MiscellaneousPr0PCrtiCS. Inc.
For Immediate Release
June 3, 2004
More Information Contact:
Grant Nelson (303) 759-8000
Spring Prairie Center To Be Home to Costco and Lowe's
60 Acre Retail Project to Open First Quarter of Next Year
(Kalispell, Montana) Spring Prairie Center today announced it has reached formal agreements with both
Costco and Lowe's that will allow construction on the 60-acre retail project in Kalispell to begin
immediately and for the opening of the two stores in the first quarter of 2005.
"This is a very exciting project," said Mark Goldberg, President of Goldberg Properties, Inc., the
developer of Spring Prairie Center. "We have enjoyed working with the DNRC and the City of
Kalispell to create a win -win situation that allows for sustainable development on this public resource.
Lowe's and Costco are excellent merchants who will bring quality stores to the Spring Prairie Center,"
Goldberg continued.
Founded in 1946, Lowe's currently has more than 950 home improvement stores in 45 states including
two in Montana (Missoula and Billings). Their store at Spring Prairie Center will be 118,000 square
feet. Overall in fiscal 2003, Lowe's has created more than 26,000 new jobs growing their workforce to
approximately 150,000 nationwide. 80% of Lowe's jobs are full-time positions.
Kalispell residents are familiar with Costco from its current successful location near the Kalispell
Regional Airport. The new Costco store will offer shoppers with significant additional space with the
new store planned for 136,000 square feet.
Spring Prairie Center development is located on the west -side of Highway 93, just north of Flathead
Valley Community College. The Department of Natural Resources (DNRC) issued a long term
commercial ground lease agreement in October of 2003. Spring Prairie Center is state trust land
managed by the DNRC and proceeds are distributed to Montana schools.
"The folks at the DNRC, Jeanne Holmgren, Tom Schultz, David Greer and others, along with numerous
city officials including Chris Kukulski and Tom Jetnz deserve a great deal of credit for working hard to
make this addition to the City of Kalispell a reality," Goldberg said. "The Flathead Valley is fortunate
to have such capable public officials and we at Goldberg Properties are proud to be a part of this
dynamic and growing community," Goldberg concluded.
Goldberg Properties, Inc. is a full service real estate company headquartered in Denver, Colorado with
over 20 years of experience building successful partnerships including with other national retailers
including Bed, Bath & Beyond, King Soopers, Kohl's, Office Depot, Office Max, and Petsmart.
---END---
EXHIBIT lA
FREE STANDING SIGN
SPRING PRAIRIE CENTER
DECEMBER 1, 2003
Presented for design purposes (materials, character, and architectural features) and not to
portray specific height or location on the property.
3
n.
i
MM*t -M v5 t EFlWtvf�
h
1NTCR}t aLY It,LVMIM1tPTLD pGtril,�li
SIbNA 8 IN DAtK 15"Mi?8 Mn--FN -•
yaHEz� SIDE CCUjM1L!S
e3u�
Y.
IT
p�lDua�.s SH•RuBs� gYGR6R?�NS � Fi,,ov,� 8(�
• ' 1
61
1 ;1' 11i
Background
Section 36 is a square mile of land located south of West Reserve Drive, North of Four
Mile Drive, east of Stillwater Road, and west of U.S. Highway 93 North. It is located
west of the NuPac facilities and Flathead Valley Community College. The alignment for
the proposed west side highway by-pass bisects the Section. All but 20 acres of the
property is School Trust land managed by the Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation (DNRC) for the financial benefit of Montana's public schools.
Approximately 25% of the property is under lease by the City of Kalispell for sports
fields. That portion of the property was annexed into the city limits and zoned "Public".
The remainder of the property is zoned "AG-80", which precludes most non-ag related
uses. Under Montana law, state-owned land is largely exempt from most land use
regulations.
In May 1998, the DNRC decided to embark on a neighborhood planning effort to identify
an appropriate development strategy for the property. The planning effort attempted to
link with the concurrent process to update the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. The
latter process stalled but DNRC proceeded with development of the neighborhood plan.
Following numerous public informational meetings and public hearings, the
neighborhood plan and supporting documents were approved (almost 2 years later) by the
Kalispell City Council and Board of Flathead County Commissioners.
Key Elements of the Plan
The Neighborhood Plan provides general policy direction for future use and development
of the property. The Plan anticipates 4 distinct land use pods. A mixed commercial pod
(NE 1/4) is anticipated between the highway and proposed west side by-pass. A mixed
professional pod, which precludes most types of general retail uses, is generally located
between West Reserve Drive and the proposed by-pass (NW 1/4). A residential pod is
located in the SW 1/4 of the Section, west of the sports field complex. The SE 1/4 of the
Section anticipates continued use for recreational purposes. The narrative portion of the
Plan sets forth performance standards to ensure quality development. Some policies
specifically preclude certain category of uses, including "strip" commercial, gambling,
and others. Landscaping and architecture control are important elements of the Plan. All
land use pods permit a range of alternative uses, including schools and agricultural uses.
Another key component of the Plan is a provision to comply with all local land use rules
and regulations, including zoning and subdivision regulations. [Except for the SE 1/4,
which is already annexed, the remainder of the property remains outside the city limits
and zoned AG-80] A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with local governments
also clarifies DNRC intent to have all future lessees pay real and personal property taxes.
