Loading...
06-09-98KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING JUNE 9, 1998 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 6:00 p.m. Board. members present were Jean Johnson, Rob Heinecke, Milt Carlson, Walter- Bahr, Joe Brenneman, Therese Hash, Don Hines, Gregory Stevens, and Don Garberg. The Flathead Regional Development Office was represented by Narda Wilson-, Senior Planner. There were approximately 100 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF The minutes of the meeting of May 12, 1998 were approved as written MINUTES on a .motion by Bahr, second by Carlson. PACK AND CO. & The first scheduled public hearing was introduced on a request by VALLEYDOME Jackola Engineering for Pack and Company and ValleyDome L.L.C. for MASTER PLAN an amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan from AMENDMENT / "Industrial" to "Commercial". The property proposed for the plan amendment is approximately 60 acres located on the southeast corner of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. Staff Report Wilson gave a presentation of report #KMPA-98-1. In evaluating the proposed plan amendment, consideration was given to the .circumstances under which the request was made, which would justify approval of the amendment, as well as in the context of whether the overall goals and objectives of the master_ plan were being served. After a brief review of the issues involved, staff made a three-part recommendation that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission (1) adopt staff report #KMPA-98-1 as findings of fact and adopt resolution 9KMPA-98-1, including Attachment A; "The ValleyDome Development Plan"; (2) forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council and County Commissioners to adopt the goals and policies outlined in "The ValleyDome Development Plan'; and (3) recommend to the Kalispell City Council- to require a PUD as a zoning designation for the ValleyDome development upon annexation that incorporates the goals and objectives of the plan. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the application. Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 1 of 22 In Favor Jim Lynch, representing Pack and Company, owners of the subject property under consideration for a master plan map- amendment. The land is currently in -an industrial use, and the request is for a map amendment for a subsequent request for a zone change. He proceeded to explain the ValleyDome development proposal with visual displays. Max Battle, attorney representing ValleyDome L.L.C., objected to staff recommendation. That is not what the ValleyDome group has asked for. This report is asking you to apply spot zoning, because it envisions a plan for this site. That is not the legal procedure. We are seeking your approval- for a master plan amendment, and then, if approved; we come back and ask for zoning, at which time, all these things would be addressed. Because, the Board and the public have many questions, he proceeded through the excellent questions that came out in the newsletter from Citizens For A Better Flathead, and addressed each one, at length. For the complex to be economically feasible, we need the income and economic benefit that will be derived from the 35 acres of commercial development. That is where the money comes from for the development of the Dome. We have done our studies and feel the project is- viable based on the sale of the retail. He extolled the virtues of a privately Ofunded facility versus -a publicly funded complex. There is no guarantee that the sports complex will come to fruition, however, we think the project is viable. As to commercial strip development, there is no reason that if you allow this commercial change at a major- inter -section, that it will be allowed all the way north on the highway to Whitefish. There is zoning already in place along the highway. The reason we are here is to get a map, amendment. Without it, this project is dead. To tie any zoning or PUD process to the map amendment at this time is legally wrong and totally inappropriate. If the staff wants to build this project, then we will give them the benefit of what we've got and they can get the funding to build this project. The PUD concept just won't work. It is economic disaster because of the time line. He submitted a resolution that he drafted which they feel is appropriate. President Hash reminded the Board that the issue for consideration must be the appropriate designation of this property, in a void of whether or not the proposed complex goes in. The application submitted was necessarily vague, and staff has provided a more specific concept. I �1 Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 2 of 22 don't necessarily agree to whether or not it is legally or procedurally correct. Pers Storli, Kalispell, has lived here for over 60 years, and competition is good for businesses in Kalispell. Sydnee Hill, 720- 2nd Ave West, Kalispell, feels the project would benefit FVCC, and the commercial property and sports complex would bring tremendous amounts of money into the valley. It will be privately funded and will be a great asset to the area. Winifred Storli, pointed out that in Kalispell there is- very little for young people to-do, and I think that is one of the big problems with drugs and booze and so on. This is a very constructive way for young people to spend their time. Scott Coninger, President Of Flathead Cycle Riders, member of Montana Hotshooters, and Weapons Collectors Society. We are very interested- in staging events out here — indoor moto-cross, super -cross, trials and events. We are looking for a bigger facility to put on our gun shows; We need a place for kids to go and keep `em off the streets. Ray Brown, 1275 North Fork Road; is an avid skater and involved with " the hockey association, which is growing by leaps and bounds. I am in favor of this project. Russell Crowder, representing Montanans for Property Rights, addressing the issue of whether commercial zoning is- appropriate, I think what we have to ask is are the -regulations appropriate? In theory, they are to- represent what is best for our community. There is very little question that this project is seen as being good.for Flathead County. If the regulations stand in the way of that, then changing the regulations is appropriate. The question was raised about the State Lands to the west. The developers- already have an agreement with the State. In the PUD process, I heard nothing in there that zoning and subdivision regulations wouldn't address. I see the PUD as staff wants to do it, as simply trying to control the project, instead of letting the developers do it as they want. We ask that you not adopt the staff report, but recommend