Citizen CommentsSafisf=ll
December 3, 2001
Area Chamber of Commerce
Mayor Boharski and Members of City Council
City of Kalispell
312 First Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: Third Reading: Ordinance 1404 — Spring Prairie PUD Zoning
Dear Mayor and Members of City Council:
I urge you to reconsider the amendment that was attached to this ordinance on second
reading. The uses that are included in the original Ordinance 1404 were subject to year's
of public comment. There has been an environmental impact statement completed on the
section. Each proposed use on the site is still subject to architectural review, subdivision
review, and Montana Environmental Policy Act requirements - - on each lease. The
bottom line is that there is still ample opportunity for public input on proposed uses.
Indeed, the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) is asking for
only 19 uses out of 71 permitted uses in similar zoning.
What's wrong with commercial uses? The property is already located partially within
City limits and provides tremendous opportunity for community infill. The site is located
at the intersection of two major highway corridors. It is well suited for the full range of
commercial uses and the DNRC has been overly generous to limit their request to
nineteen proposed uses.
The PUD agreement is good as originally proposed. Let's move forward with it.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed PUD and annexation request.
Sincerely,
4h!90H. Unterreiner, President
Ia�lspell Chamber of Commerce
15 Depot Park • Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 758-2800 • Fax (406) 758-2805 • Email: chamber@digisys.net • www.kalispellchamber.com
INTRODUCTION
This document is a land use plan to guide the future use and development of School Trust Land generally
described as being located within Section 36, Township 29N, Range 22W, P.M.M. The Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) is a state agency responsible, in part, for the
management of School Trust Lands. Section 36 is located adjacent to the northerly city limits of Kalispell.
The DNRC has prepared this plan in consideration of 2 primary objectives: (I) to achieve a public mandate
to generate revenue for the state school system and (2) consider issues of neighborhood compatibility and
relationships to local 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 36 into the Kalispell Master Plan via the master planning
process identified under Section 76 -I-60I et seq, MCA. 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. Under
Montana statutes, the DNRC 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 doing
the economy of the local community as well as the state is benefitted as a result of the impact of such
development," Section 77-I-60I, MCA. Other Montana codes essentially exempt state properties from being
subject to most zoning (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 36 adhere to local planning and zoning regulations. By following this plan, the long term
objectives to generate revenue for the school trust fund and promotion of neighborhood compatibility can be
achieved.
The DNRC considered, in the development of section 36, the sale of all or a portion of the section in order
to provide revenue for the trust beneficiaries. Procedures established for the sale of state land can be found
in the Montana Code Annotated, Chapter 77, Part 2.. The current Board has adopted a policy of not
entertaining any new land sale proposals. This policy was adopted, in part, because of the rapid increase in
land values in Montana and the Board's perception that the sale of any portion of the core trust asset (land
base) is not in the best long term interest of the beneficiaries. Also, the policy was adopted due to the
contentious nature of state land sales and the cumbersome process established in statute for these sales.
Therefore, this plan was developed with a primary emphasis on long term lease arrangements rather than land
sales. However, fiicure Boards are not bound by the current Board's policy and may elect to sell all or a portion
of the subject state land. This plan seeks to provide direction for any future land use decisions that are made
through either lease arrangements or sale.
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 likely to have application over a period of
decades as opposed to a traditional time period of less than I0 years. Integral components of the plan include
identification of land use pods, phasing of development, and performance standards for development.
i
DNRC Neighborhood Plan
04/20/99
The DNRC agrees to voluntarily adhere to the provisions of this plan and to any
zoning regulations adopted pursuant to this plan. As such, the DNRC and lease
proposals will be subject to the same level of plan and zoning review as any other
non -government entity. Amendments to this Plan and subsequent zoning requests
will follow the procedures set forth by state statutes as applicable to the private
sector. The purpose of this self regulation is to enhance public confidence in this
plan and to promote a well planned community entrance to Kalispell.
Q • use this plan by the DNRC and land
regulatory agencies as a "blueprint" for the wise use
and development of the State School Trust land
OO To seek adoption of this Plan as an official
amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master
Plan
Os To identify responsibilities for development of
common elements by individual lease holders
OTo adhere to local zoning regulations adopted
pursuant to the provisions of this plan
Policies:
1. Individual lease holders shall be responsible for the development -of all the
0 of P 0 1 is
This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this day of
2000 by and between the Montana Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation (hereinafter DNRC, Flathead County and
the City of Kalispell.