Development Opportunities
The use of school trust land is subject to the approval of the Board of Land
Commissioners. Seldom are land sales authorized. Instead, it is the current policy of the
Prepared by D Greer, 12/18/00 Page 1 of 2
Land Board to lease land. All leases are subject to a competitive bidding process to seek
fair market value for use of the land. A recent request for proposals (RFP) issued by
DNRC resulted in a proposal by Hampstead Partners to develop a 60-acre business and
technology park. According to the proposal, up to 2,500 jobs could be associated with
the development. Payments to the school trust from lease of the property would approach
more than $234,000 after build -out of 2 proposed phases. Hampstead would also be
responsible for extending the necessary infrastructure to serve the development. DNRC
approved the proposal for further consideration by the city and evaluation under the
provisions of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). The project requires city
approval of annexation, zoning, and subdivision design. DNRC review would be limited
to analysis of impacts to the human and natural environment under MEPA.
Project Status
The viability of the project is also being influenced by a lawsuit filed against the DNRC
by Citizens For A Better Flathead (CFBF) and Montana Environmental Information
Center (MEIC). The suit alleges that the Neighborhood Plan should have been subject to
a MEPA analysis before adoption by the local governments. Additional court action by
the litigants has prevented efforts to proceed with annexation and zoning of the property
to be leased. The DNRC argues that MEPA analysis will be done as projects are
identified and any analysis done prior to that time could only be based on speculative
assumptions, leading to hypothetical outcomes and conclusions that may have no basis in
future reality. DNRC also believes that the outcomes to the annexation and zoning
processes must be known before a complete MEPA analysis is possible. So, pending the
outcome of Summary Judgment, the letting of a lease to Hampstead Partners for
development of a business and technology park is on hold. Based upon project timelines
identified by Hampstead Partners, the viability of the Park is at risk if court action isn't
resolved in favor of DNRC by February 2000.
Prepared by D Greer, 12/18/00 Page 2 of
Jc_ZY
�.
. G=z
i F:/
r �.°°°
The Honorable Marc Racicot
Governor of Montana r
P. O. Box 200801
Helena MT 59620-0801 n
Dear Governor Racicot:'
Representatives from the City of Kalispell will be attending the Land Board meeting on May 15,
2000. We are very interested in Section 36 and the MOU, in particular, and would like to
present the City of Kalispell's perspective on the issue. We are particularly concerned that the
viewpoints expressed by other interested parties may be improperly construed to be official city
policy or position.
Section 36 lies on the north end of the City of Kalispell. Approximately 25% of the Section is
already within the city limits and is occupied by a youth sports complex. A neighborhood plan
has been adopted for the entire section, which provides detailed guidance to the future use of the
property. The City of Kalispell is confident that the neighborhood plan represents an appropriate
long-term development pattern for the northerly growth of the city.
The development of Section 36 is critical to the development of Kalispell. Due to stringent
annexation laws, it has been difficult to extend the city limits into already developed properties.
Section 36 offers an opportunity to create an important mixed -use anchor to the city. We believe
the development of Section 36 in accordance to the adopted plan will accomplish several local
objectives, among which include:
• increased tax revenue from commercial and industrial development;
• Planned predictable growth patterns;
• Promotion of infill development and control of scattered growth;
• Efficient extension and provision of city services;
• Promotion of a pleasing entrance to the north end of Kalispell; and
• Creation and concentration of new jobs close to the urban center of Kalispell.
The City is confident that development of Section 36 will be a financial benefit, not a detriment,
to the existing taxpayers of Kalispell. City policy requires new development to be served with
infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, etc) at the sole expense of the developer. The MOU further
addresses the issue of tax revenue by requiring new development in Section 36 to pay both "real"
and "improved" property taxes. When you consider the lease payment into the mix with the tax
revenue, revenues for schools from development of Section 36 will be substantial and
considerably more than what might be generated from private lands.
Other concerns expressed by Mayre Flowers of Citizens For A Better Flathead have been
adequately considered by the City Council. In fact, some of the changes in the MOU came as a
direct result of meetings held with representatives of Citizens; however, the City Council did not
feel all of Citizens requests were appropriate or necessary. We feel the adopted MOU and
associated neighborhood Plan are adequate to address future development of Section 36. We are
confident that existing DNRC rules and guidelines and applicable state laws are sufficient to
ensure the establishment of a fair market value and lease rate for the property. The city does not
need nor does it desire to micro manage the work of DNRC in this matter. The city has other
avenues to determine the appropriateness of development via such mechanisms as annexation,
extension of services, and subdivision review.
What concerns us most may be the process. It is our perspective (which is probably shared by
the development industry) that it is difficult to develop property on school trust lands. It is not
an easy matter to commit millions of dollars in infra- structure improvements on property you
cannot own. In addition, the MEPA process adds a lot of uncertainty to the process, which is not
a course of action required for development of private land. Section 36 overcomes some of these
apparent disadvantages by other positive factors, including its location and availability of large
tracts of lands.
The proposal by Citizens to do MEPA analysis on the neighborhood plan creates incredible
redundancy and uncertainty to the process. The neighborhood plan is a preferred alternative
based on public involvement and participation. Even Citizens is on record as a proponent to the
plan. I do understand that the MEPA process is required once a specific project has been
proposed. At that time, the real impacts of development can be evaluated as opposed to
something that is only speculation based on "what ifs" or worst case possibilities.
The City of Kalispell encourages you to approve the MOU as adopted by the local governments.
This will permit the process to continue for determining an appropriate use for the property via a
proposal process. Please remember that any proposed development must still conform to the
City of Kalispell's development standards and adhere to the provisions of the adopted
neighborhood plan. Other regulatory processes still to come include annexation, zoning, and
subdivision review plus your own internal review mechanisms for selecting a lessee, which
includes MEPA review on the identified project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I will be available at the meeting for any questions
you might have concerning the city's position on this matter.
