Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Public Letters On The Record
�i 1740 Ashley Lake Road Kalispell, MT 59901 June 18, 2002 Kalispell City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Dear City Council Members: The purpose of this letter is to advise you of my thoughts regarding proposed changes to our master plan that would allow development of a "mega -mall" on LaSalle Road. I am appalled that this issue has proceeded this far at all. I cannot for the life of me comprehend how any responsible citizen who values the quality of life here could support such a development proposal. The issues that mitigate against this development include, but are certainly not limited to, the degradation of: general valley aesthetics, core downtown businesses, core downtown civic and social structure and sense of community, our valley's water supply, the quality of Flathead Lake water, the general air quality, traffic flow, and the public's tax liability. I can see absolutely no redeeming qualities such development would bring. I see this proposed development as nothing more than a further fouling of our own nest. We already have the clearest of examples of what has' happened in other areas that have pursued unbridled commercial development: Missoula, Hamilton, Bozeman, and further afield, Aspen, Telluride, Sun Valley, and on and on: The mere thought of the Flathead Valley evolving further and further toward a regional commercial shopping center is completely repugnant to me, and violates the very nature of this magnificent land, its history, and its people. Together we have a choice. We do not have to blindly, dumbly follow the same shameful, short-term course of development that others have allowed their communities to follow. We can opt for a clearer, long-term course of planning and action that will keep the quality of life and community in this valley something to enjoy, be proud of, and be proud to pass atong'to one children and grandchildren. Let others less visionary allow random, unbridled commercial development turn their communities into squalid, impersonal strips and malls, devoid of the humanity and sense of community we have grown up with here. This is our chance to rise above the short-term gain, the greed, the loss of natural beauty and community. One hundred years from now it will be the natural splendor, the sense of community, and the quality of life that distinguishes the Flathead Valley — not our strips, malls, casinos, and commercial development. Please, for our heritage - for future generations - oppose this change to the master plan! By doing so, you would set an astounding and wonderful precedent that would surely be emulated by communities facing similar pressures around our nation. I can think of no finer contribution you could make at this time, individually and collectively, to the long-range future of this beautiful valley, its people, and other communities in Montana and across our nation. Sinperely purs, Richard H. Schaus RECEIVED J'J' 2 G 1,.,n G=t,> Lisa J. Bate 389 LaBrant Road Kalispell, MT 59901 June 18, 2002 Kalispell Mayor and City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903-1997 Dear Mayor Kennedy and Kalispell City Council members, I am writing to you to express my concerns about the huge shopping mall that is now under consideration for Kalispell. Regretfully, I will not be able to attend the meeting on this subject June 24 because of work commitments. Please accept my written comments instead. My family and I live on a small farm just south of Creston. We have many family members and friends visit us throughout the year because of the wonderful setting of our farm. Increasingly however, I am hearing from my friends and family that they want to avoid Kalispell because of its "strip -town" qualities. I can only imagine that building more stores will just add to the negative impression of the city of Kalispell and its immediate surroundings. It is the downtown area that our friends and family ask about most often. I also strongly believe that the jobs created by a shopping mall are not the kind of jobs this area needs. Most mall jobs that I know about only pay minimum wage and most of the money earned would go into the pocket books of developers out-of-state. Finally, I am strongly concerned about the impacts of such a large mall on the water quality in our valley. People come here because of the natural beauty of the area, not to shop. Please, I urge you to not support this project. I strongly believe that such a mall would ultimately do more harm than good for our community. Sin ly, j \ Lisa J. e 'JUN 0 L litI, N" M-13NIIIA Steve Eckels 619 2nd Ave. W. Kalispell, MT 59901 Kalispell City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Dear council members: I am writing in support of the development of our downtown area, and am opposed to the mega mall idea which would detract from out sense of community. Let's work to have a sense of community and not be just another metropolis. Thank you Sincerely, ,5 Steve www.guitarmusicman.com RECEIVED JUG! ? 0 rpl? ��!Al RECEIVED To: Kalispell City Council, THE INTERLAKE ,1B l� c� i From: Shirley Anderson Re: Glacier Mall Date June 19, 2002 Do we really want to change, in one irreversible leap, the whole agriculture, commercial, residential flavor of the Flathead Valley? I hope not. In the words of the old pop song "Slow down, you move too fast." Re the Glacier Mall, there are so many unanswered questions and all we hear is the repeated refrain, "those problems are to be worked out in the future." Wrong! Shifting the valley business center to Reserve and Lasalle would have severe consequences for the county and city taxpayer. Please consider the road situation in that area, only one part of the infrastructure: : -A year ago staff at the Flathead County Department was two people down from 1989 yet the County population had increased by 14,000 people and traffic on County roads had grown 20%. Each one of the road crew was responsible for maintaining 44 miles of roadway. -Many county roads have less than the required minimum 60 foot right-of-way. Thus drainage, utilities and pedestrian needs cannot be met on some stretches. On Helena Flats Road, which would become a key entry road to the Mall, one of two cars meeting has to come to a stop if there is a child walking to school. There is no room for two cars and a pedestrian. There is no shoulder -We lack a fiilly funded County paving program, hence there is limited maintenance of existing County roads. Are any adjacent county roads scheduled for improvement? -Many county roads were built to a minimal standard and are now very costly to maintain. They were never intended for long service or heavy traffic. Additional commercial or industrial uses will increase traffic, wear out existing roads quicker and require stronger and more expensive roads. For the sake of those county or city taxpayers whose taxes support the infrastructure, please reject this proposal. With the lack of proper infrastructure, increased use of Internet shopping, the new emphasis on smaller shopping centers, a gigantic mall is not the wave of the future and will die of its own excesses leaving the taxpayers holding the bag. "Slow down, you move too fast. " REJECT THE MALL PROPOSAL! Helena1475 F7ats 'eel' Kalispell, 990 H02 JUN 20 PM 8: 22 KALISPELL CITY CLERK Kalispell City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 To be brief, our concerns are as follows: We'd like to see growth in the downtown area - expansion at the existing mall, incentives to maintain the charm of a healthy, centralized community as opposed to disjointed urban sprawl. Where would the workforce come from to stair all the new stores? The workforce at a retail level makes little more than minimum wage, creating jobs but at a low income level - but where could they afford to live? Why does this new mall need to be so big anyway? Is there any guarantee from the owners or builders that it will be sufficiently occupied to justify it's existance? There have been reasonable environmental concerns that haven't been addressed pertaining to runoff and water quality, plus fire and police protection. What did we learn from Gateway Mall - is Kalispell Center Mall so healthy and thriving that we need something newer, bigger, shiney and bright? What is Mr. Wolford really offering us? Is he just a developer doing his job - paving the landscape, bringing in the boxes, and making his fortune and moving on? Granted the valley is growing but many people move here to get away from what has been allowed to happen to their home town. Please don't be hasty in your decision - it's one that won't be easily reversed. Sincerely, 1 ubiic heanng on zone change in bvergreen Subject: Public hearing on zone change in Evergreen Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 16:49:22 -0600 From: Lou Gates <lou@digisys.net> To: twhite@kalispell.com As tax paying residents of Kalispell, we are unalterably opposed to the proposed zone change at the corner of Reserve Drive and Hiway 2. Land suitable for growing crops is fast disappearing; the highest and best use of this land is as farm land, not commercial or industrial. Louis