stepping down on Stoneridge
Subdivision, which was out of concern for the integrity of this process
and the integrity of the government process, as a whole. Each of us has
to face that and make those decisions as they seem best. However, I am
satisfied that there is no legal conflict, at this point, with Ms. Kennedy, as
a volunteer member of a Planning Board. Beyond that point, it is not my
role to make{ any kind of determination along those lines. With that said
for the record, President Hash asked for a staff report on the request.
Staff Report Wilson gave a detailed presentation of report #KMPA-97-1. The request
for a master plan map amendment was evaluated based on the goals of
the Master Plan, current circumstances and the purposed of zoning.
In looking at the twelve statutory evaluation criteria for the purposes of
zoning, it is found that the proposal clearly does not meet the necessary
criteria and therefore staff recommended the proposed master plan
amendment from industrial to commercial be denied because it does not
comply with the goals and objectives of the master plan.
This depicts leapfrog development, which has the potential to encourage
infill development over time. It can be considered to ultimately be spot
zoning, defined as zoning which allows a use that differs significantly
from the prevailing use of the area; zoning that is designed to benefit one
landowner at the expense of other landowners or the general public.
The development proposal with this potential of unintended
consequences, such as strip development, urban sprawl, inefficient
demands on the infrastructure should be, evaluated in the context of the
overall master plan amendment. Careful consideration should be given to
the establishment of urban growth boundaries, and where, if any,
commercial expansion should occur. This would be based on the overall
evaluation of commercial availability and careful consideration of what
�.� exists now.
9
Questions Kennedy felt the last sentence on page 1, under B. Nature of Request,
was misleading, as there was no application attached to the information
sent that pertained to a large shopping center.
Wilson responded that during the pre -application meeting with the
applicant and their engineers, she was shown a large site plan for a
shopping center for the property. They said they had buyers. I got that
information from the property owners, although that was not included in
the application request.
Kennedy asked about the extension of services to Reserve being
premature, when it is in our extension of services plan. The City of
Kalispell was going to enter into putting in services when Highway 93
was upgraded, and due to the cost, it was pulled out. Why would it be
premature?
Wilson replied that it does not appear that the demand is there at present
to extend those services. The extension of services plan does specifically
address the extension of services along Highway 93 to West Reserve,
and it states that the development around the Kalispell Regional Hospital
has spurred residential and health related development on the north end
of Kalispell. The States Lands section on the southwest corner of
Highway 93 and Reserve represents potential for non-commercial
development, which has been identified as the prime location for the
County Fairgrounds, should it be relocated. Specifically, the extension of
services plan references non-commercial development in that area. The
sole reason for extension of water and sewer to serve a commercial
development on the fringe areas of the planning jurisdiction appears
premature.
Kennedy wanted clarification on. the statement that commercial
development at this location would encourage commercial development
on the other three corners. You indicate the West Valley plan has just
gone through and that it is to be maintained as agricultural on the State
Lands section, and there is no room for commercial development on the
northwest corner because Mountain Villa Apartments is on the corner.
Wilson noted that on the northeast corner of this intersection has
indicated interest in developing that commercial. State Lands has also
expressed interest in doing a plan amendment for their property for
commercial. This has the potential to reach other areas south of the
property, because people are under the impression that because you have
highway frontage, that it is commercial property. This perpetuates that
conception. If there is commercial to the north, water and sewer
10
available, and grant the master plan amendment to someone else, it
would justify future development and future commercial expansion in the
area.
Kennedy felt that the Stillwater Golf Course proposal would encourage
commercial development.
Wilson explained that was planned as a resort development, as part of an
overall development plan that specifically required residential
development to take place first. The small amount of commercial zoning
is designated as resort business zoning and is not intended to serve a
broad community retail area, such as what is being proposed.
Conner asked about the State Lands property.
Wilson replied that there are 600 acres that are currently being .actively
farmed and are owned by Department of State Lands. They are under the
legislative mandate to maximize the resources of the school section
property, which brings up an interest for them to do something
commercial. The master plan designates this area as important
agricultural lands on the soils map. Without having an overall
development plan, the staff would not support commercial development
in that area.
There being no further questions at the time, the .public hearing was
opened to those in favor of the application for a master plan map
amendment.
In Favor Jim Lynch, President of Nupac, handed out a map of their property,
currently being used as an industrial site. It is not an agricultural piece of
ground. What is going on there is suitable for its present zoning. The
request for a zone change is because we have received numerous offers
to purchase the land over the past few years. We were approached by
Flathead County to provide a class 3 landfill site and possibly recycling;
The State of Montana to store and process hazardous waste materials; a
trucking depot. We have also been approached to turn it into a 20 acre
commercial site. That represents about .half of the industrial site that
exists there now. He reviewed the land uses in the area since 1986, when
the master plan was established.
In the recent development of Highway 93, our property and the B-1
corner was given 7 accesses onto Highway 93 and West Reserve, for the
future commercial development of this lot, not for its present use. The
highway was designed to handle the commercial development. It was
discussed in the EIS, and is a part of the EIS.
11
CHe reviewed the FRDO report. The character of the land and adjacent
lands are not as represented in the report. The large multi -family housing
project has plans to expand. To the east is a B-1 site, and an industrial
site. To the south is Flathead Valley Community College with plans to
add on a technical center. To the west is a new sports complex in the
final stages of design all which will need and benefit from the services
offered at this commercial site. The neighbors surrounding this industrial
site would not benefit from future developed industrial site, but many
would be positively serviced by the lands' long term commercial
potential. Since 1986, this highway has been improved. Recent
projections that between 1990 and 2010, 75% of the economic growth in
Kalispell is business. It is not industrial. At the time you formed the
master plan in 1986, the City of Kalispell had only 150 acres vacant land.
With this projected growth the City of Kalispell is going to need to
expand its boundaries if it is going to provide or be part of that
commercial development.