Sincerely,
Chris A. Kukulski,
City Manager
Cc: Mayor Wm. E. Boharski
City Council
Flathead County Commissioners
Growth: Who Pays the Bill
A Look at Key Questions to Consider in Developing a Growth Policy Plan for Kalispell
May 16 or May 17
With James Duncan, an urban planner with over 30 years of professional service to more than 100
cities, counties, regions, and states throughout the nation.
Please review the draft list below of proposed topics for discussion. Are there others you would like
to add? Which topics are of most interest to you? (Indicate by each question one of the following:
star --very interested, I= good question, - =not very interested) Which day and time would be best for
a public workshop on this topic? Citizens For A Better Flathead is requesting your feedback to ensure
that this opportunity is tailored to meets the needs and interests of the Kalispell City Council. Thank
you for providing us this input.
What is a reasonable amount of retail commercial space for a regional service area like
Kalispell? At what point does an area reach a saturation point that could harm existing
businesses?
2. What kind of incentives could Kalispell offer to promote redevelopment within the city as
opposed to new growth on the outskirts? What tools can a community use to identify and
prioritize areas for redevelopment?
How do you set reasonable boundaries for urban growth? Is it possible to identify how many
acres should be provided for a five to ten year period?
4. How do you direct growth to locate where you want it, as opposed to this being primarily
developer driven?
Are there basic requirements that should be met by a developer before the city commits staff
time to a project proposal?
6. How does urban density or urban form (patterns of growth) affect the cost of growth?
7. From a national perspective, what are some common growth related issues that communities
like Kalispell are facing. What creative solutions are being used to address these and what are
common pitfalls to watch for?
8. 75% of the growth in the county is taking place outside of the city limits of Kalispell, Whitefish,
and Columbia Falls. This growth, however, clearly benefits and relies on the resources that
these cities provide. Are there tools that can be used to identify and recover any of these costs?
9. How do you evaluate the cost/benefits of annexation, particularly with areas that were built
with substandard infrastructure?
10. Kalispell is currently undertaking studies to evaluate and identify needed upgrades to its sewer,
water and storm water facilities to meet committed uses and future growth. It is anticipated
that the city may need to soon plan for expansion of the sewer treatment plant. It is also
anticipated that Kalispell will need to add another fire station. Can you review and compare
facility financing techniques for these types of projects? How do you fairly determine who
should pay for the need for expanded facilities that new growth generates?
11. Kalispell does not currently have a sufficient capital replacement fund in place. Funding to
replace items like new fire trucks or dump trucks must be found within the existing general fund
budget. Could you speak to the relationship between a capital improvement/ replacement fund
and the development of a long range growth policy plan?
12. When the commercial tax base declines as it has for the past few years in the Kalispell and as
it will continue to do under taxing caps imposed under Senate Bill 184 the residential portion
of the tax base is relied on to make up the difference or services are cut. Are there tools
available to monitor to what extent homeowners are being asked to subsidize new commercial
growth?
13. How does a city like Kalispell evaluate the cost/benefits.on improvements to the existing tax
base as opposed to expansion of new commercial growth? What types of revitilization efforts
have other cities undertaken to assure that their tax base remains stable?
14. How can the three cities and county evaluate and explore cost-effective delivery of services
for overlapping services such as roads, police, and fire? 1999's SB 95 is an act authorizing
counties to voluntarily appropriate and transfer funds to municipalities to supplement the cost
of infrastructure development and maintenance.
15. Under SB 184, as mills are allowed to increase to maintain fiscal 1999 local government
property tax revenue and service levels, the residential share of the total tax base in the State
of Montana is estimated to increase from 39% to 49%, a $49 million increase. Agricultural
lands' share is estimated statewide to increase from 7% to 9%, a $10 million increase. SB200
phases out taxes on class 8 business equiptment, a $83 million cut. How does a small
community like Kalispell track this type of shifting tax base? Are there tools available to
monitor to what extent homeowners are being asked to subsidize infastructure needs associated
with new commercial growth?
Please check the times that you could attend and circle the best time for a three-hour work session:
Tuesday, May 101'
Morning, 9 a.m.-noon
Afternoon 1 p.m.- 4 p.m.
Wednesday, May 17'h
Morning, 9 a.m.-noon
Afternoon 1 p.m.- 4 p.m.
Evening 6:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. Evening 6:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m.
Principal — Duncan Associates
Mr. Duncan's career as an urban planner has spanned over 30 years of professional service to more
than 100 cities, counties, regions and states throughout the nation.
Throughout his career, Mr. Duncan has focused his primary interests and energies on developing new
and innovative comprehensive planning and growth management techniques, streamlining land
development regulatory processes and refining infrastructure financing and development impact
assessment techniques.
As a consultant, Mr. Duncan has advised public and private clients throughout the western and
southern United States, including resort communities, such as Aspen, Telluride, Snoqualmie, Reno,
Las Vegas, Hilton Head Island, Winter Haven and Palm Beach County; major cities, such as Atlanta,
Nashville, Charlotte and Albuquerque; and regional agencies, such as the Puget Sound Council of
Governments (Seattle), Wasatch Front Regional Planning Council (Salt Lake City) and Alamo Area
Council of Governments (San Antonio). He has also administered public planning agencies for the
cities of Austin, Texas and Hollywood, Florida and the counties of Broward and Dade in Florida.