that the map amendment be granted as requested by the developers. Gene Boyle, School District #5 activities director, speaking on behalf of the school, supports the idea of ValleyDome. We think it would meet Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 3 Of 22 the needs of the school district, and bring in a lot of events. Rhonda Bailey, executive director for the Glacier Orchestra and Chorale, spoke about facilities that currently exist in the Flathead for performances of cultural activities. The Flathead High School auditorium has a seating capacity of about 800, and is the largest facility available for a concert. We feel that the ValleyDome project, as it is presented, with its auxiliary auditorium space will provide seating from 3,000-10,000, providing an opportunity for many organizations to sponsor significant entertainment activities, which will benefit the cultural life and economic life in the valley. Gilbert Bissell, 26 Stafford Street, read a -letter from the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce in support of the ValleyDome project. Of 550 members, 86% were in support of the multi -purpose facility. The letter was signed by Kim Moss, Acting President, and is part of the record. Gib Bissell spoke on behalf of himself, that when he attended the Which Way Kalispell meeting, it was significant that a civic center was. one of the highest _priorities. As -a motel owner, the tourist business has been declining and we need to get ways to attract more people to Flathead - Valley. I have been involved with several efforts to get a civic center built, and for 30 years there is a history of civic centers that haven't worked. This is the best answer we've had. It is privately funded and privately run, but the key to having that civic center is having the mall, I certainly hope it happens. There were comments that it would hurt the malls- downtown, but I think it will be the opposite. I think the civic center is exactly what downtown needs. Russ Linnell, 560 Parkway Drive, president of a sports promotion company called Promo, said we could bring many more sporting events into this ValleyDome, which would be a proven economic benefit to the area. I very much supportive of this. Dale Williams, District 1 County Commissioner, supports the project. The project should be given the opportunity, and latitude given to the developers to continue in a manner that will lead to a successful conclusion, not an impediment. One impediment I saw when I read the staff report. I think it inappropriate that a PUD be discussed at this juncture. Because of the lack of guarantees that are associated with this project is the reason the PUD should not be involved at this particular juncture, because a PUD gets into a zoning classification of which you Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 4 of 22 are really examining zoning at the current time. You are examining the necessity for a map amendment to the master plan that would allow this project to continue. In that regard, we should limit -that discussion, even though we are unavoidably linked to the concept that we have. It is still concept. It only becomes reality at the next step and at the next phase. Craig Scott, Whitefish; felt that this is a map amendment that is deserving. It is the first hoop this L.L.C. must go through. There are plenty of checks and balances that any of us will go through before, a project of any magnitude, especially one like this. Requests are about change, and change is often hard to stomach. When we looked at Highway 93 South, when I was on the Whitefish City Council, -our questions- were a lot like what we are looking at here — how much commercial development? What should -the entrance of our city look like? What traffic? We are a part of change. I see a similar situation here. There are safeguards with zoning already set up between Reserve and Highway 40. This map amendment will not lead to a rush of commercial zoning. I would hope that we could stick to the facts and leave the emotions at home. Pamela Kennedy; 1036 6t` Ave West, Kalispell; concurs -with everything that has been said about the ValleyDome project. However, we need to �) stick with the issue we have before us; which- is the commercial designation for area instead of the industrial. The map that was shown is the scar of the Pack and Company land that is there now. Fifty acres of an amazing hole in the ground. This is the entrance into the City of Kalispell, and I don't think anyone would like to see it remain that way for the next 25 years, and furthering the scar on the remaining acreage. The opportunity we have before us to do something with that land is appropriate. A viable project does mean there will be additional traffic. Right now the traffic there is heavy trucks. I sat on the highway advisory board for Highway 93 and everyone who sat on that board felt that it was appropriate for a .5-lane highway in front of the piece of land we are talking about, and will handle the commercial designation for the area. I believe the 54ane is there with the intent that it is appropriate for a commercial designation. There are least 5 easements there for access -on Highway- 93. The trucks can access the pit from one location, not from 5. The State Lands mentioned is not the piece next to Pack and Company, but the piece across the highway, which is currently agricultural, that the State of Montana will come forward with a request for commercial. I do not believe this is the case. The land is agricultural, is being farmed, it is in the West Side Zoning District that was zoned just Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June% 1998 Page 5 of 22 2 years ago that held up to a loud public outcry, keeping it as agricultural. Whether or not this will be competition for the city of Kalispell or Evergreen, since when is competition a bad word. Is that the job of this- planning commission? Is that the job of any government agency to deal with competition? I think the residents that live anywhere in that area would- much rather see something productive in the valley, that will bring additional revenue into the valley, rather than to continue for the next 25 years as a gravel pit, with the noise, and the air of a gravel pit. Opposition The public hearing was opened to those in opposition to the proposal. D 1��sv� Rhea , 670 Concord- Lane, I am glad I am here as a young person to defend some of the things that have been said about young people. I think our problems are more deeply rooted than not having a sports center. I went to Flathead High School and felt very suppressed by the sports activities and I feel- my education was overcrowded by it. I don't think a civic center and community center for sports is a bad