Contrary to FRDO's claims, this commercial site will not compete with
the City's created tax increment districts. Instead it will allow the City an
avenue to expand without cost of city services, and the opportunity to
bring on additional users and additional tax base. It will also provide an
additional tax base for Flathead County. I can assure you that the uses on
this piece of ground will not locate in the expansion of Kalispell Center
Mall. The buyers of this property are not interested in locating south of
Kalispell. I am not at liberty to tell who our potential buyer is, but I can
tell you the potential buyer is a landowner in Flathead County, and would
not consider opening a second store on the west side of Kalispell at the
Gateway West Mall. This potential buyer would not be a threat to take
away potential business from these three locations.
The City of Kalispell has received numerous requests for extension of
services north of Kalispell, from Semi -Tool, Mountain Villa Apartments,
and two golf courses. Within the City of Kalispell, there is not a 20 acre
commercial site for sale. Future industrial growth, if any, has plenty of
space available and many vacant industrial sites south of town, additional
space behind Flathead Electric Co-op, and ample space in Columbia
Falls. As it says in the master plan, industrial sites must be supported by
a rail system, of which Kalispell has been actively trying to eliminate.
It is not realistic to force another grocery store or retail center in
downtown Kalispell. The requested zone change is based on several
offers to purchase our property for commercial and industrial uses. We
have been strong promoters of promoting quality clean growth, and at
the present time, I do not think that a fully developed industrial center is
12
what I want to see for the entrance into Kalispell. Commercial
development can guarantee some aesthetics and beautification and a
buffer to residential development that is establishing around that
industrial zone.
We propose to extend sewer and water service, that is about 2600 feet
from our south boundary. It will be paid for by the property owner.
With the expansion of Flathead College, and the baseball complex, it will
provide a needed service.
The proposed zone change is in substantial compliance with the master
plan. It is important to consider the whole plan. The plan combines
commercial and industrial goals and treats them the same. The proposed
zone change adds support and relieve for existing traffic uses. The
density requests for I-1 and B-2 are the same. It is our belief that a fully
developed industrial site would require more intense emergency services
than a fully developed commercial site. This is demonstrated in higher
insurance rates for industrial property versus commercial. An industrial
site would create rush hour congestion added to the existing commuter
traffic, which would create a heavier burden on the infrastructure than a
commercial development. With highway frontage on Highway 93 and
O West Reserve, the rezone will actually prevent commercial strip
development along Highway 93 that has occurred along Highway 2 with,
50 foot lots.
The rezone gives reasonable consideration to the character of the district.
To the west is the school section of land in which 26 activity fields are
being planned. To the east is Semitool, Kalispell Athletic Club. To the
north is a B-1 in a high density residential and single family houses. To
the south is the college. A change to the B-2 zone would offer a buffer
to the residential property and enhance the entrance into Kalispell. A 20
acre site is too large to be considered a strip. If, you accept the premise
that additional commercial expansion may displace other non-commercial
buildings in that area, then current industrial zoning could spawn
additional industrial zoning. The request came from a bona fide
commercial user and not as a speculative sale.
There was talk that this might threaten the lease for the athletic complex.
He submitted two letters to the Board from Dan Johns, attorney
representing Peewee Baseball, and from Rich DeJana, attorney
representing the Youth Soccer Association. These letters are attached as
a part of the record.
Larry Lee, 2545 Highway 93 North, owner of the 10 acres at the
northeast corner of the intersection at Reserve and 93. He has lived
13
there for 17 years, and there has been a lot of changes in those 17 years.
The 140 apartments were built on 20 acres in 1980-81. An additional 20
unit condominium was added. The 140 units dump into a single septic
system, which is less than 1/4 mile from the river. In the mid-80's
volunteers put up the first stop light at that intersection, because the
highway department couldn't figure out how to get it during the
reconstruction of Reserve Drive. Now we have a 5-lane highway under
construction. The truck by-pass will pour the traffic into the intersection
of Reserve and 93, and I would anticipate that within our lifetimes, it will
be built. With all the changes in this little area of town, we have a very
busy intersection. In the rebuilding of Reserve I was granted one
commercial entrance onto my property, and with the rebuilding of
Highway 93, I now have two in anticipation of the future development of
the corner. A lot of changes have happened since the master plan was
done in 1986. When highways are built, it requires that they take
property from you. We lost about 20 feet on Reserve, and 20 feet on
Highway 93. As the highway gets closer to your house, it begins to lose
value as a residence. I think the extension of the sewer line would be
very welcome and would help the apartments. We talked earlier tonight
about 42 houses on 50 acres needing city sewer. I have 160 apartments
across the highway from me on septic, next to the river. I respectfully
request that you approve the application.
David Riddle, real estate agent with ReMax representing Jim and Jack
Lynch in this transaction. I am for the master plan change for this
project. I have worked quite a few commercial transactions around town
and in the Evergreen area, south of town and west of town. I have
talked to a lot of the in -users in these tax increment districts. The in -
users in this proposed project have nothing to do with any of the tax
increment funding projects. If you look at the whole area, it make sense
for the City to expand its boundaries north, create tax money for the city
without spending any money to get it.
Thor Jackola, Jackola Engineering, has a technical involvement with this
project. We feel that the map amendment is not in conflict with the goals
and objectives outlined in the master plan. Our letter supporting this
position is included with the annexation report, and would also pertain to
the master plan amendment.
Harry Hall, real estate broker, involved with this deal, and am not at
liberty to say who is wishing to do the project. It is a national company,
but would be in the Kalispell tax base. I went to the City water and
sewer district. I know that the funds were appropriated for the City
�— water and sewer to be extended up to Reserve, and I guess the City felt
there wasn't a need for it, so it didn't happen. The Lynchs are offering
14
C) to pay for that, which will benefit everyone else in the area. I am in favor
of it.
The public hearing was opened to those opposed to the project.
Opposition Dale Luman, 169 Trail Ridge Road, County Estates Subdivision, said
that the area is rural residential, and believes that leapfrog strip
development will lead to a Evergreen type strip development, which I
think the present zoning precludes. I believe that businesses should be
concentrated in town. I don't believe this commercial development
would contribute to the experience of the people living there, at the
present. It would contribute more traffic congestion. I agree that this
would be a spot zoning, and if there is significant change in the last 11
years, we look at the entire picture, not just spot zone this corner right
here. If we need to look at the overall change, this single application is
not the vehicle to do that. If affects the entire entrance into Kalispell,
and we need to look at the whole picture.