During his career, Mr. Duncan prepared four American Planning Association award -winning
comprehensive plans and land development codes (Hollywood, Royal Palm Beach, Sweetwater and
Grand Prairie), served as a growth management advisor to two Florida Governors (Graham and
Martinez), managed one of the nation's first multi -facility impact fee systems (Broward County) and
co-authored the nation's first state impact fee enabling legislation (Texas).
He also produced the nation's first highway multiple -use airspace rights studies (Miami), prepared one
of the first comprehensive plans to promote the dual concepts of "consistency" and "concurrency"
(South Miami), and shepherded the adoption of several innovative land development regulations for
Austin (comprehensive watershed, viewshed preservation and hill country roadway).
Mr. Duncan is a former president of both the American Planning Association and the Florida APA
Chapter and professional development officer of the Texas APA Chapter. He has served as a citizen
planner as a member and chair of the Davie (Florida) planning and zoning and code enforcement
boards and as an adjunct professor of city planning for Florida Atlantic University in Fort Lauderdale.
He is a frequent national and international conference speaker on urban planning, growth management,
land development regulations and infrastructure financing.
Mr. Duncan holds a masters in city and regional planning from the University of Oklahoma and a
bachelors in government and journalism from the University of Texas at Austin.
Majori 1and O" Professional
Co -Author, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES (APA Planners
Press,1996)
With Georgia Tech professor Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, co-authored book which
categorized, described and critiqued various growth management techniques.
Drafted first citizen -adopted zoning code for major Houston suburb (Baytown, TX: 1995)
Shortly after its neighbor Houston defeated zoning for the third time in 40 years,
Baytown selected Duncan to draft its first zoning code. He did and it passed 3-2
in a citywide referendum. Baytown subsequently led the area in building permits
issued.
Prepared first multi -facility impact fee study to promote urban infill (Atlanta, GA: 1994)
Drafted unique impact fee study which promoted urban infill, affordable housing
and transit usage. Housing in enterprise zones was exempted from impact fees
through the concept of recoupment. Development near MARTA stations was also
exempted.
Prepared first county transportation impact fee study in state of Idaho (Ada County, ID:
1991)
Drafted first distance -based transportation impact fee system in the Inter-
mountain West for the Ada County Highway District, a special transportation
services district created by the Idaho Legislature to serve Boise and four
suburban communities.
Prepared nation's first "cost of growth" study to focus on case studies (State of Florida:
1989)
Coordinated fiscal impact study of urban development patterns which reinforced
premise that land use and locational criteria had measurable effect upon public facility
costs. Studv confirmed that use, density and distance did significantly impact public
facility costs.
Co-authored nation's first development impact fee state enabling act (State of Texas:
1986)
Assisted Texas Municipal League in negotiations with Texas Builders Association
(TBA) to draft enabling act to regulate use of impact fees in Texas. Was able to
eliminate TBA- desired procedural hurdles and add roads and parks as permitted
facilities.
Managed nation's first automated multi -facility impact fee system (Broward County, FL;
1981)
In charge of County 's efforts to adopt and implement new land development code,
which included administration of recently -adopted road, park and school impact
fees. System served as forerunner in Florida's efforts to regulate adequate public
facilities.
Initiated APA Chapter's first statewide conference and monthly newsletter (Florida; 198 1)
As Chapter vice-president, suggested and organizedfrst annual chapter
conference in Fort Lauderdale with 250 attendees and lieutenant governor as
keynote speaker. Totally redesigned chapter newsletter and initiated monthly
publication schedule.
Organized nation's first local "growth management" department (Hollywood, FL: 1973)
After being hired as director of three person planning staff, reorganized
department to incorporate planning, zoning, building, community development
and capital program functions and expanded staff to include over 80 professional
and clerical employees.
Prepared Florida's first plan to recognize consistency/concurrency (South Miami, FL:
1971)
Drafted comprehensive plan which linked land use plan to required
implementation measures, including necessary rezonings. Citywide development
potentials were actually calculated on a parcel -by -parcel basis and related to
infrastructure needs.
JA ES B. DUNCAN, ACP
Principal, Duncan Associates
13276 Research Boulevard, Suite 208
Austin, Texas 78750
512/258-7347
Professional Education
University of Oklahoma, Masters in Regional and City Planning, 1965
University of Texas at Austin, Bachelors in Journalism and Government, 1961
Professional Experience
President, Duncan Associates, Austin, Texas, 1987- Present
Director of Land Development Services, City of Austin, Texas, 1984-1987
Adjunct Professor of City Planning, Florida Atlantic University, 1982
Development Management Director, Broward County, Florida, 1981-1984
Principal, James Duncan and Associates, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 1977-1981
Growth Management Director, City of Hollywood, Florida, 1973-1977
Chief Planner, Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department, Florida, 1967-1973
Director of Planning, Leo A. Daly & Associates, Seattle, Washington, 1966-1967
Associate Planner, Ventura County, Ventura, California, 1965-1966
Professional Registration
American Institute of Planners, 1967
American Institute of Certified Planners, Charter Member
APA Activities
President, American Planning Association, 1987-1989
Member, Board of Directors, American Planning Association, 1986-1990
Vice -Chair, Chapter Presidents Council, American Planning Association, 1985-1986
President, Florida Chapter, American Planning Association, 1982-1984
Vice -President, Florida Chapter, American Planning Association 1980-1982
Treasurer, Florida Chapter, American Planning Association 1978-1980
Professional Development Officer, Texas Chapter, American Planning Association 1985
Member, Governance Committee, American Planning Association, 1984-1985
Honors, Awards and Recognitions
Current Planning Award, Baytown Zoning Ordinance, Texas Chapter APA, 1996
Current Planning Award, Grand Prairie Development Code, Texas Chapter APA, 1995
Comprehensive Planning Award, Flower Mound Plan, Texas Chapter APA, 1994
Planning Award, Lafayette/Lafayette Parish Development Code, Louisiana Chapter APA,
1995
Award of Merit, Royal Palm Beach Comprehensive Plan, Florida Chapter APA, 1980
Award of Merit, Sweetwater Comprehensive Plan, Florida Chapter APA, 1979
Award of Merit, Hollywood Comprehensive Plan, Florida Chapter APA, 1978
Public Service
Member, First U.S./Soviet Symposium on Urban Development, 1988
Chair, Code Enforcement Board, Davie, Florida, 1980-1981
Member, Planning and Zoning Board, Davie, Florida, 1978-1979
Member, Governor's Resource Management Task Force, State of Florida, 1978-1979
Jaynes B. Duncan, AICP
Speeches and Presentations
"Use, Misuse and Abuse of Growth Controls", FOUR CORNERS CONFERENCE (Colorado,
Utah, Arizona and New Mexico Chapters, APA) Santa Fe, Sep 18, 1992.