thing, but I wonder what we mean by community if we are talking about WalMart and Kmart, as a place for families to be. I also disagree that Big Mountain is- a community place. None of my friends- can afford to ski there. We need to think about the beauty of the place where we live. I Ohave traveled- to- the east coast and the south, and this is the most beautiful valley I've seen, and I want to make sure we keep it that way, and keep- our individuality. Think about our community instead of just bringing in people to spend money here all the time. Donald-Bowe-,538 5t` Ave East, Kalispell, have been involved with hockey for 22 years. I am adamant about it, and have been involved with hockey in other communities where we have lived. But, we moved back to Kalispell because of the old historic downtown area. The heart and soul of a community is its downtown. I am not opposed to the concept of an arena, but I am concerned about rezoning to commercial that in spite of what I've heard tonight, would detract from the downtown core. Bill Breen, 335 Mountain Meadow Road, Kalispell, commented in opposition to the Kalispell City -County. Master Plan amendment as - proposed by Pack and Company and the ValleyDome Limited Liability Corporation. I was sad to hear that the Dome may never be built, because I am an enthusiastic supporter of sports. My main concern is that the public is not getting adequate information- to make an informed decision. For instance, if you tally the 21 letters sent out for comment Kalispell City -County Planning Board. Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 6 of 22 from the Regional Development Office, five were received. No response - was received from the city manager, who has disappeared. No response .was received from the police chief or acting police chief, the county sheriff, county road superintendent, county solid waste, power companies, and others. I don't think we can make an informed decision without important information from these agencies. There was a response from the Kalispell Director of Public Works, which was very noncommittal. To quote from- his- letter: "There will be substantial and - significant impacts on the City -and adjoining areas from this project. An analysis- of the City's existing utility systems is in progress at this time to determine -available capacities. It seems to be prudent that a decision or a recommendation be deferred until we get this analysis is complete. " Another important issue that the city attorney failed to address who- is- acting as the city manager, is whether the amendment affecting changes the land use classification from industrial to commercial. I understand this is a two tier process, and we are talking about a map amendment, but I think it would be real naive to disassociate that with the possibility that there is going to be change in the zoning. We have to consider if this could be interpreted as spot zoning. It is absolutely necessary. Another issue is the tax increment funding, and that question should be interpreted by the attorney, as to whether that is a viable alternative. The developers say they don't really need it, but I Othink they would like to have it. If the recommendation is for approval, I would endorse staff s recommendation that we use a Planned Unit Development process to give the public more time to respond intelligently, to give the public more detail, and so you and the public can made a more intelligent decision. Trudyt�L,728 Country Way, said she will be directly affected by the Dome, since I live across the river from this proposal. Most of the comments tonight were about the Dome, and there are no guarantees. They need income from the 35 acres in order for the Dome to be built. Once that 35 acres is built as a strip commercial development off of Reserve and Hwy 93, the Dome won't be built. The other issue is traffic on West Reserve. It is a two-lane, not 54ane. Traffic from Semi -Tool backs up past Country Way, and there could be 10,000 vehicles after an event turn out on West Reserve. Another concern I have is keeping the young people here working at minimum wage. I don't believe that 50 full time jobs, and 100 part time jobs, will keep our young people here. We need to deal with the issue that they wanted a strip development initially, and that is what we are going to end up with. As far as noise, I have lived with Pack and Company for 16 years, and I kinda like the Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 7 of 22 gravel pit. I don't want the kind of noise from a rock concert or a moto- cross race, etc. Coleen Sample, 1413 bt` Ave East, Kalispell, opposed to the rezoning of this property because of what is proposed. I think the idea of a civic center is great, but I think we have to be very clear. Often, we have people come in with sales ideas that are a cure-all. We need to look at our community. The size of our community and the growth at this point, doesn't support this. I am from Seattle, and they are being held hostage for two sports centers. We need to think about what happens when it doesn't work. There are too many uncertainties. Lex Blood, 844 P Ave East, Kalispell, agreed with most of the concerns of the previous speakers in opposition. There are two issues here. One is the Dome — a civic center, a sports center — it is very vague. It seems to be whatever people wish it to be. There is a high degree of uncertaintly relative to the purpose for that structure. The concept of a civic center has been discussed, and is a valid one for the valley and certainly necessary. From that perspective, I would support it, but not this particular proposal. The real issue is the matter of commercial sprawl, along Highway 93. The concept of protecting the downtown of Kalispell as a viable area is very important. I am sure most of you remember the angst we went through 15-18 years ago, when there was a proposal for a mall at what is now the medical complex. We had all kinds of wonderful plans for that. Fortunately, that did not come to pass. Kalispell Center Mall was built, and has been a significant addition to the downtown. Frankly, as I listen to the proposal such as we just heard, I am taken back to my days in the mining industry when a promoter would come in and tell us that if we didn't decide something right now, we are going to lose the whole thing. As a citizen of this area, I don't like that. I have many years invested in this community, and I think that if this is a viable proposal, it will stand the test of time. I believe the citizenry of this area has the right to be a part of this decision making process. This is not just the private sector deciding what is right for us. We have a right to be a part of that process, because we are being