Larry Gallagher, Director of Planning, Economic and Community
Development for the City of Kalispell, spoke to this as it is such an
important issue to the City. I want to clear up a few things. The City did
recommend and appropriate the sewer lines to Reserve, and the City
Council elected not to proceed with that project, although the funds were
budgeted for it. It was a recommendation from the City Manager and
our staff, and was approved in the budget adopted by the City of
Kalispell. The purpose of the extension was to encourage the expansion
of high -density residential, to bring in the LHC project and encourage
sound and reasonable economic growth in the area. Another reason was
to tie in the construction with the reconstruction of Highway 93, and
save about 15% of the cost. At the time the City considered it as a
project, we received no support from any of the residential property
owners, including Mountain Villa Apartments. None of them signed a
letter of intent to sign on if the City extend the sewer line to Reserve.
That was one reason why the Council, at that time, not to proceed.
Since 1978, there has been a consistent recommendation from the
FRDO, all the Planning Boards, all the Councils and the County
Commissioners, that there be no commercial strip development on
Highway 93 North. That message has been amplified, and began with
the Little vs. Flathead litigation which is landmark legislation that speaks
to the sanctity of the master plan and the fact that it takes a lot of
consideration to adopt a master plan or to amend it. I was a consultant
to the City at the time of that litigation, and Mr. Johns was the attorney
for the opposing side. At that time, it was Diversified Developers who
wanted to develop a regional shopping center where you have
15
subsequently approved Buffalo Commons. That could be a shopping
center today had not the Supreme Court intervened and agreed with the
City on that issue.
I am the party that has been personally involved with negotiating with the
DNRC for the lease of the recreation complex. This has been going on
for over two years. From the beginning, DNRC advised us of their
constant solicitation to lease their land to commercial users for a major
shopping center on Highway 93. They have 620 acres there. They have
been approached by every developer that has sought a shopping center
location in the valley. They are aware that the highest and best use to
meet their mandate for income stream for the schools of the State of
Montana, would be commercial usage. Commercial usage was
something that was pursued right up to the time that Narda and I started
discussions with DNRC in Missoula and in Helena. At that time, we
submitted a document outlining the history of Planning Board, County
Commission, and City Council decisions regarding commercial zoning on
Highway 93. That convinced them that they did not stand, based on
historic precedence, a reasonable chance of rezoning or amending the
master plan to convert the school section land to commercial property.
They agreed to instruct their appraiser to use AG 80 zoning to determine
O the value. They submitted, as part of that appraisal, the documentation
of the history of policy decisions. It was on that basis that the appraiser
came back with $2750 per acre for AG-80. It is the $2750 per acre, that
is the basis for our negotiations in the future. I believe that to go back to
the State of Montana saying that now the City is party to a commercial
rezone on Highway 93, when we denied their request to proceed with
that, would be a breach of trust.
The City of Kalispell has made a declaration of necessity and public
interest that over 60 acres of existing commercial real estate in this
community, either vacant, underdeveloped or poorly developed, is in
need of redevelopment. The City of Kalispell has devoted over $15
million of public funds to encourage growth and expansion in the central
business district. Before you tonight will be a request for another urban
renewal project to encourage the growth, redevelopment and expansion
of the Gateway Center Mall, 39.5 acres of commercial development that
will either go into a lower appropriate use and another tax appeal, or it
will be redeveloped as a retail center. I, too, deal with retailers seeking
location in this community. Many of them have been waiting for the
County Fairgrounds for a period of years.
At present, in addition to the Gateway West Mall and the downtown
j project, we have undertaken the Airport Urban Renewal project, the
Kalispell Airport and athletic complex redevelopment. The success of
16
(� that project and our ability to relocate those ball fields and enter into the
lease with the State of Montana is contingent upon our ability to sell an
additional 15.6 acres of B-2 zoned highway commercial property.
Indeed, some of the same developers that are looking north of town, had
also considered a south location. Without the sale of the Daley Fields,
and without the successful sale and redevelopment of Haven Field, the
City of Kalispell cannot proceed with relocating the ball fields and the
recreation complex, nor can it proceed with the $1.2 million
redevelopment costs to bring the city airport up to FAA standards.
There is a great deal at stake, here, in expanding commercial zoning
beyond what I consider necessary.
The Urban Land Institute and many national organizations have
conducted studies in the past several years indicating that when
commercial real estate is overbuilt, the tax burden shifts from commercial
properties to single family residential. That is what is happening in the
Flathead at the present time.
Right now, the legislature is dealing with tax reform. All of them create
a great deal of uncertainty in the environment of community planning and
development. We do know that this is a very inopportune time to be
CUconsidering another 20 acres of commercial zoning in the valley.
The application is for 20 acres, and as Mr. Lynch indicated, that is half
the size of the real estate they own. So, we are really looking at,
eventually, a 40 acre project. It is said that it is not a large shopping
center, but the proposal initially assumed a 100,000 square foot box. And
six to seven 5,000 square foot pads. A 20 acre development would
exceed the size of the Kalispell Center Mall and a 55,000 square foot
grocery store. Right now, in the Kalispell Center Mall, land is assessed
at $5 per square foot. The buildings are assessed at a high quality market
value. Today the Kalispell Center Mall contributes more in taxes than all
the land and all the improvements from Wal Mart, Shopco, and Ernst,
because they are assessed at very low land values, low building values,
and pay a fraction of the rate that properties in the core area do.
The Haven Field is an example of good urban density development. The
City is proposing to sell that to a developer. It is 4.1 acres, that will
generate over $6 million in redevelopment, guaranteed by the end of
1998. It would create both tax base and tax increment to assist stated
public policy and stated public objectives. So, tax base — yes, but how
many tax dollars compared to what we will and could have with the
redevelopment project in the core area. I want to point out that the City
r of Kalispell has currently budgeted $2.4 million to encourage the
.� Kalispell Center Mall and the Gateway West Mall developers to succeed
17
with their expansion projects. The success of the Kalispell Center
C-' expansion depends on 20,000 square feet of additional small retail. In
order for the Gateway West project to succeed, they are going to have to
have 70,000 to 100,000 square feet of small shop tenants. We will be
competing for the customers, if not the same retail clients. They will be
viewing the availability of discretionary income available for the purchase
of goods and services. We are either going to spend it wisely in a
community and enhance community values or we are going to continue
to sprawl. I am concerned, that you were a part of the decision making
process that held the Buffalo Commons development to a very tight
commercial development standard. They have over 14 acres zoned
commercial, but the highest density commercial use is 10,000 square feet.