WHEREAS, Section 36, Township 29N, Range 22W, PMM, Flathead
County, Montana was deeded to the State of Montana and is held in
trust as School Trust Land and is administered by DNRC;
WHEREAS, DNRC may, in the future, permit development of all but
tract 2 of Section 36 (hereinafter Section 36);
WHEREAS, DNRC prepared a neighborhood plan for Section 36 which
.was adopted as an Amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan
by the Board of Commissioners of Flathead County on May 20, 1999 by
Resolution 790-0 and the City Council of Kalispell on June 7,_1999 by
Resolution 4480;
WHEREAS, DNRC desires to seek adoption of zoning regulations
that would help implement the adopted neighborhood plan;
WHEREAS, DNRC seeks to permit development of the property in
accordance to the adopted plan and associated zoning;
WHEREAS, DNRC will be subject to local subdivision regulations;
WHEREAS, DNRC is also subject to the provisions of the Montana
Environmental Policy Act (MEPA);
WHEREAS, DNRC is obligated under the Enabling Act and the
Montana State Constitution to acquire the full appraised value or
fair market value of lands to the school trusts;
WHEREAS, the costs of providing government services to the
subject property will be evaluated concurrent with annexation
procedures that require an extension of services plan and all other
City regulations pertaining to development;
WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell is in no way compelled to annex
property should the estimated revenue from taxes or other sources
generated from development of the property be insufficient to pay for
the required public services;
WHEREAS, DNRC was directed on September 20, 1999 by the Board of
Land Commissioners to prepare an MOU addressing the issues of
planning, zoning, subdivision review and MEPA.
Page 1 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY AGREED THAT:
(1) any proposed lease on Section 36 involving a change
of use or division of land shall be subject to review under
local planning, zoning, and subdivision regulations; and
(2) any proposed lease on Section 36 involving a change
of use or division of land shall be subject to the
appropriate MEPA review and analysis, in conjunction with
the local application and review process: and
(3) DNRC will require any lessee of any property on
Section 36 to agree to pay as due all real and personal
property taxes including beneficial use taxes assessed
against the lease property and lessee's personal property
and equipment installed and located upon the leased
property, in addition to any special assessments that might
be apportioned to the property. DNRC, understands and
acknowledges, as owner of the said Section 36, that private
use of said property is subject to a "beneficial use" tax
and provided in Section 15-24-1201, et sec.; and
(4) DNRC will require any municipal utilities extended
to, and any infrastructure improvements installed within,
said Section 36 to be designed and installed in compliance
with the City of Kalispell Standards for Design and
Construction.
Dated this
day of
gy �
664
Robert W. Watne
Chairman
Board of Commissioners
Flathead County
II 1
Wm. E. Boharski
Mayor
City of Kalispell
BY:
U�
Y'
Arthur "Bu Clinch
Director. Department of
Natural Resources and
Conservation
Page 2 of 2
PRAIRIESPRING
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
PARTIES AND PURPOSE: This Agreement made and entered into this day
of —, 2001 is by and between State of Montana Department of Natural Resources
&Conservation (hereinafter "DNRC"), with its office and principal place of business located
at 2250 Highway 93 North; and the City of Kalispell, a municipal corporation (hereinafter
"City"), with its office and principal place of business located at 312 - 1st Avenue East,
Kalispell, Montana 59901:
WITNESSET:
WHEREAS, The State of Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation
is the owner of certain real property located in Flathead County, Montana, which is further
described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, and which hereinafter is
referred to as the "Subject Property"; and,
WHEREAS, The Subject Property is subject to a request for annexation and initial
zoning; and,
WHEREAS, DNRC is desirous of applying a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
overlay to city zoning classifications; and,
WHEREAS, In order to allow the PUD, assure the installation of Infrastructure within
the "Subject Property", permit connections to the CITY utility systems, and prescribe the
permitted uses within the requested zoning areas, the parties hereto determine it is to be
in their best interests to enter into this Planned Unit Development Agreement; and,
�J- WHEREAS, (i) Use and development of the property is subject to the provisions of
the Section 36 Neighborhood Plan, jointly adopted by the City of Kalispell and Board of
County Commissioners in 1999; (ii) the adopted plan is further subject to an environmental
impact statement performed under the Montana Environmental Policy Act; (iii) and further
subject to the Record Of Decision (ROD) which establishes additional parameters to
development and (iv) a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) establishes policy for
taxation, local review of projects, and other development considerations; and,
WHEREAS, DNRC is requesting annexation of the property into the City of Kalispell
with City of Kalispell Zoning classifications of B-5 to be applied to the Mixed Commercial
POD, R-5 to the Mixed Professional POD, and R-4 to the Mixed Residential POD; and,
_J WHEREAS, It is desirous by DNRC to further restrict the allowances of these City
of Kalispell Zoning classifications to the property and to provide additional standards for
development consistent with the Plan by applying a PUD overlay to the underlying zoning
classifications.
- 1 -
➢ The historical demand for residential dwellings could not justify reserving approximately 400
acres for residential use;
➢ Infill opportunities for commercial uses close to Kalispell would be foreclosed by this alternative
and could force commercial uses to locate elsewhere in areas less conveniently located to Kalispell
and with less review authority by local government;
➢ Leasing lots for single family use is not practical given mortgage obligations and other financial
and ownership considerations;
➢ Administration of hundreds of residential lease lots cannot be justified or supported by the
anticipated income to the trust;
➢ Exchange of Section 36, excluding the SE 1/, to a private party who would develop the
property for residential uses is not practical since the exchange would be based upon a market value
that would reflect a higher and better use for the property than "residential"; and
➢ This alternative would not meet the objectives set forth in this EIS.
Five alternatives are proposed. A mapped representation of each alternative is presented at the end of
this Section.