asked to amend the master plan that was developed for this community. Elaine Snyder, 540 Country Way South, lives directly across the river from Pack and Company, and I am opposed mainly because of noise. I am used to the noise from the industrial area. This proposal would greatly compromise our neighborhood and all neighborhoods in the area, because of traffic and noise from the Dome. We can listen to concerts UKalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 8 of 22 (� now, that are held at FVCC, and we can hear the races at Raceway Park, because the noise reverberates off the river. Dale Luhman, 169 Trail Ridge Road, Kalispell, representing 107 homes in County Estates subdivision, opposed this proposal for a commercial designation on the land at the corner of Highway 93 and Reserve. He read his letter which is part of the record. Janata Goodman, 1275 Lower Valley Road, stated the issue of defending a stance of more commercial development north of town is a tough case to argue in favor of. People are supporting the Dome, and we need to remember that this zone change proposal is asking the taxpayers to accept much more than a simple zone change for a Dome or civic center. There are too many unknowns and variables that tag along with this request, that could prove to be very costly to the taxpayers, not only to our pocketbooks, but to our way of life in the Flathead. There is already a traffic flow problem which needs resolution. There is already plenty of rental space and commercial land available in the county. There is already a pull on the city to the east, so I see adding another hemorrage site to the north as not a solution. Gib Bissell mentioned when business owners and concerned citizens met last year Which Way Kalispell? I don't think in our minds we were asking the literal question Which Way Is Kalispell? We strongly supported a civic center concept, and we weren't supporting a mega commercial development north of town. Please help keep our city focused. Don't be beguiled by promises that are Dome dreams. Stick to the amendment issues as written, and not as some people wish them to be. Hope NoW, 1197 Montford Road, Kalispell, commended the first person who spoke who recognized that the beauty of the valley is something other than commercial development. The issue before you is whether to vote for a land use change. I say absolutely not. We have over 1100 acres of land zoned commercial, and I think that is sufficient. Support the master plan. Suzanne Brown, this is a major land use issue. I agree with what others have said, in opposition. The State Lands has hundreds of acres, and they have written that they are going to maximize their potential to develop. Buffalo Hill Commons is already zoned with 15.2 acres of commercial. This is enforcing urban sprawl when great chunks of the highway are developed. I question this as following the master plan which encourages in fill development and expansion of existing Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 9 of 22 (� commercial areas with existing infrastructure in place. Circumstances have not changed. This area was zoned to protect the agricultural, open and rural areas. I have a problem with the ValleyDome, which has L.L.C. behind it, which gives them personal financial protection if this is a bad idea, but what protection do the citizens of the valley have for their investments in infrastructure and services, that they are being asked to make. This is an opportunity for this Board to recognize what makes this valley unique. It is not commercial strip development. This should be considered in context of the overall plan. Mayre Flowers, Tally Lake Road, Whitefish, program director for Citizens for a Better Flathead, and our comments were submitted in your packet. Mayre Flowers went on to make her personal comments and concerns, which are submitted as part of the record. Mary Gibson, 505 6 h Ave East, Kalispell, has lived here for 35 years, and during that time there have been a number of enthusiastic proposals and fund raising for civic centers, sports arenas, and such, which would have been wonderful if they had materialized. I very concerned about overriding a well considered master plan to give carte blanche to commercial development absent of so many factors. It is real tempting to jump on the bandwagon, but that is not sound planning. Richard Hoffman, Whitefish, spent 3 1/2 years on the Solid Waste Board, and I have an idea what happens and how much money can be spent in the project that is being contemplated. I want to add to what the young woman said that it is demeaning to the education of our young people to think that a low paying, no end, no raise job, flipping burger for a commercial development or selling clothes to people who make more money than they do is a proper attitude for this community. I am an educator, and I feel that one of the problems we have in this community is going to be solved by proper nurturing of values, and not in creating big ticket rides that none of these kids can afford. The businesses mentioned that are going to go into this complex are going to be in direct competition with downtown. Competition is good, but this community is also contemplating a vehicle by-pass from the south of Kalispell that ends up at West Reserve. You are going to look at a commercial development on West Reserve Drive that has by-passed all of downtown. A truck by-pass is also a tourist by-pass so they don't have to deal with all the downtown traffic. A destination point at the end of the by-pass is Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 10 of 22 something to think about. There is no guarantee that the Dome. will be built, so maybe we need to think along the lines of keeping this land industrial and creating something that fits the zoning that will put the kids in this community to work. It is unfortunate that 18 million dollars is not being proposed to develop some type of industry or business opportunity that provides higher paying jobs, so that we can afford to go to other places and enjoy what they have, instead of everyone sitting here wondering if people from Calgary, Spokane or wherever, have the disposal income to decide to come to Kalispell, Montana to spend their disposal income. It would be nice if the people in this valley could support this because they can afford to go. A lot of people in this valley will not be able to afford to go the events at this Dome, because of the price of admission, the price of parking, and the price of concessions is going to be very expensive for a family. I would really like to see the Planning Board put some concerted effort into what we have on the table here, and hopefully make the decision without being pressured with a massive