You intentionally, and not accidentally, told them you did not want large
commercial development on the north end of Kalispell. They are having
a difficult time selling high priced ground for uses of 10,000 square feet
or less. I wouldn't be surprised to see them come back with a request
that a shopping center would be a good idea on the 14 acres. I know
that many of the grocers looking at the fairgrounds and other vacant
parcels, have looked at the Buffalo Commons PUD and understand that
they will not fit up there. There are myriad issues. If, 5 years from now,
if we need more commercial space, depending on the growth, this may be
a good project.
The Bureau of Business and Economic Research does forecast moderate
growth over the next few years, but I would like to point out that our
needs in land and land use and changes of land use are for high density
residential. Today, high density residential land is so scarce that it is
commanding premium prices in excess of commercial shopping center
space.
There being no other speakers in opposition to the proposal, the public
hearing was closed and opened to Board deliberation.
Board Discussion Hash commented that with a master plan amendment, we are addressing
the overall area concerned. The annexation and requested zone is a
separate application, although it does underlie the general concept
relative to the master plan amendment. She referred to the City Zoning
Ordinance, section 27.14.020 listing the permitted uses in a B-2 General
Business. The applicant has indicated that the intent is to sell to an
unnamed nationwide purchaser to put in a commercial development,
however that is still in negotiation. The idea is that if we go ahead and
approve the master plan amendment from industrial to commercial, and
approve an initial zone of B-2, any of those permitted or conditional uses
r > could conceivably be in that area. I do have copies of the Little vs.
Flathead Coun Board of Commissioners, and the Bridge r County
18
( ) Propert Owners Association vs. Planning and Zoning Commission for
the Bridger Count Zoning District. Both of these arose out of attempts
to zone contrary to the underlying master plan. The Supreme Court, in
addressing some of the zoning issues relative to this states "We are aware
that changes in the master plan may well be dictated by changed
circumstances occurring after the adoption of the plan." This is what Mr.
Lynch's testimony has attempted to bring to our attention, the changes
they perceive has occurred since the adoption of the master plan. We are
in the middle of updating the master plan. It is difficult to say that the
master plan of 1986 should be changed when we are in the process of re-
evaluating it. In the Little vs. Flathead case, the Supreme Court did
address the issue of spot zoning, wherein they held that the tract of land
was owned by only one owner, and the requested use was significantly
different from the prevailing use in the surrounding area, and the benefit
would accrue to that one owner.
Kennedy pointed out that the uses allowed in the I-1 district are much
more intense than the B-2 uses. With regards to spot zoning, she pointed
out on the zoning map within the recent West Side Urban Renewal tax
increment finance district boundary the B-1, B-2 and I-1 zones. This is
not any different than the zoning we have all over Kalispell. What is
being proposed is not spot zoning. We have already created commercial
�.J zoning by zoning the comer of 93 and Reserve B-1. B-1 is a buffer for a
neighborhood, and B-2 is a buffer to the industrial zone. 'As the staff has
pointed out in the master plan amendment report the Montana Planning
Statute provides enabling legislation for local governments to adopt and
implement planning and zoning. I contend that this area has changed
since the adoption of the master plan in 1986. This area has seen the
influx of residential property, a church, a convenience store, gas station,
insurance claims office, etc., and most significantly, the Flathead Valley
Community College, and now, the proposed athletic complex. The
master plan was amended in June 1992 to accommodate the Stillwater
Golf and Country Club. This amendment included commercial property
in a previously zoned agricultural area. The master plan, on page 5, talks
about growth management. Item a reads, "adopt a municipal annexation
program which coordinates with the extension of services plan to
aggressively deal with fringe developments setting the stage for
immediate or future annexation so as to preserve the tax base of the city
and eliminate future barriers to orderly growth." On page 8, item h,
"concentrate medium and high density residential units close to
commercial services, good traffic access, and open space, specifically to
provide efficient access to these amenities for the occupants and to
provide a suitable buffer between commercial and high traffic areas and
- \ low density residential areas." I would contend that we have set
J precedent for the area. We have allowed major housing divisions in the
19
immediate area. We have rezoned agricultural land to accommodate
commercial, and residential. We have encouraged the development of
land on the north border of Kalispell. The highway has been significantly
upgraded providing a safer, more efficient transportation system, which
can easily accommodate 20 acres of commercial growth. Staff has
mentioned in the report that Kalispell is short on industrial property.
Look at the master plan map, which clearly states that Columbia Falls is
the industrial hub of Flathead County, and Kalispell is the
commercial/professional center in the valley. There is a large industrial
piece to the south of Kalispell that is yet to be developed. You have a
great deal of undeveloped industrial property in the City of Kalispell. I
contend that area is insignificant. This valley has a lot of industrial land
that is not being utilized. We have an opportunity to clean up our most
significant entrance into the City of Kalispell. The City Council passed a
resolution last month to establish scenic byways. As part of that
resolution, it states "an established scenic byways program would
facilitate local land use decisions and enhance and protect unique road
corridors." Highway 93 is a unique road corridor. The master plan, on
page 47, talks about light industrial as uses that do not create nuisances
such as noise, dust, heat, odor, smoke and vibrations. It said districts
should not be located adjacent to residential districts. This area is
O directly southeast of Mountain Villa Apartments and Country Estates,
and directly next door to residential properties in the Country Way area.
Gravel pits do create noise, dirt, and vibrations. By allowing this master
plan request, we can have a win -win situation for the City of Kalispell.