2.5.1 Assumptions common to all alternatives;
➢ The baseline comparison to all proposals is the Section 36 Neighborhood Plan adopted in
1999 and the related MOU adopted in 2000;
➢ Alternative proposals to the 1999 plan may require amendments to the adopted plan. The
decision -making authority for plan amendments is the city and county. Should any proposed
alternative fail to achieve local approval, the existing plan as originally adopted shall persist and guide
future decisions affecting the property;
➢ The plan area subject to all proposed alternatives is the school trust land located in Section 36
and excludes the 20 acre private parcel located near the west end of Section 36;
Ltapprove
he BPA power lines are not designed to accommodate any uses under the facilities, including
, roads, and parking. The lines would need to be redesigned and elevated to permit roads,
he highway 93 by-pass, and parking;
he proposed Highway 93 by-pass alignment is recognized as a future possibility within
and development is being sited and phased accordingly. The by-pass alignment will need
hased by MDT and the Board of Land Commissioners has decision authority to deny or
e sale of an easement to accommodate the by-pass alignment through Section 36;
➢ No individual developments or use will be permitted to have direct access onto a perimeter
public roadway;
➢ Improvements necessary to serve a developed use on school trust land will be the
responsibility of the lessee;
➢ Reclassification to Class 4 lands will occur concurrent with any change of use from Agriculture;
23
ELECTRICCOOPERATIVE,
SEP - 5 200 11
August 30, 2001�-
Narda Wilson, Senior Planner
Tri-City Planning Office
17 Second Street E Ste 211
Kalispell MT 59901
Re: DNRC Section 36 Annexation and Initial Zoning — PUD — Comments
Dear Ms. Wilson,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed zoning change and
annexation. After review of the documents, we would offer the following comments:
Because this proposal will significantly increase vehicle traffic on West Reserve
Drive, and because the existing road is too narrow to safely accommodate the
present commercial (truck) traffic; provision should be made for a road easement
along the north side of the section so that West Reserve could be widened to the
south. The north side has already been developed out to the existing right-of-
way and, in addition, contains a major transmission line.
Because 6f the present traffic congestion at the junction of West Reserve Drive
and Highway 93, the proposed Alternate 93 (by-pass) makes little sense. A route
taking the by-pass further north before intersecting the present route would ease
the congestion.
We would anticipate providing electrical service to this complex primarily from
West Reserve Drive, with a secondary approach from Four Mile Drive. Thought
should be given to providing utility easements that will provide adequate access.
Given the present need for a new high school, we wonder if a site shouldn't be
reserved within this section.
Sincerely,
Warren G. McConkey
General Manager
WGM/dh
ENGINEERING
2510 Hwy 2 EAST, KALISPELL, MT 59901 PI]ONE 406-751-4483/FAx 406-756-3647
F�lispell
October 15, 2001
Area Chamber of Commerce
City of Kalispell
312 First Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Attn: Kalispell City Council
RE: Public Hearing Comments: Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation, Section 36 Planned Unit Development
Dear Council Members:
The Kalispell Chamber supports the development of Section 36 in a manner consistent
with the Neighborhood Plan. The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) does just
that.
The property is already located partially within City limits and provides tremendous
potential for community infill. The PUD provides a wide range of guarantees for the
thoughtful development of the property, consistent with the local desire to maintain the
beauty of the highway corridor. Ample opportunities remain for public involvement in
any use proposals for the property.
The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation has followed course of action
that has encouraged public participation and involvement, even when not required by law
to do so. The end product will be a net benefit to the community and the public schools
of Montana who benefit from the lease revenue of the property.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed PUD and annexation request.
Sincerely,
Bob Nystuen, Chairman of the Board
Kalispell Chamber of Commerce
r
Jo H. Unterreiner, President
1' pell Chamber of Commerce
15 Depot Park • Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 758-2800 • Fax (406) 758-2805 • Email: chamber@digisys.net • www.kalispellchamber.com
Citizens for a Better Flathead
406 99: e FAX0 , • :9• - citizens@digisys.net
.
Date: 10-15-01
To: Kalispell City Council
RE: Planned Unit Development Agreement, Section 36, Public Hearing Comments
From: Citizens For A Better Flathead
Overview:
1. CFBF and others have voiced widespread support for the development of a
Tech Park on Section 36. Our comments this evening are focused on how this
PUD application can be strengthen to ensure that this Tech Park is developed and
built.
2. We would encourage the council to note that both the limited economic
analysis conducted and included in the 6/13/01 Draft Environmental Impact
Statement and the Downtown Merchant Survey included in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement Appendices 6/13/201, raise important concerns
about the expansion of retail uses and the potential for job shifting which would
be undesirable. Of direct relevance to the PUD discussion tonight you should pay
attention to the fact that the economic study notes the value of delayed build -out
in some retail sectors and the need to fully consider retail expansion else where in
the planning jurisdiction in planning for development on Section 36.