stick at the end of a whole bunch of carrots being held out to the public. Those carrots sure sound tasty, and I bet they are real orange, but I didn't like the stick on the end that said if we don't give these people what they want, then we are at fault. I don't believe that attitude goes with this valley. That is not why people live here. If this is truly a viable project, then even if the current funding drops out, there will be people standing in line, because they will want to make a buck. I urge you to go along with FRDO's recommendation. Diane Yarres, 725 Conrad Lane, is opposed to this change for the reasons already stated. Mark Schwaggert, agrees with what has already been said against this, and added that if this is such a good idea, then maybe it is also a good idea to move the fairgrounds out of town. There is a proposal to develop 126 acres out by the airport. Wouldn't it make sense that if we are going to have hockey teams coming in that they have easy access on and off the concourse directly to the facility? I am against the commercial development, because there is already a surplus of commercial in the county, and a strip north of town is aesthetically deplorable. There were no other speakers in opposition. The public hearing was closed and it was opened to Board deliberations, after a 10-minutes break. . Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 11 of 22 Board Discussion President Hash reviewed what is before the Board. Mr. Battle and the applicants have presented us with an interesting situation in that on the one hand, recognizing that what we have before us is a master plan amendment, and theoretically have submitted a proposal that they do not wish us to consider, at this point. They have indicated they are simply asking for a change to commercial, while on the other hand have given us, along with many members of the public, a great incentive to do this, which is the ValleyDome. Mr. Battle has conceded there is no guarantee the ValleyDome will be built. Bahr understands that the request was for a master plan amendment from an industrial designation to commercial. FRDO's recommendation that it be approved under a PUD. Mr. Battle has indicated that the adoption of a PUD may be illegal, immoral and not proper. Narda Wilson clarified that the staff has presented the Board with a recommendation to consider the master plan amendment as the "ValleyDome Development Plan". Part of the development plan includes goals and policies that would be incorporated into a PUD at a later date. Bahr went on to state that we have been put on notice by the Department of State Lands (DNRC) that whatever happens to this land will certainly influence their decisions on property across Highway 93. So, a master plan amendment may be more far reaching than originally thought of. Heinecke saw this proposal being blown into a full PUD. My concern is that this is the first public hearing on this, and there is so much information. I am spooked going along with the commercial designation without knowing a lot of the background and the particulars of how this is going to work. Carlson pointed out that what we are dealing with is a master plan amendment, and we have four new members on the Board not familiar with a master plan amendment. It is not a simple request. There are a number of things we need to review. The Kalispell City -County Master Plan is an official public document adopted by the Kalispell City Council and the Flathead County Commission. It is a policy guide to decisions concerning the physical, social, economic and environmental development of the planning jurisdiction. The essential characteristics of the Plan are that it is comprehensive, general and long range. Amending a master plan requires consideration of all of the elements of the plan itself, all the statutory criteria. My problem with the application is that it Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 12 of 22 did not show substantial compliance, nor does it comply with the update that is currently in process, and has been over the last 21 months. What was presented by the applicants and the proposed resolution on their original request would require findings of fact similar to the action of this Board on February 11, 1997 denying the request, subsequently confirmed by Council and Commissioners for many of the same reasons. My second conclusion is that the request is designed to allow a use which significantly differs from the prevailing use in the area; applies to a small area in the jurisdiction; and is designed to benefit only one landowner at the expense of the surrounding landowners, and thus, is in the nature of special legislation. Not only does this fly in the face of Little vs. Board of County Commissioners, but jeopardizes the development control process through "spot planning" which sidesteps the necessity of sufficient studies to further the Master Plan. That is what was behind staff's request for plans and studies to back up the contentions made by the proponents. I was taken aback by the thinness of the application and lack of documentation that normally accompanies serious proposals to this Board. The proposal for Buffalo Commons was so well put together, that we got spoiled. This appears to be a veneer, a thin layer, more like a promotional piece. It has great public appeal and sounds great on the surface, like any veneer, it has eager supporters to stand up and cheer. We are talking about the Master Plan, here. I thank staff for presenting a report which addresses the aims of the proponents along with the statutory requirements of a Master Plan amendment, in attempting to develop a rational process by which the interests of the public and the proponents can be reasonably balanced. We need to consider the Master Plan as a whole, which the application did not do. We need to consider the neighborhood as a whole, not just the acreage there, but the surrounding acreage, as well. Garberg is sympathetic to the circumstances that go into any development project. The developers have brought a tremendous idea and concept to our valley, which I think will be an enhancement that has a broad based support. Johnson commented that zoning and planning is not a function of regulating competition. Infrastructure is not built prior to development, but is built when needed by development. In 1950 I was a student representative on the committee to review the truck by pass. That same year, I bought a ticket to the Blacktail ski resort. As far as the proposal before us tonight, in my mind I feel that Mr. Battle took advantage of the situation. I am not talking about a Dome, I am talking about trading a Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 13 of 22 piece of land from