The developer has indicated that he will bring sewer and water services
to Highway 93 and Reserve. This will meet the requests for future use
by Mountain Villa Apartments and Country View Estates as their septic
systems fail. This will allow the city to meet a master plan goal of
orderly annexation to increase the tax base and yet being able to offer
services to newly annexed areas at no cost to the City of Kalispell for
extension of sewer and water. The approval of this will promote the
scenic byways resolution. The approval will clean up the site that creates
a nuisance to the residential property owners. The approval will this
property to service residential properties to the north of Reserve with
commercial services and be able to bring traffic into the City of Kalispell
instead of away from Kalispell in the direction of Whitefish and Columbia
Falls. I believe that the findings of fact are misleading. I don't
understand why our staff could not find anything good about this
proposal. I can look at our master plan and be able to pull some things
out of there that relates to the fact that this is appropriate zoning. I do
not believe that this change, in any way, will take away opportunities
from the City of Kalispell. It will only enhance the City of Kalispell. It
will bring services to the north end of Kalispell. I don't know how many
times the people north of this property have to indicate that the people
20
n they are dealing with are not interested in the interior city of Kalispell. If
they do not move into the property that they are talking about on
Highway 93 and Reserve, they will move elsewhere and Kalispell will not
be a winner. The only way for tax base to increase for the City is for
annexation to happen. The Lynchs have come to us tonight requesting
annexation.
Lopp said that this is a very biased staff report, finding nothing of
support for this proposal, in particular, rejecting the offer to extend water
and sewer, while earlier this evening the same FRDO staff was practically
demanding that a developer, extend at their expense, sewer from
Kalispell. At the same time, I am offended by Ms. Kennedy, even though
she has a legal standing to stay and speak and vote. I felt her
presentation was that of a proponent that should have been given from
the microphone out there. As she stated, she is an administrative
employee of the applicant, and I really do feel that is a violation of her
position on this Board. It puts me, as a Board member, in a difficult
position. I would prefer to make up my mind on this application free of
the bias that is in the FRDO report, and free of the bias that Ms. Kennedy
has brought to this.
O Kennedy addressed Mr. Lopp's comments. She said that this has
weighed very heavy and she has flip-flopped back and forth as to which
way was the appropriate way for me to address it. My comments were
written to speak from the podium. My choice was made when I reread
the attorney's opinion and I felt it was appropriate for me to sit here. I
feel that I am not, in any way, in conflict — this is not a shared thing at
our company. This is a dealing that has been going on with the owners
of the company, and I am evaluating it just as you are.
Hash asked Ms. Kennedy, how, as a representative of the City Council,
you feel that your City's representative, Mr. Gallagher's position on this
issue.
Larry Gallagher clarified that he is expressing his views as the Director of
Planning, Economic and Community Development, and in his
professional opinion. City Council sets the policy. I have not discussed
this with City Council, at this time.
Hash was confused. If the City Council, in conference with Mr.
Gallagher, were of the opinion that they did not want leapfrog
development, which I perceive this to be, how could you, in this role, say
this is a great thing.
OKennedy stated that as Mr. Gallagher speaks as the Director of
21
(� Community Development, I speak as citizen, Pam Kennedy, and as a
- / planning board member. I am a representative, on this Board, from the
City of Kalispell.
Hash stated that her perception of the application, is that it is a win -win
proposal to extend the sewer. I am not hearing that all these residents
are lining up to sign on. So, the benefit, in the short term, is to Mr.
Lynch. I would hate to think that we have such a conflict in the
negotiations with Narda, Mr. Gallagher and DNRC, and we have an
affirmation from Dan Johns and Rich DeJana relative to a seemingly
totally different perception as to what is going on with the relocation of
the athletic fields. We need to look at all of the issues relative to this,
going back to whether or not changed circumstances have occurred
which would justify changes in the master plan. In the long term, I feel
this may be an appropriate situation for commercial development. I just
don't see it, now, or in the immediate future. I understand that the
prospective purchaser wants this land, and is unwilling to consider other
lands in Kalispell. But, that is the function of a sale. We are being asked
to amend a master plan and change a zone. I think that the last thing the
community wants is opening up the floodgate to dense commercial uses
along the Highway 93 corridor. As the remainder of Mr. Lynch's gravel
pit is depleted, it would only serve to justify further expansion of that
commercial use. I see it as not just this 20 acres, but expanding all the
way to the college. I don't think it is something that should be done,
now.
Conner stated that he is frustrated, because I feel that some positive
beautification would be great, and yet, my biggest concern is that we are
in the throes of updating the master plan, and I would like to see us do a
good job of going through the political review process. We need to take
a good look at the whole area north of town. This is a major application.
Lopp is in the same position. It was zoned light industrial, because that
is what it was when we did the 1986 master plan. I would feel more
comfortable if this were a proposal for the entire property. What is going
to happen to the intervening property between this and the college? I
think this is a good proposal, but I have concern with the timing of it.
We are doing the same thing to ourselves that we did when we zoned
Evergreen commercial on each side of the road without paying attention
to property lines.
Kennedy asked Lopp if he would prefer to see a proposal for the entire
industrial area zoned commercial?
Lopp replied that he would like to see the proposal. As I see it now,
22
with 20 acres of a 40 acre industrial park, I am on the horns of spot
- zoning. I think there is enough of a case there to go to court. I would
rather see a clean proposal that we can accept dealing with the whole
area. With the B-1 zoning on the corner, we were discussing the issue of
spot zoning. It is clearly spot zoning, but it wasn't challenged. Let's
look at that intersection, at what is going to develop in that area and
make sure that what we do with the master plan is appropriate for that
now, and 10 years from now.
Kennedy suggested that since we are in the midst of reviewing the master
plan, and inasmuch as we do have property owners that have made
application, if we see some merit in addressing it, we could table this
issue, for a month. If this is the area in question, pulling that industrial
area out, and looking at whether or not commercial is appropriate.
Hash stated that we will review this entire area in the course of our
general planning update, which we are now doing.
Conner noted that if it hadn't been grandfathered in when the zoning was
initially done, we probably wouldn't have supported industrial either. We
are in a transition period, and I think it is critical that we look at that
entire area.
Kennedy persisted that we table this and send it back to staff to review
this entire area and bring us back another report, next month.