3. Given these findings noted above and the recent approval of the 60 acre
Mountain View Plaza with Home Depot with six other large retail pads to be
developed there, just across from Section 36, and the proposed Wolford Glacier
Mall, we would encourage the council to condition the Section 36 PUD to give
clearer priority to technology and professional office uses.
Recommendations:
Page one of the yellow PUD in the council's packet, second to the last
"whereas." Consider replacement of the proposed B-5 zone for the mixed
commercial POD with that of a B-1 zone. This zone more closely identifies
the permitted used that would
Every Voice h
courage the development of
eg
a Tech Park. It is also more in keeping with the intent of a PUD that can provide
some flexibility to a more restrictive zone as opposed to the 8-5 designation that
requires this PUD to be more restrictive.
2. Technology uses can also be given greater priority by making the following
amendments to the PUD by designating conditional uses under the Commercial
POD as has been done in the Mixed Professional Pod and the Residential POD of
this PUD. On Page 10-11, section vi. and vii., should be amended to read:
vi. if business and technology uses fail to achieve a 40,000 square foot floor area
threshold within 5 years following the execution of this agreement, then the uses
identified as conditional uses under section 2.02 B of this document may be
proposed for approval under the conditional use provisions of the Kalispell zoning
regulations. (* see #4 for conditional use language recommended for insertion)
vii. if business and technology uses fail to achieve a 120,000 square foot floor area
threshold within 10 years following the execution of this agreement, then the uses
identified as conditional uses under section 2.02 B of this document may be
proposed for approval under the conditional use provisions of the Kalispell zoning
regulations.
3. Then on Page 15, the retail uses listed in #16 should be deleted as should
campground and recreational vehicle parks uses included under #17 and be
classified as conditional uses .
4. To accomplish this on Page 15 a paragraph should be inserted after # 19 as
similar to the paragraphs on conditional uses included under the Mixed
Professional POD and the Mixed Residential POD sections. It could be worded as
follows:
Retail uses defined {as worded in #161 "clothing, convenience, food, sporting,
book, office products, drug, computer, phone, hardware, tire, plumbing, electrical,
furniture, art household, gifts, mall warehouse discount, ect."and uses in #17 of
"campground" and "recreational vehicle parks" may only be considered as
conditional uses after the times established and in compliance with the phasing
requirements identified in Section 2.01, C, 5, b, vi and vii.
5. An additional sentence should be added to comply with strong neighborhood
concerns expressed and reflect in the neighborhood plan prohibiting taverns,
gaming and casino facilities in the mixed commercial POD. This could simply
state that: Taverns, gaming and casino facilities will not be permitted in the mix
commercial POD.
6. On Page 16 under the Mixed Professional POD . # 7, food and grocery store and
# 15 retail should be moved to conditional uses also. These uses generate
significant traffic and moving to a conditional use will enable review of the need
for this use which is not included under the underlying R-5 zone, as well as review
of possible location within the POD, traffic, parking and street concerns.
Page 16, the paragraph following #17, should be amended to read:
Food and grocery stores and Retail enterprises of less than 3000 square feet may
only be considered as conditional uses in the mixed professional POD.
8. To aid in sizing and planning for utility needs under this PUD and to better comply
with the requirements of a PUD, we feel an effort should be made to identified the
square footage build out of proposed uses in this PUD.
7. Additionally before finalizing this PUD, we would urge this counsel to request
written clarification from the Department of Revenue as to how this property will
be appraised and valued for tax purposes. Clarification is needed to determine
particularly how state land will be appraised as this is the basis from which tax
value will be set. Written clarification of this should demonstrate if this appraisal
will be tied to lease conditions, what reappraisal cycle will be used as build out
occurs, and a more accurate tax base impact from this development proposal.
445 6th Ave East
October 11, 2001
Kalispell City Council
First Ave East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Dear Sirs:
/I RG I N 1A S LOAN
Kalispell, Mt 59901
406-75M228 RECEIVED
I am writing in support of the proposed PUD for Section 36 north of Kalispell, Spring
Prairie. As we move forward with encouraging economic development activities in our
community we continue to be challenged by the need for the tools to attract businesses to the
area. One of the needs is compatible with the proposed high tech business park being
proposed for this site.
We are in desperate need to build the infrastructure to encourage business to locate in an en-
vironment where they are supported with state of the art communications and facilities
which will allow them grow their companies and contribute to our economic health.
This land use proposal has been debated for years. Please look favorably on this request.
Virginia Sloan
OCT-11-01 09055 nM Jogs Flow
�106 =57 777v P. 02
J o
b s
INJ o w
n
c f
A !i
E C t) n O nj 1 l
D L' V it I o 1) m L n t
r g tt n) L
tl t t O n
October 11, 2001
supportI will be out of town for your on Monday, October 15, 2001 but wanted to
express my forward- Section 36..
propertyThe community has been engaged in the planning process for this important
Parcel of _ 1999. Architectural review -
allowable uses have been extensively discussed and decided upon. It is time to
move forward.
This project is important for future job creation In our community. I hope you will
look favorably upon moving to the next step.
Pli�beth C. Hard
Jobs Now, Inc.