"Growth Management Techniques", SPRING MEETING (American Bar Association Section of Real
Property Probate Law) Orlando, Apr 19, 1991.
"Review and Update of Growth Management Techniques for the 1990s ANNUAL
CONFERENCE (Louisiana Chapter APA) Lafayette, Aug 14, 1990.
"Development Impact Fees: A Second Generation Perspective", FINANCING GROWTH
CONFERENCE (Government Finance Officers Association) Portland, Jun 4, 1990.
"Growth Management In the United States", NATIONAL PLANNING CONFERENCE (Royal
Australian Planning Institute) Sydney, Mar 18, 1990.
"Introduction to Impact Fees", FOUR CORNERS CONFERENCE (Colorado, Utah, Arizona and
New. Mexico Chapters, APA) Durango, Jun 22, 1989.
"Planning Challenges for the 1990s", 1989 ANNUAL CONFERENCE (Utah Chapter APA)
Sundance, May 12, 1989.
"Benefits of Development Impact Fees", (National Association of Home Builders) Lexington, May 4,
1989.
"Post -Development Fiscal Analysis", FINANCING GROWTH CONFERENCE (Government
Finance Officers Association) Orlando, Mar 6, 1989.
"Innovative Financing at the Local Level" PUBLIC -PRIVATE FINANCING SEMINAR (New York
Department of Transportation) Albany, Feb 14, 1989.
"Measures to Regulate the Development of Cities", First USSR -USA SYMPOSIUM ON URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (US Department of HUD) Moscow, Jul 14-15, 1988.
"Recent Trends in Impact Assessment", ANNUAL CONFERENCE (Michigan Chapter APA)
Mackinac Island, Jun 1, 1988.
"Linkages with Housing and Infrastructure", ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CONFERENCE, (National Association of Counties) Pittsburgh, Nov 9, 1987.
James B. Duncan, AICP
Speeches and Presentations (Continued)
"Financing Infrastructure", 20th ANNUAL CONFERENCE (National Association of Industrial and
Office Parks) Los Angeles, Oct 23, 1987.
"Current Trends in Infrastructure Financing", LAND USE AND ZONING SEMINAR (University
of Kentucky College of Law) Lexington, Sep 26, 1987.
"Roads and Mixed Use Developments", ANNUAL MEETING (Institute of Transportation Engineers)
New York City, August 19, 1987.
"Development Impact Fees: A Primer", PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SEMINAR (Urban
Land Institute) Dallas, Jan 19-20, 1987.
"State and National Planning Systems", WORLD PLANNING CONGRESS (Royal Australian
Planning Institute, et al) Adelaide, Oct 2, 1986.
"Land Planning and the Development Review Process", CONFERENCE ON URBAN GROWTH
IN TEXAS (University of Texas) Austin, Sep 18, 1986.
"Growth Management in Austin", INSTITUTE ON PLANNING AND ZONING (Southwestern
Legal Foundation) Dallas, Dec 4, 1986.
"Raleigh and Austin: Parallels and Differences", ECONOMIC CONFERENCE (City of Raleigh)
Raleigh, Nov 15, 1985.
"Innovations in Zoning", 1985 ANNUAL CONFERENCE (Texas Chapter APA) Dallas, Oct 3,
1985.
Articles and Publications
"Drafting Impact Fee Ordinances: Part 1, Legal Foundations", ZONING AND PLANNING LAW
REPORT (Clark Boardman Company) New York City, Vol. 9 No. 7, Aug 1986.
"Drafting Impact Fee Ordinances: Part 11, Implementation and Administration", ZONING AND
PLANNING LAW REPORT (Clark Boardman Company) New York City, Vol. 9 No. 8, Sep 1986.
"Growth Management at the Local Level - The Austin, Texas Experience", PROCEEDINGS OF
THE 16TH ANNUAL INSTITUTE OF PLANNING, ZONING AND EMINENT DOMAIN (Matthew
Bender & CO., Inc.) New York City, 1986.
