12/08/03 Luhman to Council/ZoningDecember 8, 2003
Kalispell Mayor and City Council
312 First Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Dear Kalispell Mayor and City Council,
I am writing about the proposed amendments to the Spring Prairie PUD, the Public Hearing at the
December 1" City Council Meeting and the Council's vote approving Ordinance No. 1486 at the
first reading. Because some of you were not on the City Council 4 years ago and were not
involved in this section 36 planning, I thought I would explain the situation from my point of
view about proposed amendment 5.
The State Department of Natural Resources and Conservation owns 620 acres of section 36. As a
state agency, they are required to solicit public input on the management of state land. In 1999,
the state invited the adjacent landowners to be involved in a neighborhood plan to decide how the
land might be developed from its historical agricultural use to other higher revenue generating
uses. The state held a series of meetings with 10-20 members of the public who showed interest.
The state wanted to maximize the revenue to the schools so they wanted to have commercial
activity along Highway 93 and professional activity along West Reserve Drive. To make this
zoning more palatable to the neighbors, they agreed to remove some activities that were most
objectionable to the neighbors. Key items were deleting some businesses that would typically be
allowed in commercial areas including the total exclusion of gambling. They said that no
gambling of any kind would be allowed in section 36 as described in the PUD, "Also specifically
excluded as permitted uses are gaming/gambling establishments of any kind, including casinos."
They said that no car dealerships or truck stops would be allowed in the area. Most of the
neighbors believed that the area should all be residential development. In order to make it more
palatable to existing the neighbors, some of the typical B-5 commercial zoning activities were
restricted. This occurred in 1999. The neighbors had a neighborhood plan, zoning, and a contract
with the state for the types of activities that we could expect to be proposed on the state property.
On December 3, 2001 the state signed the PUD agreement with the City with these same
agreements. The neighbors had their agreement in place and were satisfied with the zoning.
We had all really hoped that the Tech Park would be built in this commercial area, but with the
economy over the past two years, that just didn't happen. So the state started to solicit interest
from other types of commercial development.
The Lowe's project is the first project proposed for section 36, 4 years after the neighborhood
plan was approved. The applicant wants to attract a restaurant to the project and apparently, no
restaurant is interested unless they can serve alcohol. In Montana, to afford the high price of an
all-purpose liquor license, apparently the cost needs to be offset by having a casino or gambling
to make money to help pay for the high price of this liquor license.
The Lowe's developer requested 18 changes to the PUD and the staff noted that 5 were major
changes and needed Council approval to amend the PUD. The Council had a work session
November 24 to discuss the amendments, and you came up with a proposed ordinance with a
public hearing slated for December I't. At the public hearing, I voiced my concerns about several
amendment items, but especially the change to allow gambling on the site. The Council politely
listened to my letter. Later you discussed my comments a bit on the status of the neighborhood
plan. You didn't ask for more clarification from me. You asked the Tri-City Planning Office
Director a few questions, and he said that the plan was approved in 1999 and this is no big deal to
change this zoning. You routinely vote 8-0 to pass this ordinance.
I took the time and effort 4 years ago to be involved in shaping a neighborhood plan that would
be most palatable to my existing neighborhood, which is located immediately across the street
from section 36. I thought this zoning would safeguard my property rights. These proposed PUD
amendments were not sent out to the 20 people involved in the 1999 planning efforts or to the
immediate neighbors to get their input on the proposed changes. I had to read about the proposed
amendments in the newspaper a few days before the December I" hearing. What if I had been
out of town or did not have a chance to read the paper? I took the effort to speak at a public
hearing on December ls`, and I get the feeling that I was not heard. You did not suggest that my
comments be further discussed at the December 8 work session; you just voted on the 5
amendments and approved it. You steamroll over all of my objections to these amendments.
I would suggest that the amendment allowing incidental casino use not be allowed. Not all
restaurants need to have liquor or gambling to be successful. Maybe a restaurant could apply for
a beer and wine license instead of a full liquor license if it feels it needs to provide this service.
This Lowe's application is the first applicant for section 36. I don't think it is reasonable to make
a major amendment to the PUD with the very first application. It seems like in the Kalispell area
almost every restaurant and most gas station/mini marts have casinos and gambling. This does not
seem to be a necessary service to provide at every establishment. Once you allow incidental
casinos in, what is to prevent the owner to say he really needs 10 or 20% of the establishment
floor space to be used for gambling instead of the allowed 5% to keep his restaurant in business?
Or asking that he put up just a few signs to indicate that gambling is offered inside? I mean the
original PUD said no gambling of any kind and you just changed that without much
consideration.
I feel people trusted the DNRC and the City to keep this agreement in good faith, and this
gambling proposal is just trying to be slipped in, hoping that no one will notice. There is so little
of the county that is zoned. When my neighborhood and section 36 are both zoned, with the
expectations of this PUD zoning to be followed, and it just gets changed, what is the point of the
zoning? If everyone who applies for a project can just do what they want, why bother with rules
for different types of areas? I thought the City of Kalispell would support the zoning that it has
and the input people have into neighborhood plans. If not, it doesn't seem like the City Council
really does represent the will of the people, just the will of the developers. If only one person
wants to maintain the zoning apparently that is enough reason to just change it? Do you need 5,
10 or 100 people to influence the Council to maintain existing zoning? I know the Council has a
lot of zoning and other issues to become knowledgeable on, but when a citizen takes the time to
become involved and resist changes to current zoning, I feel that changes to zoning should not be
done lightly. And in my opinion, this is what your Ordinance 1486 does; routinely make the
changes that a developer wants at the expense of a zoned agreement with a neighbor.
Thank you for your consideration of my thoughts in not changing the existing zoning for the area.
inc ely,
ale Luhma
169 Trailridge Road
Kalispell, MT 59901