129 Main Streets Kalispell, M I -59901
406,257.7711 # (0 406,257.7772
1.888.670,5440
wwwjobs-now.targ , (e) ►obsnow(fi centurytel.net
October 9, 2001
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, Montana 59903
Subject: Public Comment - PUD Application
Section 36 "Spring Prairie" Zoning and Annexation
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Hampstead Partners, Inc. (HP), is pleased to support zoning and annexation of the proposed
Section 36 "Spring Prairie" subdivision as requested in the PUD application being considered.
HP is the successful offeror to the state for development of the business and technology park
component of the "Spring Prairie" subdivision.
Without delay HP encourages proceeding with the process of zoning and annexation. HP is
satisfied that the proposed zoning, in particular its commercial components, will accommodate
the uses envisioned for business and technology park development. The proposed zoning is
more restrictive than the adopted Neighborhood Plan: this to help ensure delivery of a high
quality product while minimizing competition to existing area businesses.
Throughout the process of bringing this subdivision effort forward HP has enjoyed working
closely with the city, state, and citizenry to secure the best interests of the community. The
public process has been extensive and exhaustive. Your affirmative and timely action is
respectfully requested.
Sincerely,
Jay Wentz
Princi
••••• � � v v . .. I, v V I V ✓ u l I V 1 11 1 1 1 V l\ a u 1 l L V
!LU i YVV YYY :.VVY
MAY. -04' 00 (THU) 10:39 DEPTt 6, CTURAL RES TEL 106 444 2684
05/03.100 1b; 30 rr.w , Doo:ivJ
Cl °Dens for a Better Flathead
P.O. 13 ,m 771 ® Kaliispell. NIT ® 59903-0771
(406) 756.8993 ® I AX (406) 756-9991 0 e-mail: citizens@disisys.not
May 1. 2 DOO
Stag Do, rd of Lauds Cor►urlssio: i,rs
Box ?01(o1
1-14elena. 14T 59620-1610
t.
ear Commission Members, -
I. .
F. VV.:
• tt
Pvft-it'' Fax Note 7671
To CG19
pi®D6y
FroM1
co1090f.
Co.
Phone Y
Phone a
Fax
axe
C n behalf of Citizen; Pot A 13attec Flathead, I would like to request the opportunity to address
the boarc on the Draft MOU for :section 36, that I understand will be on yoU Y agenda on May 15.
Addition. illy, I would Gke in this let#er to identify some of the issues our organization continuer to
have con erns with in TI)c recentl1, revised MOU. We feel that some of these concerns should be most
appropri;.tely addressed by your -joard in its role as the director of the Department of Natural
Resourets and Conservation by i dding additional language to the MOU. Your leadership in this
matter is particularly critical give;i teat the DNRC does not have in place a comprehensive plan for the
development and management of transitional lands on urban fringes.
C f concern are still a nut -fiber of issues that if not addressed now in the MOU process, could
have a dttrintental impUOT on the City of Kalispell and taxpayers. We feel that this board should
strengthen this MOU so that die 1ONRC and local government can provide citizens elear�cconumic
irUformat:on with which they can revaluate, comment, and where nteded encourage adji ntmonts to
proposed actions on section 36. We would suggest that the following five conditions be added to this
MOU:
5 DNRC will provide i'te proposed lease/rent formula to be offered for the parcel proposed
ft7r leusir o and allow for corm, rat on by the City of Kalispell prior to leasing, request for zoning, plan
aniendmt its, or extension of tni=iucipal services,. DNRC recognizes that this information is necessary
for the City to adequately evalt Utz the: economic cost/heneftt to the city tax base prior city actions
lumlbiu t.j annexation for provisi:ir; ref services for the pr�lptlsed development.
(Note: cc ndititm #5 is needed tr, allow taxpayers, business owners and the City of Kalispell. to
determin: if the existing Kalisp,tll business ct,re area can remain viable and not have to unfairly
compete with less than market, 1, Slue rzntsileases if proposed for section 36. It is our understanding
that with . the state is required i; seek full market value for the appraised valuation, the starting point
for a led; elr—t is only based ou 10% of the appraised valuation. Additionally the state may hold -a
lease for up to 40 years which nuld lock in rents at a noncompetitive rate. DNRC actions should not
result in 'ents that are not crsml i Ititive with existing private sector rates in Kalispell. Condition #5
should er cuuragv. a pcsitivr wt i icing relationsl-dp between the city and the DNRC. This. condition only
requests lint information, that v,11 evziltually be made public be provided up -front in the decision
making f roces5.)
6 DNRC will pYevic r, the proposed bid criteria to he used and allow for cornnlent by the
City of k slispell prior to hiddi'lleasing, request for znning,,plan atnendrnents, op.exWnsior.,,pf
municipuI scrvices. DNRC wilt seek to cooperate with'r�ocal,econnmip devclopmettif_plans iriYtl alcipg
c.ert�l
1- 1. v V v V 1 -� I V V- IV
MAY. -04' 00 (THU) 10 : 3a
u7iva�uu 10:40
VLI I V1 11(l I V11111U IILJ
DEPT CIJURAL RES
f M1A / JOJ2f: _
ILU•1 YVV YYY LVVY
TEL*," '106 444 2684
C. VVV
P. 00 t
V L
trust Ianc available for cornmorci d activities. In establishing bidding critcria in compliance with
stx; ion 77-1.601, MCA, the DNT ;C recognizes that it is required to both seek the "highest :
develops Lent of stair -owned land ," and to ensure that as a result of the development "the economy of
the Iocal commur►ity as well as d, ; state is benePitted as a result of the impact of such development."