DNFG. N616ti1307,"00D PLAN
SEGTION 3(a
K�LISp�LL, MONTANP�
A proposed amendment to the:
Kalispell City -County Master Plan
prepared by:
Montana Planning Consultants
P.O. Box 7607
Kalispell, Montana 59904
February 8, 1999
�i 4e
tfi �Z:�SL d " S Lis . n �'�
This document is a land use plan -.to 'guide the future use and development of School Trust
L-and generaLLy described as being Located within Section 56, Township 29N. (Zange.22V,,
P.M.M. The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNIZC) is a state
agency responsible, in part, forthe management of SchooLTrust Lands Section 56 is Located
adjacent to the northerLy city Limits of Kalispell The DNR-C has prepared this plan in
consideration of 2 primary objectives: (1) to achieve a public mandate to generate revenue for
the state school system and (2) eonsider issues of neighborhood compatibility and relationships
to Locat Land use plans and reguLations.
It is the intent of this planning process to integrate with the Kalispell City County Master
Plan. This will be accompLished by incorporating the plan for Section 56 into the Kalispell
(vaster Plan via the master planning process identified under Section 76 -1-601 et seq. Ma,
This wiLL involve public hearings and approval by the Flathead board of County Commissioners
and the City Council of KalispeLL A. "state" planning process involving school trust Lands that
seeks to integrate into the LocaL planning process is a new concept. Linder Montana statutes.
the DN RC is mandated to - "seek the highest development of state-owned Lands in order that
they might be placed to their highest and best use and thereby derive greater revenue for the
support ' of the common schools, the' university system. and other institutions benefitting
therefrom, and that in so Joinq the economy of the LocaL community as we11 st e is
benefitted as a resuLt of the imvact of such development." Section 77-I-601. MCA. Other
Montana codes essentially exempt state ro ernes ro zonin (76-2-
402 MCA.) and subdivision (Section 76-3-205. MCA) provisions. Despite the apparent --
advantage that some of these exemptions may offer, this Plan is proposing that all
development proposaLs in Section 56 adhere to LocaL planning and zoning reguLations. by
following this plan, the Long term objectives to generate revenue for the schooL trust.f and and
promotion of neighborhood compatibility can be achieved.
A "state" neighborhood plan also differs in other respects from other neighborhood plans. Not
only does the plan involve Lands in state ownership but the plan also anticipates a Long term
development scenario. based on a number of considerations and'circumstances. this plan is
LikeLyto have appLication over a period of decades as opposed to a traditional time period of less
than 10 years. Integral components of the plan include identification of Land use pods. phasing
of development, and performance standards for development.
5 "�PLLANNINGANIXZONING..� 76-2-411-�
r..
ern copies thereof or of such :portions thereof as may be called for by such 1
it. The return shall -concisely. set forth such other factsits may be pertinent-
1 material to show the grounds of the decision appealed from and shall be
(3) If, upon the. heating, 'it shall :appear. to the court that testimony is
mssary for the proper disposition of the: matter, it may take evidence. or,
?oint a referee to take such evidence ast:may direct and report the same to `
's court with his findings of fact and conclusions of law, which shall constitute
'art of, the proceedings upon which the "determination of the court shall be
Y(4)r The court may reverse or affirm lwholly' or partly, or�may modify, the
vision brought up for review.
Hi$t " En. See- 7, Ch. 136, Z' 1929; re -en. Sec 5305 7, R.0 M- 1935, am& Sec.,
13, I,. 1975; R-C.NL 1947,11-2707(8) thrn
ii References :5 5.� �f x:�c�t� -J.,F
Application of MontanaRules - of
cedure, Rule 81(a), M.R.Civ.P. (see Atle 25,
:76-2428: ` Awarding of costs upon -appeal from board decision., .
stsshall not be allowed Against the board unless it shall appear to the court . #
it iC acted with gross. negligence; 'in bad faith, or with malice in making the
;181on appealed
History;. En. Seca 7, Ch. 136, L. 1929; re -en. Sec. 5305.7, R.C.M. 1935; amd. Sec. U;
13,11" 1975; R-C3L 1947, 11-2707(12)
.,.
a
<<<`s1j7,,.._:Part 4:F_: - -
r' ' z' Appl'ication-to Governmental Agencies
Group and Foster Homes,-
16-p2q -401 Definitions. As used ui "76 2-402, the following definitions`
`Clr "Agency" nieans "a_board, bureau,'` commission, -department, an
thority, or other entity of state orlocal
tal government.:-
Local zoning regulations —means zoning regulations adopted
,.,
rsuant to Title 76� chapter2
History. En. Sec.1, Ch. 397,1.1981. -t
76-2-402.: Local zoning ,regulations — application to agencies:;
ienever an agency proposes, use pul tic land contrary to local zoning
p g,
rations a public hearing, as de . � below, shall be held. ,
(�); The local board of adjustments ' ` rovided in this chapter, shall hold
►eating within 30 days ofthe d L e ilia ag ncy gives notice to the board of its 1
t to develop land contrary to local zcn' g regulations. _
) The Board slafl-have no power to d ny the proposed use but shall act ,
allow a`pubhc forum"for comment `o the proposed use' r "
ir, En S6&I2,zCh.397,'L. I�981A Wttki..t . q ..
tq,':�s •u
V.2-403 throe 702-4410 resery
ter DUOL 1, 4t5r i.V-1 -`£f.C'r nr n S �: -M M, to
F 2-41Lt De fin! tioni.6f-Jaom/munity-residential facilit3*
oiunity residential facilityY i. wi o r: i ;cstrarlo� fit;
_ 4' Ec ":
1333 LOCAL REGULATION OF SUBDIVISIONS 76-3-207
76-3-204., Exemption for conveyances of one or more parts of a
structure or improvement. The sale, rent, lease, or other conveyance of one
or more parts of a building, structure, or other improvement, whether existing
or proposed, is not a division of land, as that term is defined in this chapter,
and is not subject to the requirements of this chapter.