Hash did not agree. The master plan update, will take time, because we
are looking at the bigger picture. When we have looked at that entire
area, and considered, through public comment, whether or not at the
close of that industrial use, it should then revert to commercial, or
another designation. We need to get some sort of plan with which to
plan with, not react to these individual requests. If we start tinkering
with this before we have addressed the whole thing, we have again
committed a portion of the master plan to this designation prior to
completion of the update. It is a knee jerk reaction without having a
bigger picture with which to work with. We do not have a neighborhood
plan concept, as we have encouraged in other areas, so that there is
orderly growth. At this point, the people who purchased in Country
Estates knew that Nupac was there, but they certainly didn't expect a
100,000 square foot shopping center. They are entitled to their input, in
the general updating process. When the update is completed, it may well
be that this application fits in. We need to give everyone the opportunity
to address the changes that have happened, as opposed to doing it at the
request of one owner for his sole benefit.
23
CBrenneman concurred with Lopp's observations about both the staff
-- report and about the appearance of impropriety. I think we should have
done better. However, he did not want to send the report back to staff
to rewrite.
Motion Conner moved to adopt report #KMPA-97-1 as findings of fact, with the
recommendation that the County Commissioners and City Council deny
the proposed master plan amendment, at this time, from industrial to
commercial, because it does not comply with the objectives and goals of
the master plan. Lopp seconded.
Further Discussion Kennedy wanted to make a final note that the property is currently zoned
industrial. It will not preclude development from happening on that
property. We now have a willing owner that wants to annex into the
City of Kalispell and chances are, will proceed with other development of
that land. I hope that it is not a class III landfill. That is a possibility
with the way it is currently zoned. We could put an Ernst, an Eagle
Hardware, Consolidated Freightway, industrial waste site, class III
landfill, any of those things could go there under the current zoning. I
am disappointed that the city can't benefit from what I see this
development being.
�J Hash responded that when the Director of the Planning and Development
goes thumbs down on this proposal, it should be interesting.
Roll Call Vote On a roll call vote on the motion to deny the proposed master plan
amendment Conner; Johnson, Lopp, Brenneman, and Hash voted aye.
Kennedy and Sanders voted no. The motion passed on a 5-2 vote to
recommend denial of the requested master plan amendment.
PACK AND Hash introduced the subsequent request by Pack and Company for
COMPANY annexation into the city of Kalispell and initial zoning for 20.657 acres
ANNEXATION near the southeast corner of Highway 93 and Reserve Drive. The subject
AND ZONE property requested for annexation and initial zoning of B-2 can be
CHANGE / FROM described as 20.657 acre portion of Government Lot 1 located in the
COUNTY I-1 TO NW4 of the NW4 of Section 31, Township 29 North, Range 21 West,
CITY B-2 P.M.M., Flathead County.
Staff Report Wilson gave a presentation on report #KA-97-1. Based on evaluation of
the statutory criteria for a change in zoning, it was staff perception that
this request does not further the goals of the master plan nor does it give
adequate consideration to the character of the area, or the particular
suitability of the property for the proposed use. Staff recommended that
should City Council annex this property, that the initial zoning be I-1,
�> Light Industrial.
24
President Hash noted for the record, that Mr. Lopp had to leave,
however, there is a quorum present, so the public hearing can proceed.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the proposal for
annexation with initial zoning of B-2 upon annexation.
In Favor Jim Lynch, the applicant, stated that his testimony is the same as for the
master plan amendment. I still think the staff report is misleading and
concur that the information I gave you previously would pass on to this
one.
I would like to point out that there was talk about Buffalo Commons. It
was not an industrial site, and was asking for a more intense use than
what it was being used for. We are talking about an industrial piece of
ground being changed to commercial. It would be far more appealing to
the people of Country Estates. This is not spot zoning, as it is already
zoned. You are not going out to an unzoned area or taking a zone that
has a more intense use. There is a big difference. I speak on behalf of
the Kalispell residents and tax payers. I do not understand that to rezone
this to a business zone is an adversary position to take. It does not make
any economic, environment or benefit sense for Kalispell and the
surrounding area. It is without a doubt, the biggest improvement you
can make on that piece of ground. I would hate to be forced to develop
that as an industrial piece of ground. What is there is the best that it will
be as industrial. That is not a recommendation that I would be making to
the citizens of Kalispell and Flathead County, that that is what you want
for the entrance into town. We have made a forthright, upfront request.
We have not hidden anything. We were willing to provide the needed
services and said we wouldn't put that burden on the taxpayers.
It makes sense to provide services that are much needed for the students
at the college who have to go miles to accomplish anything. It makes
sense to the City's involvement with a sports complex. Where are these
people going to go to get the commercial needs that they are going to
need as that piece of property is developed. It also provides needed
service to the many subdivisions being proposed.
David Riddle, with ReMax, and a resident of west valley, has worked
with the particular buyers for this property. The economic planning
director said that there is 60 acres of commercial property in Kalispell,
however, there is none in large tracts. The reason why everything went
out to Evergreen, is not because of water and sewer, but because there
CU were large tracts of commercial ground. This is the same type of
development that will go out there, except Kalispell will benefit from the
25
0 taxes, that we didn't get when we opened up Evergreen. The Gateway
West Mall is a priority for Kalispell, as it should be, but on the free and
open market, that property is not for sale. It is only for sale with the City
of Kalispell. Why? For whose benefit? A private landowner. In the real
estate community, I know that there was bona fide free market offers to
purchase that mall, and they did not take advantage of those offers. We
cannot make them buy where they do not want to be. We are offering
the same tax base with this project, and are asking nothing in return from
the city or the taxpayers. That is what the free market society is all
about.
Thor Jackola, said that their primary business in the engineering
profession is commercial activity. We try to do it judiciously, properly,
with honesty, and straightforwardness. There seem to be some
extraneous factors coming into the mix of decision making, that may be
selfish. It is simple economics that the need creates the means. I have no
opposition to the Gateway West Mall succeeding tenfold, but I can't
understand why this project has such a negative atmosphere around it.
Harry Hall, real estate broker, spoke in favor of the request. I would like
to say something about the Gateway West Mall and the people I
represent. I showed them the property at Gateway West Mall, and they
wouldn't take the property if it was given to them. Gateway West Mall,
in my opinion, is a dead deal. I know the city is involved with a $2
million revamp of that mall trying to save it. I am in favor of the deal on
Highway 93.