industrial to commercial. Whether the Dome is going to make it or not is not my concern. Whether this change is good for the valley is my concern. The master plan was done years ago, and it needs to be reviewed. Hines said that he has lived in this valley all his life, and has seen many things- come and go. The master plan we are working with is definitely outdated. We are currently updating it, but it will take time. We need a lot of input from various factions. I've seen the city build its infrastructure and brag about the capacity for the sewer and water, and then- let Ever -green hook on to the city sewer- system, and they aren't annexed. Why should be continue to let the infrastructure be utilized and not reap the rewards? We need to do something for the area north of town, but we need to be more informed than what we have been presented with- tonight. We need to look at the project after we look at the zoning requirements. Stevens recapped that there is widespread, diverse support for this project. I feel it is an appropriate master plan change, and part of that is the support and benefit to the citizens of this County. It is a wonderful opportunity, if the County has the courage, to take advantage of this situation. In my opinion, what went out in the newspapers was a proposal to change the property from industrial to commercial and that's - what we should be looking at, but when I opened my packet, I'm looking at a master plan addendum called the ValleyDome project, plus a recommendation for a PUD. I think that is totally inappropriate, and Mr. Battle says it will kill the project. I don't see how the staff can change the application after the notice has been published. In my opinion the staff report is not findings of fact, it is findings of opinion, and is not under discussion. I want to consider the applicant's proposal, not FRDO's project: I think it is- totally appropriate- to change the master plan, because the circumstances have changed with this proposal. The comments I've heard from the opponents, there is an element of being anit-everything except bike paths and scenic vistas. The talk about time and studies- are delay tactics -to -kill- the project. If you vote for a PUD, it is a barb wire pit designed to cut these guys up. Brenneman stated that we like simple things, and I think some of the Board members are confused by their desire to make things simple, and boil it down to an obvious right or wrong. The presentation tonight has said that "it is obvious that if you change a few rules, then the valley gets a wonderful dome", and even those against, are in favor of a dome. The Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 14 of 22 question isn't the desire to have a dome. The issue is whether that land should be commercial in the hopes of getting a dome. I noticed in Mr. Wagoner's response to Narda's letter, he stated that we would need additional fire stations. It would have the effect of moving the fire protection from downtown to the suburbs. No where did we hear about how much it costs to build a fire station. I would guess that the developers will not propose helping to pay for that fire station. How much more taxes would be required to pay for additional police? I don't feel that we do have enough information. We've been given one side of the story and if everything works out, then that is what we get. If we look at the map at the existing commercial and not knowing who owns the land, I can't imagine putting 35 acres of commercial property north of Kalispell. However, we are well aware of what is being proposed, and we are deluding ourselves if we think that doesn't affect our decision. We need to narrow it as much as we can to considering if a commercial designation 1 1/2 mile out of Kalispell is appropriate. Narda Wilson commented on some of the questions that came up. First, that this was simply a request for a change from industrial to commercial. When you open the proposal submitted by the applicant it says `for the ValleyDome complex, a multi -functional sports and commercial center'. This proposal wasn't simply for a commercial designation. That wasn't what the staff evaluated. If the staff were to evaluate this proposal simply based on a commercial land use designation, we could not support that, based on the goals and objectives of the master plan regarding compact commercial development in existing commercial areas, where in fill and facilities are currently available, along with the economic extension of new services and facilities outside that core. The approach that we took in evaluating this proposal was right out of what the applicant submitted to us, in the developer's report. It talks about the complex, and says that `if a planned unit development is not requested, then they recognize that they need to go through the conditional use permit or variance process'. So, I think it is inaccurate to say that the staff has asked you to swallow `the FRDO plan'. This is not the FRDO plan. Everything in here is what the developer's have said they were going to do, which is to develop this complex, develop 35 acres of commercial that enhances the commercial core of Kalispell, that they would use interior road systems, that the pit would be reclaimed, and it would be pedestrian -friendly, landscaped, etc. That is what is in this plan and in the development proposal.. This PUD is a tool to move this forward and that is staffs recommendation. If staff were looking at 60 acres of commercial development, where a dome might be built, this Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 15 of 22 �> report would have looked a whole lot different, because, it defines sprawl, which is haphazard growth, usually of low density nature, previously rural, some distance from existing development and infrastructure. If we don't tie this to certain development plans, then that is what we are going to end up with. Sprawl is inefficient with the delivery of services, it costs taxpayers money, and has land use consequences that create a domino effect over a period of time. So, the approach we took, we felt was the only palatable way that we could present this to the Board and governing bodies as the only way that FRDO could support this proposal. We definitely do not support unregulated commercial growth at this corner. If we were looking at only 60 acres of commercial development on this corner, I would expect to see something in their report that dealt with transportation issues related to something of a general commercial nature, growth management objectives, extension of services, not tied to the ValleyDome. What was presented in the proposal is the ValleyDome. So, we are saying there are ways we can support the ValleyDome and ancillary commercial development with it. Now, I am hearing tonight that `no, we don't want to consider it as the ValleyDome, we just want a commercial designation'. Stevens asked Mr. Battle for clarification between the resolution he submitted and the resolution prepared by staff. Mr. Battle explained that FRDO's plan tells us to build the Dome first and the commercial second. It tells us how to build the commercial. They are the developer, telling us how to spend our dollars, and their recommendations are unworkable. If we wanted 60 acres of commercial, we would have asked for it. We need the economic development of the commercial development of the 35 acres to build the Dome. One is dependent on the other. FRDO is not a developer. We are developers. That is the difference. There is no guarantee the Dome will be built, but we wouldn't be here if we didn't want to build the Dome. President Hash asked Mr. Battle if he had any problems with the goals outlined in staffs Attachment A, which reflect the very same policies in your proposal. Mr. Battle answered that the problem we have is FRDDO telling us how this will be developed. Delay tactics will kill the project. Interest alone, at 10%, on the 18 million dollars, would cost 1.8 million dollars a year. I will not agree with what staff wrote. If you will take the Jackola report Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 16 of 22 and attach to the resolution, we would be happy. Hash clarified that the staff Attachment A lists statements and policies that refer to a PUD, but does not set forth a PUD. Motion Stevens moved to adopt resolution #KMPA-98-1 furnished to us by the developers, with the Jackola report attached as the findings of fact. Garberg seconded. Discussion on Motion Bahr stated that he could not support a master plan amendment given the letter from DRNC that says they will be looking closely at what we do tonight. I cannot vote for a master plan map or text amendment without a neighborhood plan for that corner. Stevens interjected that DNRC is going to do whatever they want regardless of what happens across the highway. They are charged by law to get the highest return on their property. I don't think they are subject to our zoning regulations, except as a matter of common courtesy. Hash discussed what could be recommended as findings of fact. Wilson clarified that she intended her staff report #KMPA-98-1 to be the findings of fact for the plan amendment, and the resolution with Attachment A, "The ValleyDome Development Plan" to be adopted as a separate document. The findings support the ValleyDome development plan. If you choose to make findings that support Stevens motion, you could delete the summary portion, adopt the findings in the report and the resolution presented by the developer, and recommend the Council and Commissioners adopt the master plan map amendment from industrial to commercial. Withdraw Motion Stevens withdrew his motion. Garberg withdrew the second. Restated Motion Stevens moved to adopt the staff report #KMPA-98-1 as findings of fact, deleting the summary clause, adopting the resolution #KMPA-98-1 as submitted by the developers, with a recommendation to the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners to amend the master plan map from Industrial to Commercial. Garberg seconded. Discussion on Motion Heinecke wanted to make sure that the Jackola report was part of the recommendation being forwarded. He wanted to amend the motion to include the Jackola report which sets forth design standards, etc. Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 17 of 22 Garberg seconded the amendment to the motion. It was pointed out that the Jackola report is already a part of the resolution submitted by the developer, and would be redundant to vote separately on this document. The members agreed it was a duplication. Heinecke withdrew his motion. Garberg withdrew his second to that motion. Roll Call Vote There was a roll call vote on the motion to adopt the findings of fact in the staff report deleting the summary and recommendation, and adopt the resolution submitted by the developer and changing the designation on the subject property from industrial to commercial. Garberg, Stevens, Heinecke, Johnson and Hines voted aye. Carlson, Hash, Brenneman and Bahr voted no. The motion carried 5-4. GLACIER VILLAGE The next public hearing was introduced on a request by Sands Surveying GREENS / PHASES on behalf of George Schulze and Duane Bitney for preliminary plat IX & X approval of Glacier Village Greens Phases IX and X which ctonain a total of 17 lots in the Glacier Village Greens golf course development located on the north side of West Evergreen Drive and east of Whitefish Stage Road. The property is zoned R-5, a Two Family Residential �) zoning district. Staff Report Wilson gave a brief overview of report #FPP-98-6, with a recommendation for approval, subject to 15 conditions. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened. Duane Bitney, the applicant, was in favor. No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed. Motion Bahr moved to adopt staff report #FPP-98-6 as findings of fact and recommend to the County Commissioners the preliminary plat for Glacier Village Greens Phases IX and X be approved subject to the 15 conditions. Brenneman seconded. On a roll call vote, the motion carried on an unanimous vote in favor. GLACIER VILLAGE The next item was introduced on a request by Sands Surveying on behalf GREENS PHASE VI of George Schulze and Duane Bitney for preliminary plat approval of Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 18 of 22 `1 Glacier Village Greens Phase VI, a 21 lot subdivision which is part of Glacier Village Greens golf course development located on the north side of West Evergreen Drive and east of Whitefish Stage Road, zoned R-5, a Two Family Residential zoning district. Staff Report Wilson presented staff report #FPP-98-5, with a recommendation for approval subject to 15 conditions. Public Hearing Duane Bitney was in favor. No one else spoke. The public hearing was closed. Motion Bahr moved to adopt the findings of fact in report #FPP-98-5 and recommend approval of preliminary plat for Glacier Village Greens Phase VI subject to 15 conditions. Johnson seconded. On a roll call vote, the motion carried on a 9-0 vote in favor. SEAMAN ZONE The next public hearing was on a request by Michael Seaman for a zone CHANGE / FROM change from R-1, Suburban Residential, to B-2, General Commercial. R-1 TO B-2 The property proposed for rezoning is located on the north side of East Cottonwood Drive and south of Montana Highway 35, and contains approximately 5.79 acres. (\ ) Staff Report Wilson gave a detailed review of report #FZC-98-2. The application was evaluated in accordance with the necessary statutory criteria, and the recommendation was for denial of the zone change from R-1 to B-2. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor In Favor Mike Seaman, the applicant and owner of Gregg's Homes, passed around an aerial photo of the property that shows the natural boundaries for the area to be zoned B-2. He also had 10 notarized letters from his neighbors saying that they did not object to the B-2 zone. One neighbor was opposed. Gregg's Homes was there 8 years before the zoning. When it was zoned, the property was arbitrarily cut in half with B-2 and R-1. He asked that the zone change be granted. No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed and opened to Board discussion. Board Discussion Stevens did not think that anyone in their right mind would build on the property that is in the 100-year floodplain. Parking mobile homes on it / Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 19 of 22 was probably the best use. Wilson replied that may be an appropriate use, however a commercial designation did not guarantee that would be the use in perpetuity. There are a number of other uses allowed in the B-2 zone that would require a floodplain development permit and connection to sewer service. Bahr agreed that it seemed appropriate to be zoned commercial. Brenneman recalled that a previous application in the area that had a split zone was approved. Wilson recalled that property was not in the 100-year floodplain, so this property has environmental constraints associated with it and does not have sewer readily available to it. I am somewhat confused, because if they are outside the RSID for Evergreen sewer, I am wondering if sewer will be available, and why Mr. Seaman had to go to the Council to ask for sewer connection. Brenneman asked why Seaman was seeking a zone change, since it appears that he has a permanent structure and has been utilizing the property for many years, as is. Seaman answered that he had just recently acquired additional property and found out, at that time, that the property was a split zone. There was further discussion on the situation involving this application. Most of the Board members felt that a commercial designation was appropriate for this property and discussed the findings. It would make the land more useable, there is good access off of Highway 35 and East Cottonwood, which would be adequate for commercial use. Changes to a use that would require more vehicle trips would be limited by high water table. Sewer is available. Motion Bahr moved to not adopt the findings in staff report #FZC-98-2, and recommend the request for a zone change from R-1 to B-2 for the property described, be approved, based on the findings that there is adequate highway access, sewer service is available, it is in character with the surrounding land uses, and would encourage the most appropriate use of the land. Hines seconded. On a roll call vote Hines, Bahr, Heinecke, Johnson, Hash, Garberg, Stevens, and Brenneman voted aye. Carlson voted no. The motion carried 8-1. Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 20 of 22 MACDONALD The next public hearing was on a request by Mary MacDonald for a zone ZONE CHANGE / change from R 5, Two Family Residential to B-2, General Commercial. FROM R-5 TO B-2 The property proposed for rezoning is located on the northwest corner of Cemetery Road and Highway 93 South and contains approximately 0.69 of an acre. Staff Report Wilson reviewed report #FZC-98-3. The application was evaluated in accordance with the necessary criteria and was recommended for approval. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor. In Favor Mary MacDonald was in favor. No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the request. The public hearing was closed. Motion Hines moved to adopt the findings of fact in report #FZC-98-3 and forward a favorable recommendation to the County Commissioners to grant the zone change from R-5 to B-2. Stevens seconded. On a roll call vote, the motion carried 9-0. KERZMAN ZONE The last public hearing was introduced on a request by Glenn and CHANGE / FROM Lorraine Kerzman for a zone change from R-1, Suburban Residential, to R-1 TO R-2 R-2, a One Family Limited. The property proposed for rezoning is located north of West Reserve Drive on the east side of Scenic Drive and contains approximately 4.7 acres. Staff Report Wilson briefly reviewed the application as evaluated in report #FZC-98-4 and recommended approval of the zone change. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the proposal. In Favor Craig Kerzman, 695 Scenic Drive, speaking on behalf of the applicants, in favor of the zone change. When this property was zoned, the character of the neighborhood was different and there were no public services available. There is property zoned R-2 adjacent to this property, and it would compatible with the neighborhood as it has developed. It would mean more houses in the area, more traffic on a dead-end street, and for that reason there are neighbors who are opposed to this rezone. I feel it is more appropriate to have this kind of growth near public �1 Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 21 Of 22 services, rather than spread out. He requested a favorable vote on the zone change request. No one else spoke in favor. The public hearing was opened to opponents. Opposition A letter was submitted from Bill and Beverly O'Brien, 688 Scenic Drive, expressing concern about the increased density and traffic on a dead-end street. They do, however, support the concept of in -fill development rather than new development, if done without compromising their quality of He. The public hearing was closed, and opened to Board discussion. Board Discussion The Board discussed the traffic situation on Scenic Drive, and conceded that it would be addressed under the subdivision regulations. Motion Carlson moved to adopt staff report #FZC-98-4 as findings of fact, and recommend the County Commissioners grant the requested zone change from R-1 to R-2. Bahr seconded. On a roll call vote the motion passed on vote of 9-0 in favor. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. OLD BUSINESS Under old business was discussion of a letter from Russ Crowder. Given the late hour, it was moved and seconded to discuss the matter at the next regular meeting. A Kalispell Master Plan meeting is scheduled for June 16t". Richard Hunt was hired as a facilitator for these meetings. There was no other old business. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. IAA Therese Fox Hash, President ?iAih Ontko, Recording Secretary APPROVED: aj� �d d,%9,N,dll�✓w��t Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of Meeting of June 9, 1998 Page 22 of 22