('Note: C. �nditinn #6 is needed to encourage sound plannlAg and local control. Bidding criteria for
cornmart ial devetopmem should 'j'iclude standards to compliment existing economic. resources in much .
the same way as a timber salt bic: has standards or criteria established to protect environmktal
resource... Sound planning is pre *r iced on the cities' ability to define preforred patterns of jrowTh.
The City of Kalispell may be ver : supportive of a newly proposed bid for a high-tec business park and
the assoc iated new job creation tl 3t it could represent. The city may not be as interested in' supporting
a series tI "stuff -marts" or "mega -malls" that have the potential to seriously impact .the existing tax
base of tie city.) '
7. before heginrdrig nago i.ations, all potential lessees will be required to submit evidence of
their ability to perform satisfacto --sly the terms of the proposed lease.
(Note: C )ndititm ## 7 is necessar, to avoid costly expenditure of staff time on speculative proposals.
Addition illy the city needs to be assured that its tax liability on the property is secure as its normal
recourse for the recoupment of u (paid taxes through attachment of property is removed by the unique
olvnor:h p of impvovemettts by t•11. stare. DNRC should recognize the potential needs to ineluda
bonding -equircments to secure t -;is tax liability.)
E. reappraisal will be doe on a cycle identical with the Montana Department of Revenue's
appraisal Cycle.
(Note: Cnnditlon #8 is necessary to ensure that appraisals and associated leases and real acid personal
property taxes are asrablishod co npetitivc with similar privately owned property. 'It is our -
understa iding the DNRC's tradi zonal cycle for reappraisals is ten years while the state appraises on a
more frcluent basis.)
lo. DNRC recognizes ant accepts that on department -managed lands, as is the case on
privately -oymcd lands, financial resources must be invested in lands to produce income (i.e., building
a road it a forest to gaits access :u timber or digging a well for irrigation of agricultural land). The
DNRC 011 develop an investme;,it Strategy for realizing the income potential of the property and for
ensuring that the income from a parccl will continue.
(Note: Condition # 9 is necassat )' to ensure that management or enforcement of lease conditions of
these prf*pertics does ll��t hCCOm! call indirect liability on city resources such as the planning office or
ecoriumi - dr:velopmeut oftit:c,)
t )nee again we would uT .e You to ctuctully cort5idcr inclusion of these proposed five
conditloats to the draft MOU no, L, approved by the City of Kalispell and Flathead County..The stature
of tho proposed flvv conditions :lakes action for their inclusion most appropriate by this board, rather
than the t:iry tar COUtlty, in tilt: al -=Ce of a Cornprebansive policy on the management of state lands
rlr I. v\j VV II n11 vu•41 uDr I Vr INIAIVNAb Kr,3
MAY. -04' 00(THU) 10:40 DEPT �,MRAL R£S
ILL:1 4UO 444 Z064
TEL 406 444 2684
Vb ldd.Id<-NI Ll"
r. UU4
P. 003
WjVj
proposed for commercial develo.•Iment. Please also note that we are by support of the four additional
conditions added by the City of 1 ;alispell to the first draft MOU and now approved by both the city
and coutl ty_
C itizens For A Better Flc,Qiead has taken and appreciates the opportunity to take an active role
in the pu 3lic process on the deve opment of a plati for the future use of Section 36. Having said this
however we look forward to tht benefits of broader statewide input to be gained by now submitting
this MOt I and development pro; mal to MEPA review. We appTeciam and support the board of land
commiss oner's position on the s .ed for MEPA review estahlishad at your September maet ng and
reflected in the minutes passed a this meeting as follows:
" _. Governor Racicot as .ed if the Department intends to have full scale MBPA analysis of the
e hire development not jt .it on the lease by lease basis before it proceeds.
A lr. Rooney said it is die Departments intention to do MEPA analysis on the entirety of the
prczjGCt which will -ha cor lucted before the MOU is signcd. & said the plan is to go forward
v"ith the intention that this --is the plan for the section and analyze those impacts."
and reflected in the resolution pF.,sed as follows:
" iovernor Raeieot said t e motion is to direct tlio Department to proceed with the preparation
a id drafting of an MOU -hat lays out a broad framework to address the issues of a master
plan, zoning, subdlvisiar review, MEPA, and the simultaneous suspension of any fufthu
n Invement forward until ! rich time as that MOU leas been approved by the local governments
t) bough a public licaring ind this board."