. History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. 500, 1.1973; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 334, L.1974; amd. See.19, Ch.
213, L. 1975; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 552, L.1977, RC.M.1947,11-3862(10); amd. See- 1, Ch. 500,
L.1985.
r 76-3-205. Exemption for airport land and state-owned lands —
exception. (1) A division of land created by lease or rental of contiguous
airport -related land owned by a city, a county, the state, or a municipal or
regional airport authority is not subject to the requirements of this chapter if
the lease or rental is for onsite weather or air navigation facilities, the
manufacture, maintenance, and storage of aircraft, or air carrier -related
activities.
(2) A division of state-owned land is not subject to the requirements of this
chapter unless the division creates a second or subsequent parcel from a single
tract for sale, rent, or lease for residential purposes after July 1, 1974.
History:. En. See.4, Ch. 500, L.1973; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 334, L.1974; amd. See.19, Ch.
213, L. 1975; amd. See. 2, Ch. 552, L. 1977; IMAL 1947, 11-3862(5); amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 548,
_
Compiler's Commends ` '' made minor changes in style. Amendment
1999 Amendment: Chapter 548 inserted effective October 1, 1999.
(1) regarding exemption for airport lan - and
76-3-206. Exemption for c nveyances executed prior to July 1,
1974. This chapter shall not be applicable to deeds, contracts, leases, or other
conveyances executed prior to July 1,\1974.
History: En. Sea 12, Ch. 500, L. 197311 amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 334, L. 1974; RC.M, 1947,
11-3870(part). _ .
76-3 207. Subdivisions exempted from review but subject to
survey requirements -- exceptions. (1) Except as provided in subsection
(2), unless the method of disposition is adopted for the purpose of evading this
chapter, the following divisions of land are not subdivisions under this chapter
but are subject to the surveying requirements of 76-3-401 for divisions of land
not amounting to subdivisions: > ., ti -
(a) divisions made 'outside of platted subdivisions for the purpose of
relocating common boundary lines between adjoining properties;
iip
-(b) divisions made outside of latto subdivisions for the purpose of a
single gift or sale in each county to each m"er of the landowner's immediate
family;
(c) divisions made outside of platted subdivisions by gift, sale, or
agreement to buy and sell in which the parties to the transaction enter a
covenant running with the land and revocable only by mutual consent of the
governing body and the' property owner that the divided land -will be used
exclusively for agricultural purposes;,;. '
4 .
(d) for five or fewer lots within a platted subdivision, relocation of common
boundaries and the aggregation of lots; and
(e) divisions made, for the purpose of relocating a common boundary line
between a single lot within a platted_ subdivision and adjoining land outside a
a--
k.4
7_ -12' STATE _
E� x ; rr. gi! n. sera 104, i.'l1. 1.4 i, 1- 'g 1, Ch. , & 1$ f Ser-i 1 s�
71,1-1919; amd. Sec.I, C& 103, I� 1921, re -en. Sec.1919, R.0 hL 1921; re -en. See.191S,
^may C 9(�3I�5� g3 y�, 9 �q 79 . �. , h. 1F,1...1 f n �. 49, Ch. �, Iw
lt..is�y 1-'ORS) ll.Las 1S4t, �iT- 3
Cross -References nerat.fund,' I7-2-102. `.
Collections -and disp- osition bf flnes
ties, forfeitures, and fees, 10-6 1, _ v
S.
7 -1418 aad 774-119 reserved. 4 .
77-1420. Terminated. Sec. 17, Ch. 586. L. 1993.
En. See. 14, C& 586,1. 1
77-1- 1. Environmental- review -� exemption. (1) T'he�d p ent
and board are required to comply with the provisions of T'itl £ 75, chapter 1,
parts 1 and 2, when implementing provisions within. Title' 7 only � 'the
department is actively proposing to issue a sale, exchan ,Tiglivor.wry,
easement, placement of improvement, lease, license, permit, or other
authorization for use of state lands or is acting 'in response to an application
for an authorization. _
(2) Except for rulemaking and as provided subsection: (1, `the
department and board are otherwise exempt from the provisions of Title 75,
chapter 1, parts 1 and 2, when implementing provisions within. Title , 77
including but not limited to the issuance of lease renewals. The department
and board do not have an obligation to comply with the provisions of Title 75,
chapter 1, parts 1 and 2, when implementing provisions within Title 77 if the
department or board choose not to take any action, even though either my have the authority to take an action,
f ry- En. s 2, iCb. 223,1. 1999. 3
Compiler's Comments retroactively, within the zmeaningof 1-2J99,
ectiveDate- motion 4, f' hh. 223, L.1999, all nutters pending before an agency on [the
provided: "[This act] is effective onpassage and effective date of this act] "; ' active April 1
approval."Approved April 1999. 1999.
1ti eir iiue Applicabftidy. motion 6, Ch.
23, L. 1999 provided. " f This act) applies
7-1-122 throukh77-1424 reserved. =
7-1-12 . -Liability for unauthorized installation or construction
of facility or structure on state trust land — penalty. () A person, other
than the lessee of the a `e�-ed state trust lad, may not, after September 30,
1997: '
(a) install or construct a road, pipeline, ditch, utility line, fence, building,,
or other facility or structure on state trust land without obtaining an easement,
lease, license, or other written permission of the department, or
(b) disturb state trust land in anticipation of the installation or
construction of the facility or structure.