B. Gates and Clarice M. Gates 426 7th Ave W Kalispell MT 59901 (406)752 1199 A N N E ° C (to: IL'Lt O L L I N S RECEIVED JUG! 19 2002 6, 11 U L U 'k �A L �(,A MT 59937 3080 EAST LAKESHORE °i WHITEFISH ° RECEIVED I tEl ,i J Vlt c. VICKIE ,ICHLEGEL 400 Egar, Road Kalispell MI, 59901 40 756--0906 June 19, 2002 Kalispell City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell MT 59903 Dear Kalispell City Councilpersons: As the news surrounding the mall proposal unfolded, I sat on my hands believing that sooner or later good sense and reason would prevail. I now fear that may not be the case. We have all heard the phrase "last best place' until it makes us sick, but as is so often the case, the trite becomes trite because it is so true. While I have lived in various places in the west, the Flathead has always been my heart's home. My grandparents moved here from Malta in the early part of the century, my mother graduated from Flathead High School in 1951 and I lived here on and off until returning for keeps in 1977. All this just to say that, as have many other long-time residents, I've seen myriad changes to this valley. Some of those changes have blessed us; we now have medical facilities available to us that rival many larger cities. Some of the changes have caused only death and destruction; increased traffic congestion, air and water quality concerns, drug problems -you know the list. To my mind this mall proposal falls in the latter category. Just this week Streetscape was in the news again. What a wonderful (and expensive) ideal But what is the purpose of beautifying our lovely downtown on the one hand while with the other we are attempting to cut its throat? Why bother with downtown when it will begin its downward spiral the minute the doors open in Mega -Mall paradise? I don't have a business downtown, but if I did I'd be laying siege to your offices this very minute, because the survival of Main Street is surely at stake. I hope in its search for new tax revenue (because isn't that really what this is all about?), that you will do what it takes to make our existing mall and downtown area ever more appealing and profitable. I hope you will do what Kalispell expects you to do and support what is best for Kalispell, not what is best for some far -removed developer's financial statement. I hope you will serve with integrity and exert every effort to keep Kalispell the unique and wonderful place that it is. I never could decide if I was a real proponent of the whole Master Plan idea. But now I see that it really doesn't matter, because if you flash enough cash in front of the faces of the decision makers, the Master Plan means little or nothing. It reminds me of the old story with the punch line that goes something to the effect of, "I already know what kind of girl you are, I'm just trying to determine what it will cost me' While crude, I think it makes the point. Are we so willing to prostitute what's left of the charm that makes Kalispell different from Missoula and Spokane and every other look -alike town on the map? Do we realty want to live in one of those places? I don't. And I would suggest that if you do, then you could easily pack up and move to the cookie -cutter, mal"inded town of your choice. There are thousands from which to choose. 11� erely, tJ ie Schlegel We the undersigned want the Kalispell City Council to reject the proposed amendment to the master plan and annexation of land for the Glacier Mall. We feel this not the right place to expand commercial development for the following reasons: ® The high water table and potential to pollute Flathead Lake with toxic parking lot runoff. ® The project will cannibalize the current commercial area of Kalispell and ruin the heart of our town. ® Traffic will increase and no funding is in place to upgrade and repair the roads. Name (PRINT) ddress Phone Signature t� 1�ISO . I i 4'1t eel --ILA -6lk V4 -s-1151401 �;1®67 T"-* t4greAe 13 e- -f, IJAJ-i hftz-tA� ® o,� 1 r -J June 16, 2002 Kalispell City Council RECEIVE Kalispell, Mt. Jt1N 19 2007 Dear Sirs, I am writing concerning the proposed new Mall. Do you want to see the Center Mall closed up? Look wi�at happened to Gateway West after Center Mall came in. This idea is ridiculous, in that it definitely will take business away from the city of Kalispell. I don't think that is a good idea. Center Mall plans to enlarge which makes sense. They have area to accomplish that. Please don't rush into this proposal. Maybe you need a vote by the people. Sincerely, Eileen Sandefur " Kalispell, Mt. P.O. Box 70 • Poison, MT 59860 406-883-1346 Fax: 406-883-1357 fakers@flatheadlakers.org www,flatheadlakers.org Kalispell City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Flathead Lakers: Working for clean water, a healthy ecosystem, and lasting quality of life in the Flathead Watershed. June 17, 2002 RECEIVED Re: Wolford proposal for Amendment to the Kalispell City/County Master Plan U N 1 9' U. �i? Dear City Council Members: In addition to the Flathead Lakers' written comments of May 24, 2002 regarding the Kalispell Master Plan Amendment proposed by Wolford Development Montana LLC, we respectfully request that you review and consider the enclosed information regarding the shallow alluvial aquifer, which underlies the area under consideration, and the quality of Flathead Lake. Enclosed you will find copies of: • the Flathead Lakers' Critical Lands Status Report • excerpts from Nutrient Management Plan & Total Maximum Daily Load for Flathead Lake, Montana, December 28, 2001, prepared by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality • excerpts from Water Quality Data Analyses to Aid in the Development of Revised Water Quality Targets for Flathead Lake, Montana. Report for the Flathead Basin Commission, June 10, 1997, Stanford, et. al., Flathead Lake Biological Station • Stanford, J. A., J. V. Ward, and B. K. Ellis. 1994. Ecology of the Alluvial Aquifers of the Flathead River, Montana. pp. 367-390 in J. Gibert, et. al, editors, Groundwater Ecology. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego • Noble, R. A. and J. A. Stanford. 1986. Groundwater Resources and Water Quality of the Unconfined Aquifers in the Kalispell Valley, Montana. Open File Report, Montana Bureau of Mines & Geology, 177 Please pay particular attention to the following information in these reports and papers: 1) The area under consideration is in an area that is one of the most sensitive to development of any in the Flathead Valley, and has the biggest impact on water quality in the Flathead River and Flathead Lake. The Flathead River riparian corridor and associated wetlands, floodplains and the shallow alluvial aquifer are critical for maintaining water quality in the Flathead River and Flathead Lake. • Intact riparian vegetation and undeveloped floodplains along the Flathead River (and other rivers and streams) protect water quality and provide important wildlife habitat. • Water, and consequently dissolved nutrients and other pollutants, move rapidly between the shallow alluvial aquifer in the Evergreen area and the Flathead River. • Impervious surfaces increase stormwater runoff and can increase nutrient loads and disrupt underground biological processes that cleanse the water returning to the Flathead River. [See Critical Lands Status Report pp. 9-13; Ecology of Alluvial Aquifers ... pp. 374-377 and 385-388; Water Quality Data Analyses... pp. 9-18, 38-48, 48-53 and 61-64; Groundwater Resources and Water Quality of the Unconfined Aquifers... pp. 15-18, 38-54 and 63-64.1 2) Flathead Lake has been identified by the State of Montana as an impaired water body. Through the TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) process required by the Clean Water Act, the Department of page 2 Environmental Quality and the Flathead Basin Commission have determined that at least a 15% reduction in nutrient pollution (phosphorus and nitrogen, nutrients that contribute to algae growth and that primarily come from dispersed non -point sources throughout the basin) from current levels is needed to safeguard clean water in Flathead Lake. [See Nutrient Management Plan & TMDL for Flathead Lake, Montana, Executive Summary pp. 1 through 13 and Section 5 pp. 5-63 through 5-64.] 3) Dr. Stanford has informed us that a new paper currently in publication shows that the alluvial floodplain system is the most threatened landscape worldwide. In conclusion, the potential commercial development proposed for this area (Glacier Mall) is so large, the location is so sensitive relative to the shallow alluvial aquifer and its connection to the river and Flathead Lake, and the TMDL commitment to reducing pollution is so challenging, that we urge you to take special care in weighing this proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Robin Steinkraus Executive Director RECEIVED Flathead Station The University of Montana June 19, 2002 City of Kalispell City Council 312 lst Avenue East Kalispell, Montana 59901 To Whom It May Concern: 0? 311 Bio Station Lane JUi�; i CC 2(' Polson, Montana, U.S.A. 59860-9659 Phone (406) 982-3301 Fax (406) 982-3201 http://www.umt.edulbiology/fibs This letter responds to a formal request from the Flathead Lakers asking me to summarize Flathead Lake Biological Station (FLBS) research concerning the ecology of the shallow alluvial aquifer of the Flathead River in the Kalispell Valley. With several colleagues, including Research Associate Bonnie K Ellis (FLBS), Dr. F. Richard Hauer (FLBS) and Professor Dr. J. V. Ward (Swiss Institute of Technology, Zurich), I have conducted this research since 1972. The aquifer exists between the Flathead and Whitefish Rivers generally following the US Highway 2 corridor from Evergreen to Columbia Falls. The aquifer exists in the glacial gravel -cobble that was deposited 15-30 feet deep on top of an impervious clay formation. The gravels are overlain by 2-5 feet of rich soil developed from sediments deposited over the years by the Flathead River on its flood plain. The river has gradually migrated from west to east to its present position owing to tectonic tilting of the valley and the vast amount of gravel deposited on the river flood plain as the glaciers retreated. The aquifer is fed by water from the Flathead River and the Whitefish Range at the top of the flood plain. Ground water flows south to Evergreen where it is constricted by the finer, less porous materials deposited on the broad delta plain of Flathead Lake. Water and any pollution that is placed into the aquifer flows down -slope at high rates for ground water, in some places reaching 10 cm/sec (hydraulic conductivity). Thus, the aquifer and any constituents it may have in it is discharged into the Flathead River in the areas near and slightly upstream from the deltaic constriction near Evergreen. The Montana Bureau of Mines has produced a map of the aquifer that is generally consistent with our work. In 1988, I published with J. V. Ward, in the prestigous science journal, Nature, a paper on our findings that the aquifer was habitat for a wide variety of aquatic invertebrates, notably Plecoptera (stoneflies) that are nearly 2 inches long when mature. I had discovered these stoneflies a decade earlier in the flood plain of the Tobacco River near Eureka, Montana. We were able to collect the invertebrates from specially installed monitoring wells throughout the aquifer system. The stoneflies are unique in that when they are mature they migrate to the river, where they emerge as flying adults to mate. Eggs are deposited in the river where they penetrate An Equal Opportunity University City of Kalispell June 19, 2002 Page 2 into the bottom and hatch. Contrary to most stoneflies, the new larvae migrate far into the aquifer to mature, rather than staying in the river channel. Work by Bonnie Ellis showed that the food base for these large invertebrates is bacteria and protozoans that grow on the rocks in the aquifer. Hence, a complex food chain exists naturally in the aquifer and the large, migratory stoneflies are strong indicators of the high connectivity of ground water with the river. We collected these organisms throughout the aquifer, routinely as far away from the river as US Highway 2 (e.g, near Glacier Park International Airport). But, they were not present inside the city limits of Evergreen. On the other hand, the bugs were ubiquitous outside the urbanized area of the aquifer, suggesting that pollution was a problem in the Evergreen area. Indeed, direct measures of dissolved oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus in the well grid verified what the stoneflies were telling us: that pollution of the aquifer by septic systems, street runoff and other sources from the urbanized zone was substantially polluting the aquifer. Moreover, the pollution load was going directly into the river and hence into Flathead Lake. This information in due course led to the sewering of Evergreen to prevent pollution of Flathead Lake via aquifer discharge. The scientific details of this research fundamentally changed the field of river ecology world-wide, because we showed clearly that alluvial aquifers have complex food webs made up of a wide variety of organisms, including large -bodied invertebrates and some small fish and salamanders, and that the river and aquifer are one and the same. Passage of river water through the aquifer is a natural cleansing process mediated by food web retention and transformation of organic matter from the river and its flood plain. We cannot enjoy healthful water supplies such as we have in Flathead Lake if the river -aquifer system upstream has been disconnected by human activities. Clearly, activities such as large-scale gravel mining (which removes the gravel matrix of the aquifer creating lakes) and pollution from any source, including urban expansion, can completely disrupt the aquifer -river ecosystem. Indeed, the stoneflies have not yet re -inhabited the aquifer in the Evergreen since sewering. However, the pollution load to Flathead Lake has been substantially attenuated, based upon our loading calculations. We know from our Flathead River work and similar work elsewhere that ground -surface water exchange between rivers and their flood plain aquifers involves complex processes and pathways that fundamentally determine water quality, riparian plant growth and aquatic species distributions and productivity. Indeed, the Flathead Lake Biological Station has produced some 15 reports, scientific papers and books that use scientific data and studies from the Flathead River and elsewhere to clearly demonstrate that flood plains and their shallow alluvial aquifers are crucially important attributes of river systems. If these features are damaged or destroyed by gravel mining, disposal of pollutants, flow diversion or other influences, rivers cannot maintain clean water, robust riparian corridors and habitat for fisheries and wildlife. Any activity that substantially or incrementally changes the natural integrity of flood plains and their aquifers will have a direct City of Kalispell June 19, 2002 Page 3 and.pervasive impact on surface water quality. In the case of the Flathead Valley, destruction or pollution of the shallow alluvial aquifer that re -circulates and cleanses river water will have direct and permanent effects on the quality of the river and Flathead Lake. These papers may be obtained from Marie Kohler at the Biological Station.. Craft, J. A. 1998. Microbial respiration in the hyporheic zone of an alluvial flood plain aquifer. Master's Thesis. The University of Montana, Missoula. Ellis, B. K., J. A. Stanford, and J. V. Ward. 1998. Microbial assemblages and production in alluvial aquifers of the Flathead River, Montana, USA. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17:382-402. Noble, R. A., and J. A. Stanford. 1986. Groundwater resources and water quality of the unconfined aquifers in the Kalispell Valley, Montana, Polson. Open File Report 093-86 An open file report in conformance with grant number WDG-85-5030 Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report No. 177, Flathead Lake Biological Station, The University of Montana, Polson. Stanford, J. A. 1993. The ecology of surface and groundwater interactions: Ramifications for re- authorization of the Clean Water Act. Congressional Briefing Paper Open File Report Number 131-93, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Washington, DC. Stanford, J. A., B. K. Ellis, J. A. Craft, and G. C. Poole. 1997. Water Quality Data and Analyses to Aid in the Development of Revised Water Quality Targets for Flathead Lake, Montana. Open File Report 142-97, Prepared for The Flathead Basin Commission, Kalispell, Montana by Flathead Lake Biological Station, The University of Montana, Polson. Stanford, J. A., B. K. Ellis, and G. C. Poole. 1995. Influences of nitrogen and phosphorus loading on water quality in Flathead Lake, Montana. Final Report to the Montana Water Quality Division (Contract 240097). Open File Report 134-95, Flathead Lake Biological Station, The University of Montana, Polson. Stanford, J. A., and A. R. Gaufm. 1974. Hyporheic communities of two Montana Rivers. Science 185:700-702. Stanford, J. A., and T. Gonser. 1998. Special Issue. Rivers in the Landscape: riparian and groundwater ecology. Freshwater Biology 40:401-585. Stanford, J. A., and J. V. Ward. 1988. The hyporheic habitat of river ecosystems. Nature 335:64- 66. Stanford, J. A., and J. V. Ward. 1992. Emergent properties of ground water ecology: Conference conclusions and recommendations for research and management. Pages 409-415 in J. A. Stanford and J. J. Simons, editors. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ground Water Ecology. American Water Resources Association, Bethesda. Stanford, J. A., and J. V. Ward. 1993. An ecosystem perspective of alluvial rivers: connectivity and the hyporheic corridor. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 12:48-60. Stanford, J. A., J. V. Ward, and B. K. Ellis. 1994. Ecology of the alluvial aquifers of the Flathead River, Montana. Pages 367-390 in J. Gibert, D. L. Danielopol, J. A. Stanford, editor. Groundwater Ecology. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego. City of Kalispell June 19, 2002 Page 4 Stanford, J. A., J. V. Ward, W. J. Liss, C. A. Frissell, R. N. Williams, J. A. Lichatowich, and C. C. Coutant. 1996. A general protocol for restoration of regulated rivers. Regulated Rivers 12:391-413. Tockner, K., and J. A. Stanford. In press. Riverine flood plains: present state and future trends. Environmental Conservation. (expected to be in print by August, 2002; advance copies available at the Flathead Lake Biological Station). Ward, J. V., J. A. Stanford, and N. J. Voelz. 1994. Spatial distribution patterns of Crustacea in the floodplain aquifer of n alluvial river. Hydrobiologia 287:11-17 Moreover, a very recent scientific synthesis (Tockner and Stanford in press) of river flood plains, that typically include shallow alluvial aquifers such as occurs in the Kalispell Valley (Evergreen -Columbia Falls area), shows that these environments are the most endangered landscapes on earth. Flood plains and their aquifers occupy a small part of the earth's surface, but they are inordinately important as natural flood control zones and they are hot spots of biodiversity and bioproduction. Flood plains have rich soils, owing to natural fertilization and build-up through occasional flooding coupled with good drainage (due to the sand gravel deposits of the aquifer system below the soil layers) and easy availability of irrigation water either from the aquifer or the river. They also are the most valuable real estate in many urbanizing areas because they are the riparian green belts along rivers that have high value as recreation areas. In Boise, Idaho, Chattanooga, Tennessee, and many other areas the most valuable properties are near the green belt of the river. Unfortunately, in the USA and globally, floodplain structure and function has been vastly reduced by revetments, road building, gravel mining, pollution and stream flow regulation, among other human activities. Many governments in the USA (e.g., Napa, California) and around the world (Switzerland has a gas tax for flood plain restoration) have recognized the huge value of their river flood plains and are spending millions to rehabilitate them. Conservation and protection are the only actions that make economic sense anywhere flood plains and their alluvial aquifers remain intact, such as the Flathead Valley. Scientists at FLBS are continuing the scientific investigations of the ecology of flood plains and their alluvial aquifers in Montana with funding from the National Science Foundation. We are available upon request to elaborate on our findings and the implications of our work. Sincerely, Jack A. Stanford Bierman Professor and Director cc: Flathead Lakers Erika Binger, FLBS Outreach Coordinator JAS/mvk RECEIVED 16 June 02 Roy Jacobson 601 1" Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Mayor Pam Kennedy Kalispell City Council City Hall Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Madam, Msrs: I am writing to request that you grant approval to the new Glacier Mall development by Mr. Wolford. As stated in a recent Missoulian article, Kalispell City Manager, Mr. Chris Kukulski indicated that growth is inevitable and it would be conducive to the City of Kalispell to tax it. I agree. We have heard for several years now from the various planning agencies that growth in the Flathead Valley should revolve around "cluster developments" to concentrate growth and services and, most importantly, to conserve our beautiful farm land. What better way to concentrate the growth in the Evergreen area than to allow the Glacier Mall to proceed. I believe most will agree the haphazard growth that now exists is becoming more and more of an eyesore and, without being hooked to city sewer, will eventually become a health risk to the community through groundwater contamination. If Mr. Wolford successfully addresses the issues of water run-off treatment and his engineering specs prove his development is of no danger to our ground water and the Flathead River, I believe strongly he should be given the go ahead to proceed with the Glacier Mall. Hopefully his appealing architectural design will encourage other builders to carefully consider their plans and how they visually affect the surrounding architectural community. For any consideration you can give this request, I remain Sincerely Yours, 1 Roy c son 75 - 0 /Ylep.- 6�1� ' on, .�-S�l� . RE'CE I V f D � � �z JUN 151�i2 ZU2� �l�//1�G� GLti %Y�'� li9tie �nuuz6� 47(2 6;�� RECEIVED an" 6y k< az'r�:a-fa-P��.�-tP 6ti,-n,�t���ra C �L' ��-t 3 -7 RECEIVED Jl:li"v mtt �//7/Z 0 RECEIVED JUN 19 21,009, Pe� �; dna� SYo� �. u.R�.rv�^ C-Nv�a—cUvR �l o%w,r �-jwjp R-04 0\ N-c� vr-Z4 RECEIVED vN i G 71r: June 17, 2002 Kalispell City Council P.O. Box 2997 Kalispell, MT 59902 Dear City Council, I am unable to attend the meeting on 3une 24#', but would like to send my comments concerning the Mega Mall proposal. I am against this Mail at this time. We already have many empty buildings where shops use to be on Main Street in Kalispell and I think we would see a lot more empty buildings if this Mall came to town. ank you, Jennifer D w Lakeside, MT RECEIVED 3165 Foothill Road, Kalispell, MT 59901 406-755-1379 June 18, 2002 Kalispell City Council PO Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Proposed Mega -Mall Dear Members of the Kalispell City Council; Please do all you can to stop the development of the proposed Mega -Mall in the Flathead, especially in Evergreen. Current mall plans carry considerable risk to the shallow aquifer in the area, which feeds directly to the Flathead River and Flathead Lake. Please delay approval of the mall plans until you have done your homework thoroughly and fully understand the risks this project poses to our treasured lake and waters. Moreover, there must be something you can do to prevent this project from turning downtown into a ghost town. The developer has openly acknowledged his plan will essentially put the City Center Mall out of business. Other downtown businesses have stated they fear being put out of business as well and a recent Missoulian article documented that is exactly what happened in other cities where this developer had his way. There is something terribly wrong when our country's protections of business go too far and allow one developer to essentially steal the heart of a town and its business. There are certainly more cooperative ways for the . developer to make money while contributing to the health of our downtown and communities, rather than robbing them blind. Please deny approval of the mall plans and instead invite the developer to invest in downtown Kalispell or expansion of the City Center Mall. It defies both common and moral sense to create a new Mega -Mall only to turn other businesses and buildings into white elephants. The future of the Flathead Valley rests in your hands. Please do the right thing, not the most expedient. Sincerely, RECEIVED i U N 19 2 IV 02 2 0 fq 7 T ma Iq cc rn won Jer�� 6. 2 O's �? -�4e- -c-70- �� �� lit rnali co C),�-e s c) L.Z cf Cc-� Our- coun4v�l uc� Mon 40 - f-O 0- )/770's Ln�o o r ryt 40 our- /S I ao One -T -�A (f r(--. -14 e 's a cc II A aiid c k-(f 0 V'f' r- uA zVyj c el ovr couil�y 0 of kw -� do cx- 4 afif vc r- Offims Kalispell City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, Mt. 59903 Dear Council Members: I OPPOSE any changes to the master plan which would allow development of Glacier Mall on LaSalle Road. My family has been in this valley for close to 100 years now. My dad was born in Apgar in 1915. My oldest son was born in Kalispell in 1991. Obviously this valley has changed immensely in recent years and will continue to change. As council members, you have an opportunity with this mall proposal to steer the development of this valley in the direction of thoughtful planned growth. There is nowhere on the face of this earth as uniquely beautiful as the Flathead Valley. Please make a stand to maintain that beauty by opposing the development of the Glacier Mall. Thank You! C-�t Cal Sibley 270 Lake Blaine Drive Kalispell, Mt. 59901 RECEIVED June 18, 2002 Kalispell City Council PO Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Dear City Council Members, As a business owner here in Kalispell, I'd like to voice my concerns about allowing the "mega -mall" currently being considered for LaSalle Road. First, common sense tells us it will damage commerce in downtown. While I do not own a downtown business, I have, in the past, owned a retail store and understand first-hand the challenges of owning a store in this Valley. I believe that damaging downtown businesses will not be good for Kalispell, as this will damage our locally -owned small businesses. Secondly, please listen openly and intelligently to the findings of our local scientists from the Yellow Bay Biological Research Station. The possibility of polluting the Flathead River and Flathead Lake due to parking lot run-off will not be worth any amount of monetary pay-off. Dr. Jack Stanford and his staff are world-renowned experts in freshwater lake biology. As citizens, we are fools not to listen to scientific evidence when it comes to protecting our natural resources. JUN 15 2op While I recognize the need for mall expansion, I am puzzled by the gigantic size of the proposed mall. Apparently the mall developers of the world are running out of big cities, and are thinking small cities are a good market for their projects. Also, why not consider expanding our city retail area west of Meridian? I understand that the developer from Missoula would help get the 93 bypass facilitated. Let's consider that option as well. To summarize, I think that the current mega -mall proposal needs more research. As it now stands, it is not a good idea. Sincerely, ordonna Dores Vice President and Owner Merlin Information Services ,ff jl ornzation SenTice_ RECEIVED JIUN 15 2002 Confluence Timber Company 4790 Blankenship Road Columbia Falls, Montana 59912 406-387-5544 June 18, 2002 Kalispell City Council Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Dear Council Members: As a small business owner and thirty year resident of the Flathead valley, I would like to express my.opposition to the proposed changes to the master plan which would permit the development of Mr. Wolford's mall. I feel it is more prudent to invest our efforts towards development in the existing Kalispell city infrastructure, which will only continue to decline if recent trends aren't reversed. Thank you for considering my opinions. Bob Lovee�„ RECEIVED r Tamara Tanberg P. O. Box 336 Lakeside, MT 59922 (406) 844-3510 June 18, 2002 Kalispell City Council P. O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Dear Members of the Council: Concerning the proposed huge mall development, the thing that concerns me the most, is the idea that we have a "one time opportunity," "must act now," "decide quickly," pressure about the whole deal —when I am looking at a used car and the salesman starts that routine, I'm out of there, right now! I don't believe that this is "our last best chance" to do something progressive in the Flathead valley... it's merely one very persistent scheme. See, that's the thing about beautiful, pristine natural surroundings they'll keep until the perfect situation comes along. Farm land will go on being that lush green expanse as long as you let it. Also, that idea that this generic retail sprawl will attract lots of tourist activity on their way to Glacier Park may actually inspire the opposite: They'll wonder why the route to Glacier has been spoiled and why it resembles the unsightly commercial landscape that they're trying to escape. The Flathead is attractive to visitors because of what we still have that's not spoiled, not because we have a mall "just like back home." Some residents in the valley see the mall as an opportunity to advance our quality of life — I'm not sure I understand how having more large chain stores does this, especially when it threatens the market share of local established, independent merchants, and especially when it happens on such a large, overwhelming scale. Do we in the Flathead really have the income base to support our existing local economy, plus this massive new addition? Instead of retail development, can we work to attract new, clean industry to our valley, raising the average wages of our citizens that already live here? If new retail space is truly needed in our valley, please seriously check out what already exists in smaller chunks throughout the downtown core of Kalispell. The "new huge mall" already occurs in every other large town in the west ---- let us do something unique here. Let us use our imagination. This kind of careful, tasteful development is what really enhances a community and its "tourist appeal." For example, consider going at least four stories at the old grain elevators site: Kalispell has so much that's exciting in its downtown —enhance it, develop its potential. There are other similar, smaller locations to focus this revitalization. Spend the time and money needed to correct our traffic congestion ---- above all, let us get going on that truck by- pass ---it's time. Are we going to miss out if we reject this particular "offer towards progress?" I don't think so. As for offers, there will always be others ---- people will always come up with ideas to cover the beautiful landscape, to change it forever. Please see our valley as a visitor sees it —She's a real beauty. Keep it that way. Choose our changes carefully, because our superior quality of life here is worth keeping. Sincerely, Z�t.�2 ✓�i C�iL2��i1� Tamara Tanberg 611 Second Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 June 16, 2002 Pam Kennedy, Mayor City Council and City Manager City of Kalispell 312 First Avenue East Kal spell , MT 59901 Dear Pam, Council and Manager: I am writing to voice my opposition to the mega -mall plan be- ing considered for Evergreen. Many concerns have been brought to your attention but I am particularly worried about two issues; compromised air and water quality and the loss of our downtown core. Why are we so intent on paving paradise? Are we to sacrifice forever what is left of this beautiful place for the sake of saving a few dollars on, say, a set of bedsheets or fifty cents on a quart of motor oil? If this project goes through our downtown core will disappear and we will become yet another Anywhere, USA. We are risking that, not to mention our air and water quality for the sake of ...... SHOPPING? I must con- fess that I just don't understand this short-sighted approach. Is what we gain worth what we stand to lose? As our elected city fathers and mothers, it is your responsibility to help us keep this a vibrant, active, beautiful and interesting community. Please don't sell us short. Yours truul,y, Karen Leigh 406-257-0809 .56 Ice, RECEIVED a- � �� June 17, 2002 Kalispell City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, Montana 59903 Dear Council Members, Please do not change the master plan to allow the mall on LaSalle Road. What makes this valley unique is its undeveloped beauty and peacefulness — its calm, rural flavor. These assets do not put money in people's pockets directly, but are the very basis for the quality of life we now enjoy. I am not a newcomer to the Flathead, having lived here for 51 years, (except for my college years spent in Bozeman). I have seen malls in Whitefish and Kalispell fail and wonder how we can fool ourselves to believe that a bigger mall is going to be the answer. Please look at the big picture and further into the future and say no to Wolford's mall. Sincerely, S. I. Love 4790 Blankenship Road Columbia Falls, Montana 59912 To: Kalispell Mayor and Council RECEIVED Fr: Ben Long Re: Glacier Mall and associated development annexation 20u JUN I G Ph ! 1 ' 5�t KALISPELL CITY CLERK Ben Long June 19, 2002 920 Sixth Ave. E. Kalispell Dear Mayor and Council Members You are facing one of those rare decisions that will determine the future of our county for the next 100 years. To my knowledge, the development proposed by Bucky Wolford is the largest single commercial development ever proposed in the Flathead Valley. Clearly, people from outside our valley .want a piece of what we have in the Flathead. That's why developers are making $1 billion of investments here right now. Investment in our community is good. However, developers should not be allowed to damage what makes our valley special. We cannot afford to destroy the attributes that make this valley a good place to invest in the first place. Maybe this mall is a good idea. Maybe this is the best spot in Flathead County for intensive commercial development. But there are red flags. We would be reckless to ignore them. Experts from University of Montana have said the proposed mall site is perilously near the Evergreen aquifer. One professor who has studied this area for 25 years told the Missoulian newspaper this is an "extremely risky" site, in terms of potentially polluting Flathead River and Flathead Lake with toxins such as battery acid and petrochemicals. "Extremely risky" are his words, not mine. If some industry were asking permission to pipe a petrochemical solution into Flathead Lake, Montanans would not stand for it. Just because this potential pollution is not the by-product of manufacturing, doesn't make it any less damaging. The expert scientists have warned us with the facts. That's all they can do. It's up to us to listen and make the wise decision. The developer's engineers insist toxic runoff is not a significant problem. They say they can mitigate any problem with technology. Perhaps they're right. I hope they are, but I am not convinced. The developer is a businessman. His job is to look after his interests and those of his investors. It is your job to look out for the interests of the rest of us. I'm not calling this developer dishonest, but if every promise that a developer made came true, we would all be watching hockey games in the Valley Dome right now. The developer says he has created successful shopping malls in Tennessee and elsewhere. I believe him. But there is no Flathead River in Tennessee. There is no Flathead Lake in Tennessee. There is only one Flathead Lake and it is ours. The Flathead Valley is no pauper state. The people of Kalispell are not beggars. When we go courting, we do not have to fly off to Las Vegas with the first proposition. We can shop around. There are at least two options for new mall sites that won't put our water as much at risk. (The O'Neil Property and the space north of Kalispell Center Mall.) Neither of these possibilities has been exhausted. According to the Kalispell Area Chamber of Commerce, people from outside the Flathead are investing a billion dollars in this valley. They aren't doing so for our cheery climate or our convenient location. They are doing so because the Flathead Malley is a very fine place to be. It is in our best interests to keep it that way. The decision before you is a 100-year decision. If we rush it and make some monumental mistake, it will shame our children. If we do it right by getting the facts first and guaranteeing the development won't degrade our water or destroy our downtown, then we will make our children proud. I like to canoe the Flathead River. I've learned one thing: When there's a rapid up ahead, it's smart to get out of the boat and scout it. The waters around here are beautiful, but they can be treacherous. The same principle applies to promises about new mega - malls. Look before you leap. Ben Long 756.5763 r -RECEIVEU Jtlfii 19 2002 , WE • +tax 110 L. 130 N Elks ti June 18, 2002 Mayor Kennedy Kalispell City Council Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Dear Mayor Kennedy and City Council: I have submitted to you an amended proposal for amending our Master Plan. Of particular concern to me would be a decision, on your part, to modify our Master Plan prior to gathering the data that is needed to make that decision intelligently. You know very well that if you do change the Master Plan first and then gather the economic impact data, or the traffic data, or the environmental data, or the cost of services delivered data, and if that data show this plan change to be ill advised, you won't change the Master Plan back to where it was before this all started. You know you won't change it back. The commitment to change will already have been made. Please show strength and wisdom in your decision process. Bill Goodman KM Building 200 PI Avenue East • Kalispell, Montana 59901 • (406) 755-1111 Evomog • , '� 1' 1 • A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE KALISPELL CITY MASTER PLAN, TO BE KNOWN AS "THE GLACIER MALL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PLAN" WHEREAS, THE Kalispell City Master Plan was adopted by the Kalispell City Council on April 7, 1986 with Resolution No. 3641 and by the Board of County Commissioners on February 6, 1986 with Resolution #578A; and WHEREAS, Wolford Development Montana, LLC, has petitioned for a revision to the Kalispell City Master Plan which would change the designation of an area indicated on the master plan map from the current Agricultural, Industrial and Suh,3rhsn Residential land use designation by enacting a plan amendment for the property, and WHEREAS, the plan amendment designates this area for the development of the Glacier Mall and other uses to be known as the "Glacier Mall Mixed Use Development Plan" and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board held a public hearing on May 14, 2002 at 7:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers after due notice to the public and received comments upon the proposal and evaluated the proposed plan amendment in accordance with the goals and objectives of Kalispell City Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the development plan would effectively amend the Kalispell City Master Plan designation of the area described from Agricultural, Industrial and Suburban Residential to Commercial, High Density Residential, Urban Residential and Public as amended and subject to the goals and policies outlined in Attachment A which would serve as a basis for zoning; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Kalispell City Planning Board recommends to the Kalispell City Council, Attachment A, Glacier Mall Mixed Use Development Plan, An Addendum to the Kalispell City Master Plan, be adopted. Ron Van Natta Kalispell City Planning Board President Attachment ItTIS-TTW�A A. To help secure Kalispell's status as the retail mid curmnelchd center of Flathead County and Northwest Montana by developing a first class, attractive, mixed—ase retail center that reduces the number of retail dollars that the area is losing to other more dominant markets. B. To assist in managing growth toward concentrated areas that can provide a full range of services where there is substantial room for future expansion and growth. C. To create an integiated inixed usc Retail, Light Tndiictrinl and Regirlentinl center that will capture the attention of the region's residents as well as the recreational and business visitors who travel through the Flathead Valley, Glacier Park and Glacier International Airport. D. To develop a high quality indoor mall which helps to establish a standard for the development of the commercial component of the site with an integrated and complementary architectural and landscape design. E. To provide an opportunity for the peripheral development of a well - residential component that creates high quality neighborhood which protects the natural environment. F. To provide for safe and convenient traffic circulation on and off the site that adequate accommodates vehicular, pedestrian and bike traffic. rZOIA16) 1. The area proposed for Glacier Mall Mixed Use Development be annexed into the city of Kalispell and be given appropriate zoning upon annexation including the adoption of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) agreement for the commercial anal High DpnsitZ Res7dentlnl elements of the site designated on the attached map as Commercial - PUD, 2. That the PUD includes standards for an integrated architectural design and landscaping which provides pedestrian access within and between individual development sites. Signage should be integrated with the overall architectural of the buildings and should comply with the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance or the PUD in the area covered by the PUD. On site streets and internal driveways should be designed to facilitate convenient internal. 3. An internal public north/south collector street shall be developed that is intended to provide major internal circulation to development within the site. Such a street is characterized as having moderate speeds, limited access, pedestrian features and providing a direct connection between Rose Crossing and East Reserve Drive. This roadway shall function as a greenbelt thoroughfare with substantial landscaping and setbacks to provide for an orderly transition from the more intense High Densi T RPciclPntial uses to the west and the residential neighborhood to the east. 4. Prior to a Master Plan change of this magnitur1P, a traffic analysis shall be prepared to assess as part of the PUD to initigate on -site and off site impacts in accordance with the recommendations of the traffic analysis, the Montana Department of Transportation, the Flathead County Road Department and the City of Kalispell. Particular attention shall be given to maintaining the functional integrity of Hwy 2 by limiting the number of direct accesses onto the highway. 5. All water, sewer, storm drainage, roadways, or any other facilities that may be required must be designed and installed in accordance with the requirements of all regulating agencies of the State of Montana, City of Kalispell and all other local or Federal regulating agencies having jurisdiction over this project. 6. Adequate consideration shall be given to upsizing of required utilities to accommodate anticipated future users. Adequate consideration shall be given to fire and police protection in this area of the planning jurisdiction and additional equipment and personnel which may be required. Prior7. • ►/. - • ■ ■.••- .•-• - a• a- a■ ■. •- as -■ tit, tVF_ oyer,qll - •■•u u•. auu-renters, ■ • • - ■a - ■ - •■ ■• 8. The integrity of the natural environment should be maintained with special attention being given to maintaining the 100 year flood flows of Trumbull and Spring Creeks, maintaining the integrity of the wetlands areas located on the site and integrating the natural amenities of the creek and wetlands area into the overall development of the site. 8. As shown on the attached map, the property designated as appioxiniately 2200 feet designated as High Density Resi&ntiad. with the anticipation that the initial zoning will be residential in nature. Howevei, this does notpiecradle a fatun;• - change in this High Density Residuritiaf- • athei uses. ..his High Density Residential mea 11 coijbibute to _ tiansition 1widscaping, limited access into the building wid sitt; design. Paiy non- amfliteutaial• 9. Any commercial use on the West side of Glacier Way and east of the proposed indoor mall and piopused ietail centei should be oriented toward the mall with buffer to mitigate certain commercial impacts through the use of setbacks, landscaping, limited signage and accessed control. Building fronts should be oriented toward the interior road ring around the commercial centers and the rear of buildings and the properties should be developed to contribute to the transition area between the commercial uses to the west of Glacier Way and the residential uses to the east of Glacier Way. • - - •• a -r ■ ■ - c. . ■. •- • - - • •-• r • • ■ • • • • - • - r . r . • • • - r ■ t Kalispell City Council P.O. Box 1979 Kalispell, MT 59903 June 18, 2002 I would like to draw your attention to key issues involving the Glacier Mall amendment to the master plan. One principle is clear: any amendment must support the stated goals and objectives of the existing plan. However, the Glacier Mall amendment directly contradicts several of those objectives, as follows: jectiv : "...conserve pri farm lands in order to retain r in viable t economy." ® The affected area is clearly identified as "prime farm land" by the master plan (MP 2010 P. 23). ® To cover prime farm land with a million square feet of commercial space and extensive paving would destroy its agricultural value. j civ : "...ensure the Centr siDistrict remains strong andviable." i The Central Business District includes the area "along Main between Fifth Street South and Washington" (MP 2QIQ, p. 40), where Kalispell Center Mall is now located. ® Developer Wolford stated, "I hate to use the word 'kill,' but I will cause the demise of that project [the Kalispell Center Mall]. It will have to be redeveloped in some form or fashion." (Missoulian 6/9/02 p. 6) ® In Hattiesburg, Mississippi, development of a comparable Wolford mall was followed by the death of the existing mall and a "dramatic" increase in downtown vacancies. (Missoulian 6/9/02 p. 6) jectiv : "Set standards for designation or expansion of commercial re s based on a compact development pattern desi ne to e t nee the intended service r n not desires s clatin or strip evel0 erS. °° (emphasis added) ® To extend city sewer all the way from Whitefish Stage cannot be considered compact development. ® Regarding the needs of the immediate service area, considerable vacancies exist in both retail and office space, creating an economic burden for property owners. (continued) ®Objective 6b (contt.): ® Area shoppers do not complain of the long lines or price gouging which would suggest a supply-side shortfall in commercial opportunities. ® "The developers have chosen this site not only because of its location, but because of the amount of undeveloped property that would allow for future expansion." (Staff Report #KMPA-02-2 p. 5) This suggests a speculative venture with the intention to create further sprawl and/or strip development. iective 1i: "Direct growth to already established urban areas and rural areas which arenot environmentally sensitive or productive agricultural lands." ® Public officials are to direct growth, not merely respond to it. ® The proposed mall site is environmentally sensitive due to high groundwater (Staff Report #KMPA-02-2 p. 18) and flood plain issues (Staff Rel2ort #KMPA-02-2 p. 17). ® The proposed mall site is identified in the master plan as "prime farm land." (ME 2010, p. 23) jectiv 1 :"Avoid extending unici I services and roads into agricultural lands is I result in the premature development of such areas." ® Extending Kalispell sewer and/or Evergreen water into this agricultural land would only encourage expansion into nearby areas, leading to the premature development our master plan clearly rejects. These are fundamental issues which must be addressed before considering this modification to the master plan. To adopt this amendment would be to adopt five serious inconsistencies with our stated goals and objectives. More importantly, to permit this kind of development would pose a serious challenge to the economic, social, cultural, and environmental fabric of our community. More "stuff' is not what we need in this Valley, and stuff is exactly what a mega -mall must generate, in massive quantities, if it is to be economically viable. I'm sure you can remember, as I can, when the county landfill was a pit, it is now a mountain. You have driven our roads and can imagine, as I can, the additional truck traffic required to bring in $100 million in retail goods —and the additional car traffic needed to carry it away, purchase by individual purchase. The young people of this valley --our future —do not need more places to buy stuff. Like the rest of us, they need good food, clean water, healthful recreation, creative outlets, meaningful relationships, a sense of community, and work worth doing. Consider how a mega -mall addresses these needs, as well as the stated goals of our master plan, and please vote for our community and our future: "no" to the Glacier Mall master plan amendment. Thank you. Sincerely, RECEIVED F' J _. 8 <<i�? June 17, 2002 Doug Odell 305 Iowa Ave. Whitefish, MT 59937 862-2489 Kalispell City Council Members, I am writing this letter as a matter of public input regarding the proposed Evergreen Mall. I am opposed to the mall for the following reasons: 1) I am extremely concerned about the water quality issues involved with a project of this scope and magnitude 2) It will destroy the downtown area. Although I am from Whitefish I shop frequently in Kalispell. I feel the heart of a community often is represented by its downtown area. The Evergreen Mall would effectively remove the heart and soul of Kalispell. 3) It is my understanding that T.I.F funds have been dedicated towards expansion of the existing Kalispell Center Mall. All efforts should be made to use these funds and others means necessary to improve upon and expand the existing mall. Please do not allow the new Evergreen Mall to proceed. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sinceely; Douglas Odell RECEIVED vH l 8 2 r.: June 16, 2002 Barbara Baumgarten PO Box 8123 Kalispell, MT 59901 To the City Council of Kalispell: I have been a resident of Kalispell for a short 21/2 years and am not a political person. I simply do not write letters to my local politicians nor do I attend meetings and the like. Perhaps I should get involved, but I was raised in a politician's household and think I had my fill as a child. Anyway, I am writing now because I am greatly concerned about the proposed mall. What appears to be going on first of all is that money speaks a whole lot louder than people. I am aware that well over the majority of the Flathead residents are against the proposed mall, but this does not seem to carry much weight when the mighty dollar promises large proceeds for the city. Please, listen to the people. A quality life carries far more value than money. We live in a unique place of beauty, here in the Flathead Valley. One of the greatest assets of our valley is that it is a place that is not a typical American town that caters to consumerism. We live someplace where folks can get away from that. Please, let's keep it that way! It is one of our finest attractions. Let's not be like everyone else kowtowing to the mighty dollar. I am also concerned by the prospect of pollution that such a mall will bring into the valley. Have you lived in a polluted area? I have. It is awful. Building the mall will bring in traffic —all those shoppers to spend their dollars —and that traffic creates pollution. Once again, it is a matter of value. What do you value most? Money or our environment? Finally, the mall will be the death nail of downtown. Another unique feature of Kalispell is our downtown. Few towns have a "real downtown." Ours is on the edge of thriving. Let's put our energy into sprucing up downtown and making it a place where people want to go and shop. Let's spruce up our existing mall. We don't need anymore than that. We are content people in this valley who do not need a mega -mall to shop in when we can enjoy our greater outdoors, and find what we need in the existing stores. Please, listen to the people and not Bucky. Please do not build a mega mall in our beautiful valley. Sincerely, 16 June 02 Brenda Corbin 601 1" Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Mayor Pam Kennedy Kalispell City Council City Hall Kalispell, MT 59901 I am writing to request that you grant approval to the new Glacier Mall development by Mr. Wolford. As stated in a recent Missoulian article, Kalispell City Manager, Mr. Chris Kukulski, indicated that growth is inevitable and it would be beneficial to the City of Kalispell to tax it. I agree. We have heard for several years now from the various planning agencies that growth in the Flathead Valley should revolve around "cluster developments" to concentrate growth and services and, most importantly, to conserve our beautiful farm land. What better way to concentrate the growth in the Evergreen area than to allow the Glacier Mall to proceed? I believe most will agree the haphazard growth that now exists is becoming more and more of an eyesore and, without being hooked to city sewer, will eventually become a health risk to the community through groundwater contamination. If Mr. Wolford successfully addresses the issues of water run-off treatment and his engineering specs prove his development is of no danger to our ground water and the Flathead River, I believe strongly he should be given the go ahead to proceed with the Glacier Mall. Hopefully his appealing architectural design will encourage other builders to carefully consider their plans and how they visually affect the surrounding architectural community. Sincerely Yours, s Brenda Corbin District 3 756-9180 ^� — _ �. Everything ave readih t ie pdper the Developer rom Tennessee has done a lot of research in this matter and has tried to accommodate all interested and to apply to ����" all the rules. RECEIVED I have lived in Montana all my life. I'm always impressed with the environmental issue JUN 18 2002 when it applies to sor»ething that people object to, it is like a tool only use if it suits your purpose the rest of the time put it up on a shelf. I would suggest anyone that is interested in the environment to take a drive down in the Helena Flats area and the surrounding area and take a really good look and see some environmental issues if that is what your going to use against the rnal1. i he,, ` s \off �4.