I hank you for this oppol unity to share these conrtrns wiry you. We ask that we be 5cnt a
copy of the agenda for the May 15 meeting and copies of any other material or comments that have
been submitted by others or of V,ose being prepared by the department on this topic,
Sincercl.•,
Mayrc F ln%vcrs
Pro"rain nirectnr
Citizens For A Better Flathead
Y
�, t _
Chris Kukulski
From: steve prather <prather@digisys.net>
To: <kukulski@digisys.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 10:01 PM
Subject: MOU concerning section 36 commercial development
Dear Mr. Kukulski,
I was unable to attend the recent public hearing concerning the
proposed commercial development of Section 36 state land, but wanted to
let you know that I strongly support Citizen's for a Better Flathead and
their recommendations for this MOU.
I have just returned from travel to California, and have a vivid
picture of what uncontroled development looks like - miles and miles of
it. I call this "anywhere america". You could be just about anywhere.
These areas have lost their cultural and local charm, and have become
one mall or fast food restaurant after another.
We here in Montana still have a chance to choose for our cities to be
different than this. For them to have green spaces, and be lovely places
to live. This large 360 acre parcel of state land, if developed without
contraints, will have a huge, devatating effect on Kalispell, and set a
precident for more sprawl to follow. The MOU needs to re -drafted, and
include much stronger regulations to protect the economic stability of
Kalispell, and brought to a new public hearing.
Language also needs to be added to insure that development on Section
36 be required to pay full cost of services.
Thank you for concidering my feedback on this matter,
Sincerely, Sonja Hartmann
4/L4/UU
Chris Kukulski
From: Mary Jo Gardner <gardner@digisys.net>
To: <Kukulski@digisys.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 2:56 PM
Subject: giant development
I'm quite concerned abut the proposed development neat FVCC. I imagine
cheap land leads to less tax being paid. Do we really need such a monster
development -I can only imagine yet another creation of jobs that don't
provide a living wage here. Decide wisely -many generations from now will
continue to PAY for bad choices now. Mary Jo Gardner
4/24/UU
Chris Kukulski
From: WICKERSHAMS <wickerm@cyberport.net>
To: <kukulski@digisys.net>
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 4:54 PM
Subject: development on state owned land
I am unable to attend the city council meeting tonight but wanted to express
my concern about any proposed development on the state owned acres across
from F.V.C.C.. I'm not sure how commerical development on state owned
properly works.I hope any development will be subject to local control and
will be responsible for the full costs of services,be required to build to
city standards,and attach to city sewer and water(Can the city annex state
land?)As a federal, state,county, and city taxpayer I hope I won't be
helping some developer on any of these tax level revenue sources.Is there
any way to phase development to see how things go before oking the whole
paracel?Please excuse my lack of expertise on this subject.Thank you for
taking the time to read my concerns. On the other issue as a city taxpayer I
would be glad to pay the extra taxes for Mike Baker's urban forestry
district. Sincerely Nina Wickersham
4/14/UU
Chris Kukulski
From: bkmitch <bkmitch@bigsky.net>
To:
<Kukulski@digisys.net>
Cc:
<citizens@digisys.net>
Sent:
Monday, April 17, 2000 2:50 PM
Subject:
State Lands MOU
Mr. Kukulski: Please re -draft the MOU in reference to the commercial development on 340ac of State Land. Insure full MEPA
review. THIS is a big deal for Kalispell -- it could end up being a big negative deal for downtown businesses... and taxpayers.
Thank you, Brent Mitchell
4/L4/UU
Chris Kukulski
From: Fagre <fagre@digisys.net>
To: <kkulski@digisys.net>
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 1:22 PM
Subject: comment
Dear Mr. Kukulski,
Unfortunately, I am not able to attend the Monday, April 17th Kalispell City Council meeting at City Hall. I would, however, like to
comment on the 340 acre commercial development being proposed on a section of state owned land (section 36).
This development represents a huge increase in commercial development for Kalispell and the Council needs to carefully consider
the negative impacts of this on pre-existing commercial businesses.
Citizens For A Better Flathead will present detailed comments on the proposal during the meeting. Their comments are important
and well informed. I wholeheartedly support their approach to the development of this piece of land. Please hear what they have to
suggest and know that the goal is to have an economically stable and carefully planned community.
Thank you for your time and for serving as Kalispell's City Manager.
Ann Fagre
tre�s.net
4%l4JUU
Chris Kukulski
From: t & d divoky <tdivoky@dig isys. net>
To: <Kukulski@digisys.net>
Cc: <citizens@digisys.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2000 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: commercial development/slow it down
Chris Kukulski,
Please take time and look at all the issues surrounding the proposed develpment of the 340 acres of state owned land
across the FVVC. This is a huge increase in commercial develpment in our area. Once it is developed the piece of
state land is lost and Kalispell begins to look just like other strip cities, many other places.
Also we, the taxpayers should not foot the bill for a developer coming into our area. The MOU should allow local
control over the develpoment of this land.
Thank you.
Terry and Dennis Divoky
P.O. Box 306
West Glacier 59936
4I14/UU
From: don spivey <drsjes@digisys.net>
To: <kukulski@digisys.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2000 7:15 PM
Subject: May 17 hearing on commercial development of the state lands north of Kalispell
Mr. Kukulski,
Monday nite you will hear testimony from the Citizen's for a Better Flathead
on the subject proposed development. I support their testimony and would
like to add the following observations as I will be unable to attend in person.