(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is liable to the department for a
civil penalty in an mount determined by the board. The penalty may be an
amount up to three times the full market value of the land disturbed or affected
or $500,,whichever is greater.
() In addition to the penalty provided fer In subse4dion (1), a<person wh6
installs cr constructs a facility or structure on state trust land �rithou
permission is liable for any permanent damage to the state trust landand ay'
tt
a
e
f
v
t .t 't
Section 36 - Gross Area - 620 acres
Physical Items Acres
U.S. Hwy 93 right-of-way
17.0
Four Mile Drive
3.0
Reserve Drive
3.5
Stillwater Road
3.0
Northwestern Land Office
13.5
BPA Powerline
33.0
MDOT Retention Pond
2.0
MCI
Proposal A - Bypass 25.0 acres
Proposal B - Bypass 54.0 acres
Proposal C - Bypass 43.0 acres
sm
ih'
J
>- =
LLJ LJ
Ap�
J
o
LLJ L+J
04
J
LAJ LLJ
H
I
h:\ustation\dgn\9513\9513typ.dgn Oct. 15, 1996 10:23:27
..............
STATE PRWMT KAZER SST K_
►X MT a Wi 5-3 (60 )1 Gg 2
XALISPELL S'f?AZS
4-MILE-DR.
GROSSWILER RROFERTI=S
�\ /,-STILLWATEF
TO KALISFELL
US H`>'iY 93
GRAVEL FiT
MELO�Ii ONIQM
9-18-96
RANCH RD.
COUNTRY
ESTATE
�J L4 ry)
' STATE PROJECT K1ugF� �S�EcT pr_
VCHTu+A MN 5-3 (60 )109 2
KALISPELL 8'f?ASS
MAIL DR.
GROSSWILER PROPERTIES
STILLWATER
TO KALISPELL
RANCH R.D.
COUNTRY
ESTATE
US HWY 93
GRAVEL PIT
WNTANA
C:PARDI.ENT OF TRANSPCR T ATION
RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAN
FLATHEAD COUNTY
SCALE 11 10.00o
9- 18-96 loan sw 0 1o�'
rn.l. - l.nrx) Feed'
STATE Pn F-CT HL. E Sr£=T W.
4rhT:.�A KH 5-3(60)1C-3 2 .
X*MS?EU BY?A::S
4 MILE DR.
GF,OSSW,LER P R 0 F E R T I E S ^�
\; STILL''"'.TEF.
i�
i
;ROSSM�t DA;RY i
TO KALISPELL
i
US HWY 93 "
GRAVEL PiT
MM:L0PU0Hz%M
9- 18-96
J,
�R:.S I V=
DRIVE
RANCH' F-D.
COUP+' T F.Y
ESTATCEs ;
-GAF)%HN
"DRIVE
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION
MARC RACICOT, GOVERNOR
- STATE OF MONTANA
NORTHWESTERN LAND OFFICE
2250 HIGHWAY 93 NORTH
KALISPELL, MONTANA 59901-2557
Telephone: (406) 752-7994
FAX: (406) 752-7993
Stan B and I met with Mike Brock, Montana Regional Manager for the BPA, this AM. Our topic
for discussion was the power line that runs through our section 36.
I wanted to know what was possible, and impossible, under the existing 230 KV line that bisects
our section. His primary role is the repair and maintenance of the lines and as such he has a lot of
knowledge. He also indicated that their engineers would also have to get involved if we were to
ask for something elaborate.
Basically, he said his primary concern was being able to access the line, at any point, for repair
and maintenance. In any event, emergency or not, they need access. His next concern is that no
structures be located under the fines, or within the zone of influence in the event of a failure. Ne
had other concerns about protecting the towers. They are actually quite fragile, and are easily
damaged to the point where collapse is possible. He has seen where farm equipment has hooked
a tower and caused it to collapse. He also talked about clearance to the conductor. He said that
in most cases they require a 30' ground clearance to the conductor, minimum. These towers are
89' tall and the line sag is variable depending on; distance between towers, temperature, and
topography. The towers can be elevated at a cost to the party requesting the work. He said that if
anything is done with parking facilities around the towers, they would request that the towers be
protected by a fence or something.
He said there was a report that came out in the last week that addressed ENV (Electromagnetic
Force). There has been a lot of inquiry about it for years and the report indicated that it has no
impact on people, even if they spend a lot of time under and around the fines.
We discussed the existing (or non-existent) Right of Way the BPA has through our section. He
wasn't sure, but would look through their records and try to find a copy. He will provide us with
a copy, if he can locate one.
Mike is an easy person to talk to and is interested in working with us. His preference for a
highway location would be along the power line, as it gives him better access for repair and
maintenance.
Jon
cc: Stan
KALISPELL UNIT
STILLWATER STATE FOREST
LIBBY UNIT
PLAINS UNIT
SWAN STATE FOREST
2250 Highway 93 North
PO Box 164
14096 US Highway 37
PO Box 219
Swan Lake, MT 59911
Kalispell, MT 59901-2557
Olney, MT 59927-0164
Libby, MT 59923-9347
Plains, MT 59859-0219
Telephone (406) 754-2301
Telephone (406) 752-7994
Telephone (406) 881-2371
Telephone (406) 293-2711
Telephone (406) 826-3851
Fax (406) 754-2884
Fax (406) 752-7993
Fax (406)881-2372
Fax (406) 293-9307
Fax (406)826-5785
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER'