KGPA-24-01.KA-24-03.KPP-24-01.KCC Meeting.5.31.24
Michelle T. Weinberg, PLLC
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1417, Missoula, MT 59806
(406) 314-3583
michelle@michelleweinberglaw.com
May 31, 2024
Sent via E-Mail
Kalispell City Council
201 1st Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
publiccomment@kalispell.com
Re: #KGPA-24-01, KA-24-01, and KPP-24-01: Tronstad Meadows/ Whitetail
Crossing Application
To: Kalispell City Council
This firm represents Sandy and Jeff Muller in the above referenced matter and submits
this letter in opposition to these matters and to explain the legal deficiencies with the application
and public process. My clients are joined by Brandon & Tammi Thornburg, Mary & Tony
Sisneros, Guy Foy, Larry Meilhargey, Rocky Williams, Kristen Grahn, Ming & Dr. Dan
Munzing, Roger & Sarah Boulch, Brian Kelly, Brenda & Thomas Oberlitner, and Danielle &
Steve Tuhy in their opposition.
First, as I explained in my May 20, 2024 oral public comment to this Council, my client’s
public comment dated May 3, 2024 was not included in the Council’s last three packets. As I
understand it, the numerous letters this Council has received since the Kalispell City Planning
Commission’s meeting have also not been included in subsequent packets. Here, the record does
not show the receipt, let alone the Council’s consideration, of these individual comments.
Moreover, excluding these public comments from the documents related to the above referenced
agenda items also means that the public has not had a reasonable opportunity to examine,
analyze and be informed by public comments or documents presented by their fellow citizens.
Such an exclusion violates the public’s Right to Participate, Right to Know, and Montana’s open
meeting laws.
Second, because the development proposal presents numerous public health and
safety hazards, the applicant’s request for a zone change and preliminary plat must be
denied.
Page 2
Pursuant to the zoning review criteria of § 76-2-304, MCA, #KA-24-03 is deficient
because the request does not substantially comply with the Growth Policy and the record
fails to show that the development is designed to: (i) secure safety from fire and other
dangers; (ii) promote public health, public safety, and the general welfare; and (iii)
facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and
other public requirements. To the contrary, the numerous public comments received by the
City prove that the deleterious impacts of increased vehicular traffic and to fire access, fire
and emergency services, water quality, school capacity, and bicycle and pedestrian safety,
etc. preclude the approval of the developer’s zoning request. See, e.g., Kalispell Planning
Commission Minutes (April 9, 2024). While the Staff Report seeks to dismiss these real,
specified concerns with conclusory statements, such statements are insufficient to
withstand judicial scrutiny under § 76-2-304, MCA.
Additionally, under the subdivision review criterial of § 76-3-608, MCA, KPP-24-
01 must undergo review for the “impact on agriculture, agricultural water user facilities,
local services, the natural environment, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and public health and
safety, excluding any consideration of whether the proposed subdivision will result in a
loss of agricultural soils.” As with the zoning request, the subdivision request is likewise
deficient due to the Staff Report’s failure to take a “hard look” at the impacts of a given
project, including the EA and § 76-3-608 criteria. Aspen Trails Ranch, LLC v. Simmons,
2010 MT 79, ¶ 54, 356 Mont. 41, 230 P.3d 808.
With respect to the subdivision request, the developer submitted a new Traffic Impact
Study after the Kalispell City Planning Commission meeting1 which, of course, constitutes “new
information or analysis of information” that was not “submitted as evidence or considered by”
the Commission. Mont. Code Ann. § 76-3-615; Kalispell Subdivision Regulations, pg. 15.
Because the public has not had a reasonable opportunity to examine and comment on this new
Traffic Impact Study and because the City Council cannot consider the new TIS at this stage of
the process2, the Council must deny the developer’s request for subdivision approval.
For these reasons, my clients respectfully requests that the Council deny the applicant’s
above referenced requests.
Thank you,
/s/ Michelle T. Weinberg
1 Rick Nys, P.E., a Principal Traffic Engineer, reviewed the TIS dated February of 2024 in a
letter dated April 9, 2024 and found it to be deficient and unreliable such that this Council
cannot rely on it to approve the developer’s request. Kalispell City Council Packet, pg. 503-511.
2 Section 76-3-608(4), MCA (“The governing body may not consider any information regarding
the subdivision application that is presented after the [public] hearing when making its decision
to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposed subdivision.”).
Page 3
MICHELLE T. WEINBERG, PLLC
Attorney for Sandy and Jeff Muller