KGPA 24-01 regarding Applicant's amendments to doc 6197C Reject Public Comment from Dan and Ming MunzingFrom:Ming Lovejoy
To:Kalispell Meetings Public Comment
Subject:EXTERNAL Re KGPA 24-01 regarding Applicant"s amendments to doc 6197C Reject
Date:Thursday, June 13, 2024 11:15:09 AM
Attachments:6197C reject gp tronstad.pdf
[NOTICE: This message includes an attachment -- DO NOT CLICK on links or
open attachments unless you know the content is safe.]
Dear Honorable Mayor Johnson and Members of the Kalispell City Council,
We are writing to express our concerns regarding the recent amendment proposed to the City’s
growth policy, particularly concerning the Tronstad Meadows / Whitetail Crossingdevelopment and the inclusion of the proposed 110.5 acres.
As concerned citizens of Kalispell, we have followed the developments and discussionssurrounding this matter closely. It has come to our attention that the developer has made
changes to document 6197C Reject (see attached document and highlighted area indicatingrecent changes made which caused the June 3rd vote to be delayed an additional 2
weeks), could significantly impact the Council’s decision-making process and consequencesshould the Kalispell City Council choose to REJECT amending the growth policy in your
upcoming vote.
We understand the importance of these decisions not only for our immediate community
welfare but also for the long-term planning and sustainability of our city. We also believe thatthese decisions must be able to be made freely by the members of our city council without
creating an unintended and unforeseen legal justification or obligation on the part of the city ofKalispell.
Legal Concerns and City’s Position With the potential rejection of the proposal to amend thegrowth policy, question arise regarding the requirement for the City Council to provide a
statement of justification for their votes. This requirement prompts several legal inquiries:
1. Legal Obligations: What legal obligations does the City Council have to provide a
detailed justification for each vote against the proposed amendments? Is this standardpractice, or a new requirement introduced by recent developments?
2. Potential Liabilities: Could providing a detailed justification expose the Council or thecity to potential liabilities? For instance, if the applicant addresses the stated concerns
and reapplies, only to be rejected again, could they initiate legal action based on thereasons provided in the justifications?
3. Future Litigations: What are the potential legal implications for the City if thedeveloper decides to litigate based on the Council’s public justifications? Does this
requirement potentially trap the City into a position where every decision must bedefensively postured to mitigate litigation risks?
Request for Transparency and Guidance Given these concerns, we urge the Council toapproach this amendment with utmost caution and transparency. We also request that youreject the changes made to the document attached 6197C which requires that the city of
Kalispell cite the specific reasons you choose to reject the current amendment to the growthpolicy.
It is crucial that the legal framework guiding these decisions is robust and clear, protecting thecity and its citizens from potential future disputes and fostering a fair and transparent decision-
making process.
We invite and appreciate any clarifications the Council might provide about the necessity and
implications of having to provide detailed justifications for your votes. Understanding thelegal standing and the reasoning behind this requirement will be critical for maintaining public
trust and ensuring that our city’s growth is managed wisely and legally sound.
Concerns Over Influence and Legal Precedents
Furthermore, it is with grave concern that we note the potential undue influence of a singledeveloper in the amendment of our growth policy. Legal precedents suggest that it is both
unlawful and arguably unethical to amend a growth policy specifically to appease or appeal tothe interests of one party or developer. This sets a dangerous precedent, potentially
undermining the impartiality and objective governance expected in such processes.
The community (now over 600 signatures on a petition and continued and sustained public
outcry) is increasingly concerned that this hasty push to amend, annex, rezone, and approve apreliminary plat might not just be about development but about the city of Kalispell’s securing
access to valuable natural resources—specifically water—under the guise of growth,potentially at the expense of the community's broader interests.
We are FOR our community and in favor of the city of Kalispell securing access to water toserve our community … that is, when it’s done with foresight, care, and looking our for the
best interests of our community … which does not seem to be the case here.
The haste with which these amendments are being pushed, despite numerous unresolved
issues such as safety concerns, traffic, infrastructure inadequacies, and potential water rightsconflicts and water safety concerns, has left many residents feeling deeply troubled.
Our concern, and one shared my many who are watching this show unfold, is that the city isdoing everything it can to help the developer push these proposals through so that it can
benefit by gaining easy access to an abundant water source.
Please, Honorable Mayor Johnson, and members of the City Council, proceed with caution.
Conclusion and Call to Action
In light of these significant issues, we urge the City Council to prioritize comprehensive
environmental impact analyses, robust community input, and a transparent legal framework intheir decision-making processes.
We, the residents of Kalispell, trust that you will make decisions that reflect not onlyadherence to legal obligations but also a genuine commitment to the sustainable future of our
community.
We also encourage you to reject the changes made by the applicant/developer to the doc6197C. If the developer is seeking constructive feedback, we and the rest of the informed
public are more than confident that the city staff will continue to support them. It is more thatevident that the city staff has certainly “got their back,” has been working closely with them
for close to a year, is continuing to advise the developer, and is an excellent resource toprovide help and suggestions should the developer seek to remedy concerns and resubmit their
application and request in the future if the city council votes to reject it at this time.
We beseech you to look behind the curtain at what’s really going on here. Please slow the roll
on this well-orchestrated push to amend, annex, rezone, and approve a 380 lot subdivision thatwill not only create an island of “spot-zoned” relatively high density lots amid largely rural
and agricultural residential and farmland, but has NO contiguous property except 75’ on theback of a lot in Quail Meadows.
The businesses along the highway 93 corridor whose properties are contiguous to the proposedsubdivision are completely uninterested in being annexed to the city themselves. They’ve
expressed certainty that they oppose annexation and will choose to remain in the county anddo business from their SAG10 zoned properties. (More about that in my next letter or public
comment).
This proposal is completely fraught with problems … and by their recent amendment to doc6197C, appears to now be attempting to implicate the Kalispell City Council should youchoose to vote in opposition.
Please take a long hard look behind the curtain and vote wisely on Monday.
What is at stake here is SO much more than what appears at first glance.
Thank you for considering these critical concerns. We look forward to a resolution thatensures the best interests of all Kalispell residents and the future growth and sustainability of
our beautiful community is preserved.
Sincerely, Ming and Dan Munzing 213 Tronstad Rd. Kalispell
RESOLUTION NO. 6197C A RESOLUTION REJECTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE KALISPELL GROWTH POLICY -- PLAN IT 2035 FUTURE LAND USE MAP BY EXTENDING THE KALISPELL
ANNEXATION BOUNDARY AREA TO INCLUDE 110.5 ACRES MORE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 2A OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY NO. 21853, LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND THE WEST HALF OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 29 NORTH, RANGE 21 WEST., P.M.M., FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA. WHEREAS, pursuant to MCA 76-1-601 the Kalispell Growth Policy – Plan It 2035 was adopted by the Kalispell City Council on July 3, 2017; and
WHEREAS, Frank Garner and MT Seven Properties are requesting a growth policy amendment on approximately 110.5 acres located on the north side of Tronstad Road between Highway 93 North and Whitefish Stage Road, opposite of Sirucek Lane, and further described as Parcel 2A of Certificate of Survey No. 21853, located in the southeast
quarter of the northwest quarter, the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter, the
west half of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter and the west half of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 29 North, Range 21 West., P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2024, the Kalispell City Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the request in which it received numerous public comments and reviewed Kalispell Planning Department report #KGPA-24-01 that evaluated the proposal based upon the goals and objectives of the Growth Policy and current circumstances in the planning jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing and after consideration of the proposed amendment, the Kalispell City Planning Commission adopted report #KGPA-24-01 as findings of fact and recommended approval of the proposed Growth Policy amendment; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2024 the Kalispell City Council responded to the Planning Commission recommendation by passing Resolution 6193, a Resolution of Intention to Adopt, Revise or Reject a Proposed Amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy – Plan It 2035 and called for a public hearing to be held on May 20, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2024 the Kalispell City Council, after due and proper notice, held a public hearing on Frank Garner and MT Seven Properties’ request and received numerous oral and written public comments regarding the application and the Kalispell Planning Department report #KGPA-24-01; and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Council finds that it is not in the best interest of the City to amend the Kalispell Growth Policy – Plan It 2035 Future Land Use Map by extending the
Kalispell Annexation Boundary Area as recommended by the Kalispell City Planning
Commission, said proposed amendment consisting of including 110.5 acres of land in the Growth Policy for the following reasons: __________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That pursuant to Section 76-1-604, MCA, the Kalispell City Council hereby
rejects the amendment that was the subject of the Kalispell Planning Department report #KGPA-24-01 and recommended by the City Planning Commission to the Kalispell Growth Policy – Plan It 2035.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF
THE CITY OF KALISPELL, THIS 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024. ___________________________________
Mark Johnson
Mayor ATTEST:
____________________________
Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC City Clerk