I have watched with growing alarm over the past few years as Kalispell
debated multiple proposals for additional commercial development in and
arround their community, i.e., swapping the fairgrounds --the DOME and
surrounding commercial development (across the street from the subject
proposal) --major proposals at the corner of Reserve and US2 and on and on.
All of these considerations lacked any clear underpinnning in terms of a
sound plan for orderly development of Kalispell and any clear understanding
of the inevitable impacts on the core businesses in downtown Kalispell. Nor
did they consider as carefully as needed the large amount of unoccupied
commercial space already available, or did they include any quantified
assessment of need for additional space.
To date we've watched one entire Mall close as they were unable to attract
businesses to lease their space --the industrial property at Reserve and US
93 converted to commercial without the commercial development and Dome that
presumably triggered those Master Plan changes. Throughout all these
deliberations and decisions no one was able to clarify, much less quantify,
NET benefits to the citizen's of Kalispell and the surrounding area. The
State lands (School Trust Lands) also enjoy statutory exemption from
following local land -use regulations and from paying the same level of
property taxes other properties must pay. State policy also requires the
State to lease -not sell these lands thus perpetuating the taxing and
land -use regulation exposures previously mentioned.
I urge the council to step back and determine, with the appropriate planning
effort, what additional commercial development is needed and where it should
be located and what quantified benefit it brings to Kalispell citizens
BEFORE rendering a decision. Only when all that is known, and agreed to, can
an informed decision be made.
Respectfully submitted,
Don Spivey
P.O. Box 878
Whitefish, MT
862-7733
4/24/00
Chris Kukulski
From: Donald Rees <drees@digisys.net>
To: <kukulski@digisys.net>
Cc: <citizens@digisys.net>; Donald Rees <drees@digisys.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2000 11:49 AM
Subject: Proposed development of 340 ac of sec 36 (North of FVCC)
Dear Mr. Kukulski,
Because of parental responsibilities, I am unable to attend the hearing on April 17, 2000 regarding the proposed
development of land North of FVCC. In the interest of the residents of Flathead County, I would like to see that before
this development takes place that there is adequate opportunity to present this information to the people and receive
appropriate feedback. I also believe that before this development occurs, the following items need to be addressed:
1. Redrafting of the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
2. Additional language to insure development on this section be required to pay the full costs of services so the tax
payers are not stuck with the burden
3. More restrictive phasing of development on this section to compliment local control and discourage a surplus of
commercial land that can lower tax base revenue from existing business districts like down town Kalispell
4. Revisions of the development plan for this section to insure local control of the type and quality of development to
be allowed on this 340 acres
5. Full MEPA (Montana Enviromnental Policy Act) review of this proposed MOU and development
plan as is required by law
I am sure that you will agree that by listening to the concerns of all the residents of the Flathead, and through proper
planning, we can control the growth of the county and ensure that the economic needs are met, without creating
problems that we will regret and have to live with in the many years to come. Thanks you for your time.
Donald C. Rees
Whitefish, MT. USA
dreesO1diDsys.net
4iz4/uu
From: Joe Fisher <joef@digisys.net>
To: <Kukulski@digisys.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2000 9:05 AM
Subject: MOU
Regarding the state owned land up for development that is across from
Flathead Valley Community College. I feel that the MOU has to be stronger
before the land is sold or developed.
Thank you
Joe Fisher
407 Ashley Court
Kalispell, MT 59901
752-7469
4/24/UU
Chris Kukulski
From: Ellingson, Mae Nan<Ellingson. Mae. Nan@dorseylaw.com>
To: 'Chris Kukulski' <kukulski@digisys.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 200012:32 PM
Subject: RE: 'Beneficial Use" Taxes on State Land - Section 36
Yes, they absolutely should be subject to the tax, under the law, which is
found at Section. 15-24-1203. And yes, I definitely would add it to the
MOU so that they are on notice that this is to be done. You are right on in
thinking about this. The more I work in this area, the more I realize that
these things just get dropped, unnoticed, etc, by the DOR and that if you
don't take the affirmative steps that you are taking it just might not get
done.
Hope all is well, and that things are going fine with Stream. I miss seeing
you all. I do look forward to being able to work with you on something
else. You are bright ray of sunshine. All the best.
----Original Message -----
From: Chris Kukulski mailto:kukulskilg6gi net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 9:36 PM
To: Ellingson, Mae Nan
Cc: Susan Moyer; Bill Boharski
Subject: "Benefitial Use" Taxes on State Land - Section 36
Hello! just a quick question since we're both so hard to catch on the phone.
The DNRC has asked the City to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding
regarding the development of State land section 36. The neighborhood and
State developed a "Neighborhood Plan" for the development of the section,
consisting of several mixed uses.
My question is, if land is leased from the State by a "for profit"
organization will they be subject to "beneficial use" taxes on the real and
personal property? If so, should I ad this provision to the MOU? Thanks
for your time.
Chris Kukulski, Kalispell City Manager
4/6/00