Chris Jackola, felt compelled to say that it is our generation that is
stepping into the shoes in this community, and what I witnessed here is
beyond words. It is what makes our generation writhe in disgust at
what's happened to government. There are no immediate neighbors who
have spoken in opposition to that proposal. The opposition from the city
has come strictly from the self interest of the city, which is trying to use
taxpayer backed financing in order to push people into developments. As
long as I have lived here, Gateway West Mall has been a place where
people have gone broke. People locate where economic necessity dictate
they locate. My ability to exist here is completely dependent on things
moving in a progressive and sensible manner, being looked at objectively.
Everything in the report is fallacious. We voted down the master plan.
It is an endless political quagmire of which the people who suffer are of
my generation who need jobs, the city who needs tax base that is not
being taxpayer financed. It makes absolutely no sense to table this on the
basis of some phantom master plan that has absolutely no structure to it,
when the structure of what is trying to be done here is very methodical. I
work for Tidyman's. They will probably be a competitor. I understand
26
that when it comes to business, particularly grocers, it is a matter of
traffic count. I know the grocery business requires 97% of average sales
in order to break even. Tidyman's picked their location, and took
advantage of tax increment financing. When there are economic factors
that are dictating that something occur there, and the landowner is
willing to take the economic risk to promote the community and expand
the city, it is disillusioning what happened tonight. The conflict of
interest here is public interest versus private landowner. It is appalling to
see that acted out without any judicious, actual, sensible discussion.
There being no speakers in favor of the specific proposal, the public
hearing was opened to those opposed. No one spoke in opposition. The
public hearing was closed and it was opened to Board discussion.
Board Discussion Conner restated that he agrees that commercial use is better than
industrial use in that location. However, the magnitude of this proposal
and the fact that we are in the planning process, to do it in an orderly,
progressive manner seems to be the best decision. To continue through
the process that we have already activated to update the city -county
master plan. I feel that is in the best interest of the public overall, to go
through the process.
Hash stated that I don't think any of us has to justify, in face of
somewhat heated and pointed comments, the decisions we have made
tonight. We have stated our positions. All is subject to review by the
County Commissioners and City Council, who are the ultimate decision
making bodies.
There was discussion on the application to annex with the request for an
initial zone of B-2, that based on the decision to deny the master plan
amendment the zone is clearly in conflict with the master plan.
Johnson commented that he. wasn't impressed by staff, he wasn't
impressed by Larry, he wasn't impressed by Jim. I am not in favor of
spot zoning, and in my way of thinking, we have created two spot zones
— a commercial and an industrial. All the rhetoric, and threats, and
statements that they are losing money, was not impressive to me. We
have a big enough mess with a hole in the ground. I don't think 20 acres
is the answer, 40 acres isn't an answer.
Brenneman asked if residential development was possible after a gravel
pit is done. Had this been a request for a subdivision with a lake in the
middle, I think the report would have been much different.
Jim Lynch answered that it is difficult to say what generally goes in after
27
a gravel pit. You have to look at the land and what it can be converted
= to. My only legal requirement is to slope the sides 1 to 1 and seed it. In
farming communities, gravel pits are just left as holes in the ground.
There are examples of gravel pits being converted to grocery store
shopping centers. They can be filled with water and become lakes. The
quickest, easiest thing to do is to keep it as an industrial use. But, I live
in this community, too, and is that what we want. I have to make
economic choices that are viable.
Kennedy could not agree to adopt the staff report as findings of fact.
It was noted for the record that Bob Lopp returned to the Board. He
stated that his absence was necessary and will vote "present".
Brenneman was not in favor of annexing the property as I-1, Light
Industrial.
There was discussion on the legal issues of spot zoning and zoning
contrary to the underlying master plan, in light of the action taken to
deny the master plan amendment from I-1, light industrial to B-2, general
business.
OMotion Conner moved to adopt report #KA-97-1 as findings of fact and forward
a recommendation to the City Council that should this property be
annexed, the initial zoning be I-1, light industrial. Johnson seconded. On
a roll call vote Johnson, Brenneman, Conner, and Hash voted in favor.
Kennedy and Sanders voted no. Lopp voted present. The motion
carried on a 4-2-1 vote.
OLD BUSINESS There was no old business.
NEW BUSINESS The first item under new business was a presentation on the creation of
the West Side Urban Renewal/Tax Increment Finance District.
Staff Presentation / Wilson gave a detailed overview of report #KRD-96-3. Staff
West Side Urban recommended the Planning Board find that the proposed West Side
Renewal Plan / Tax Urban Renewal Plan and tax increment finance district furthers the goals
Increment Finance of the Kalispell City -County Master Plan and the North Meridian
District Neighborhood Plan and recommend that City Council proceed with the
public hearing process. Public notice will be sent to all the property
owners in the area, and March 3rd is the public hearing date.
Larry Gallagher, Director of Planning, Economic and Community
r — Development, was available for questions.
28
(� Questions Larry Gallagher explained the West Urban Renewal projects and goals,
and the reasons for incorporating the, properties included in the
boundaries. He answered Board's questions. We are hoping that the
success of the Kalispell Center, is a clear signal to those wishing to invest
in Kalispell, that this is a retail core from Main Street to Highway 2.
They are being pulled in many directions, right now.
Presentation Richard Mendenhall, developer of Gateway West Mall, Salt Lake City,
gave a presentation on the project they are involved in. It is a very
complex project and involves multiple properties and owners, and looks
like it has the potential to come together. Larry has accurately profiled
some of the key issues.
It will be more expensive to develop the same property in that location
than it would be in an alternate setting on the edge of town or in the
county. My first choice when I came to Kalispell was to go to one of
these easy, no problem, nothing on the land, just stake it out and start
building type sites. But, I was convinced after reading the North
Meridian Neighborhood Plan and the Kalispell City -County Master Plan,
that the interest of the community was such that it compelled a serious
effort to see if we can't regenerate some of these areas, rather than create
additional competition. I do not believe that the model that has evolved
O in Evergreen is to the City of Kalispell's best interest, nor do I think it
works to the County's best interest. If you leave it to a tenant, they will
always say "I'm the reason the people come here. I want all the
exposure, all the benefit, and all the signage, I don't care about anyone
else." So, the more of those you have lining up adjacent to each other,
the less attractive the end product will be.
At the Gateway West Mall site, presently, what we are talking about in
the form of participation and the public/private partnership in tax
increment financing, is only utilizing that increment that which we
generate and can support, Therefore, it shouldn't work to the detriment
of any of the neighboring properties. There is absolutely conclusive
analysis that suggests if we infuse millions of dollars of new capital in
here, it will have an impact on adjacent property values. It will have an
impact on demand for adjacent properties, and there is where you get the
enhanced benefits and value of generating revenues that you can address
broader public issues with. Our request was for the 39.5 acres.
You have started something very meaningful, here. I just participated in
a week long session analysis in Salt Lake City as the mayor is looking to
host the 2002 Olympics. What we heard over and over, was the
character, the very core of the community is in these old business
districts. You have taken a step to regenerate that with your tax
29
increment urban renewal projects. The ability to link it to a potential 93
bypass, the ability to keep that focal point of the retail trade and the
economic growth of the community focusing back into the center of
Kalispell and core of the City, consistent with other cities, will have a
dramatic effect on your economic profile. We have made our proposal
with a degree of ambiguity as to what the end product will be, because it
depends on what the tools are that are available to use. It depends on
whether we will be able to do some things with the 39.5 acres or be
limited to 15 acres. In any event, it will be better than what is there.
We were faced with the prospect of appealing taxes, again, last year.
Our analysis suggest we could reduce the aggregate taxes by another $3-
3.5 million. We did not do that, because it seemed to fly in the face of
what we are trying to accomplish, and suggested that we are profiteers
rather than working in conjunction with the community and in the
interests of the community. We are looking to define the property to
decide which tenants are appropriate. We expect to start development
activity shortly after the creation of the urban renewal area. In every
instance where we have done this before, we are obligated to guarantee
the performance of those bonds to the extent that they are not able to be
fully supported by the tax increment. We take significant financial risk,
but, those are the things that, I think, will produce the best product.
Mendenhall commented that they are not asking for, nor do we anticipate
a need for condemnation. We think these things only work best when
they work in a way that everyone can come to amiable conclusions.
Hopefully, it falls within the parameters that have historically been
acceptable to the Council and the community.
Board Comments and Kennedy felt it real important to mention that his request for 39 acres,
Questions but he, too, is in concurrence that in his past experience in other areas,
that to broaden the area to a larger area would benefit the community, as
a whole, and that development will happen outside his development,
because of this development. But, his development will support the
bonding for the tax increment to develop the infrastructure.
She went on to explain the enlargement of the boundaries. She indicated
that the P-1 land which is PP&L, is not really public land, it is an
industrial use. Including that in this proposed tax increment district
would give opportunity to use TIF dollars to get that road rebuilt for
development in that area, including all the way up to Highway 93. One
major thing, is the storm water drainage. If we don't have the availability
to help by utilizing some tax increment dollars, the only way to solve that
problem is to create an SID. I don't believe the residents in that area can
Uhandle that cost, nor should they be expected to.
30
Lopp expressed concern about promises that don't deliver. People get
cynical with government for those reasons.
Motion Conner made the motion to adopt report #KRD-96-3 and that the
Kalispell City -County Planning Board finds that the proposed West Side
Urban Renewal Plan and the proposed tax increment finance district
furthers the goals of the Kalispell City -County Master Plan and the North
Merdian Neighborhood Plan and recommend to City Council that they
proceed with the public hearing process. Kennedy seconded. On a roll
call vote all members present voted in favor. The motion carried 7-0.
Kalispell City -County Steve Kountz reviewed what they are doing with the background
Master Plan Update research portion of the master plan update.
Kennedy asked if the north end will be addressed in the master plan
update?
The Board will have to addresses how you want to see future land use
patterns to look across the planning jurisdiction, and how you want
Highway 93 North to look. There were several interesting issues
brought up by agencies, for the future of the area. He asked for direction
from the Board on how to proceed with the policy and public hearing
process. A memo was sent on that last September with suggested format
for how to proceed with policy development. Alternatives from 6-7
different communities, were suggested and that needs to be discussed.
and decided upon.
The Board discussed how and when to work on the master plan. It was
agreed to start the March meeting at 6:00 p.m. to hold an hour work
session before the regular meeting.
Kennedy wanted to make a statement since the media had left, because I
don't like to be negative towards staff. My overturning reason for
deciding to sit on this Board tonight, is because I wanted to be involved
in the discussion process when I learned that the application submitted by
Pack and Company was delivered to FRDO and was told, before it was
even looked at, that it would get a negative recommendation. I don't
believe that is giving anyone a fair evaluation. With the review of the
findings of fact of both the master plan and zone amendment, and seeing
that there was not anything positive in there, and when I reviewed the
master plan, I could find things that are in conjunction with it. It
appeared to me that there was not a true review of that development,
master plan amendment or the zone change. I wrote what I said to speak
from the podium, but I would not be able to enter into discussion with
31
this Board, and I felt it important that I enter into discussion. I wanted
to share my feelings and my opinions with regards to this project, and
how strongly I feel that it is for the better good for the City of Kalispell.
Not for Pack and Company. That was my determining factor. I didn't
want to say anything negative about the staff in front of the media.
Joint Meeting with The next item under new business was a request by the Planning Board
Planning Board and for a joint meeting between the Board and City Council to set policy
City Council issues. Wilson asked for specific direction to provide a framework for
discussion.
It was suggested that topics include issues with the development of
Evergreen, and Council's perspective on avenues for the community that
would be relative to the master plan update.
Kennedy agreed that this Board should know how the Council feels.
This Board wanted a meeting to talk about issues of importance.
However, I don't know whether it would be beneficial time to have a
meeting with Council, as there is no consensus in the City of Kalispell .on
any direction on anything_
U The Board decided to wait until after the legislature is out of session
before scheduling a joint meeting with the Council.
ADJOURNMENT There being no other topics for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at
1:15 a.m.
d�,I - "-- I
Therese Fox Hash, President tel
Ontko, Recording Secretary
e
APPROVED: 6w 1 j
32