� ��r 1� d3� .-04 , Q� I hope the peopic niai,.ing the decision will consider the great opportunity the mall will bring to the valley. Fvery thing changes nothing stays the same. We want to be more inviting to people to come see our beauty. The mall could add to that beauty not take away.OW I also read the traged this will have on the downtown area. Why not look at this positively the more people that come to this area, will also visit the down town area. I understand the store s that want to come here if the location is right are ones we do not have at this time. \- hat a positive thing. QUESTION: How inany of us go to Missoula for shopping????? How many more public hearings are there going to be? No matter how many you have not everyone is ,olnu to be able to voice their for or against isn't that what the council is for and the plan n i ii;— committee? And please do )wt lka this become a political forum to stand for or against. 3-39MM11 6/17/02 To Mayor Pam Kennedy, the City Council and the City Manager, I am writing this letter out of concerns that my husband, family and neighbors have with the idea of the mega mall that is being proposed in the vicinity of Highway 2 and Reserve Drive. I have lived in Kalispell since I was six years old. I am now married, and a mother of three. I have also lived in the Evergreen area all of this time, except while away at college. I want to tell you the changes I have witnessed in my 26 years here. I remember when the Gateway West Mall was built. What a booming little mall this was. This mall had some great advantages. This mall was located right next to our movie theaters, how convenient. It became the hub of our little town, yet downtown still had plenty of business, because this mall was no "monster" in size. I remember when the Center Mall was built. This mall lacked warmth and personality, compared to the Gateway Mall. This mall also managed to run the Gateway mall completely out of business. It has stood as an empty shell, housing whatever business or company that will use it. How sad. I hate to think of the devastating effects another mall would have on the Center Mall. This mall is the center of town. Even though this mall doesn' t offer everything in the means of shopping, there is definite potential here. I feel that it was a mistake and poor management to build the Center Mall. I also feel that it is extremely poor judgment to think that a huge mega mall out in Evergreen is going to be the answer. You know that old saying, "Two wrongs do not make a right. Other major concerns that I have are the fact that we don' t have all the answers we need. The developer cannot guarantee that Flathead Lake is not going to be polluted. He cannot guarantee that these pollutants will not be transferred to the other water subsidiaries that the lake runs into. I cannot imagine that Kalispell can spot annex a huge chunk of land, by bypassing the residents of Evergreen. Why does Kalispell not want the residents also? If Kalispell gets the residential areas, what benefits do we as residents get? How much is it going to cost us in tax dollars? My other concern is of our community. I love living here. I want my children and grandchildren to want to live here. I love our wide open farmlands and the beauty of our little town. Why would we want to destroy our uniqueness for a mall? Open your eyes and don' t be taken in by the all mighty dollar. There is so much more at stake here. A mall isn' t going to guarantee that people from all over the state are going to shop here; it isn' t even going to stop people from shopping in other areas. Before you consider changing our whole community, you need solid answers. You need to listen to what the people of the community want. There has to be a better solution for all of us. Thank You, Tracy Mower 146 '/z E. Evergreen Drive Kalispell 6/15/02 To Mayor Pam Kennedy, the City Council and the City Manager, RECEIVED JUN 18 2002 I am writing this letter out of concerns that my husband, my family, my neighbors, and friends have with the idea of the mega mall that is being proposed in the vicinity of Highway 2 and Reserve Drive. Don and I have lived in our home in Evergreen for 26 years. We always loved the Flathead, expecially Flathead Lake with its miles of shining, clean water. Before we moved here it was a wonderful place to come to vacation with our children and friends. We spent hours waterskiing and fishing and just sunbathing on its shores. When Don got the opportunity to transfer here with his job as a Montana Highway Patrolman, we were thrilled. We bought our home in Evergreen because we liked the feel of country living yet being close to Kalispell. We enjoyed shopping at the Gateway Mall which offered everything we needed with a little assistance from the downtown shops. All to suddenly, the cherry warehouse went down and Center Mall went in. Within a short time Gateway Mall was gone, unable to compete with Center Mall. Now we are faced with this idea of a large mall located in the middle of a field, far away from the center of town. Where is the logic in this? Where is the money going to come from that will be needed to improve the roads to allow for the excess of traffic on Reserve Drive? We all know that there is a shallow aquifer under this site. Is there any kind of a guarantee that the runoff from all this pavement and sewer will not pollute our beautiful lake and the rivers that run into that lake? Who is going to pay for this investigation and sollution? I am afraid that you are willing to trade what has been sacred and valued for generations for something that will be temporary and self serving for only a few people. There are things that money can't buy, and our clean water is one of those things. My last concern is this. When Center Mall went in, Gateway Mall went down. That didn't have a lot of affect on Kalispell because Center Mall is located in the very center of town. What is going to happen to downtown Kalispell with this sprawling mall miles away form it? With all the money that is being spent to beautify the streets of Kalispell it makes me wonder where the logic is. If we need a lareger mall, the win win solution to me would be to enlarge the mall we have. Thank You, Linda and Don Denning 146 E. Evergreen Dr. Kalispell Our pristine valley has many meanings those fortunate to live here or to visit. "The dimple in the cheek of nature" was my father's favorite description of our special area. The valley teems with enchantment and delight. Its many lakes: Bitteroot, Swan, Whitefish, to name a few..... Its clear rivers and streams: Flathead, Middle, North, South, Stillwater.... Its mountains: Glacier Park, the Swan Range, the Mission range, Big Mountain afford joys to climbers, hikers, campers, skiers, and all who love the ourdoors.... The spectacular views on all sides, the clean fresh air, the wonders of nature, are all encapsulated in this treasured valley. This valley is the Last Best Place. Mega malls add nothing to this charismatic area. They pollute. They destroy our unique down town. We have the opportunity to preserve our precious gift. Please use vision and reject the mega mall. 1y, c2&)cZ �� e5:�� ww-z.�14� /u-/� / �) Z��& dxp e &Lol?� Z,?- 2� 612��, ��- Ile* � /��//(/�/ ell �f. Q 04 Vnn C) cid Ya ct cs- 00cl 06/ 5 -599ci 599ol RECEIVED JUN 14 2002 REX BOLLEF� CPA RECEIVED CERTIFIED GENERAL APPRAISER ._ REAL ESTATE BROKER - CONSULTANT June 13, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council PO Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Evergreen Proposed Mall (Bucky's) After a long time of "sitting on the fence" and in some cases feeling as thought private enterprise should be able to do what it wants, I have now changed my position and I feel I must write you to express my views and hopefully aid you in making a decision. I am against the new proposed mall in Evergreen, primarily because of the following: 1. The costs of the new infrastructure, the increased capacity of the waste treatment plant, I don't feel as a taxpayer I should pay for. 2. The increased fire and police protection, I as a taxpayer don't feel 1 should pay for. 3. The new and improved roads and traffic lights, etc. I as a taxpayer don't feel I should pay for. IL 4. Downtown is struggling as it is, with vacant buildings, and in the Montana Building which I manage, with over 6,000 sf of vacant space presently. Additionally, as a commercial real estate appraiser, recent appraisals of downtown properties, indicates a decline in value, mostly contributed to the fact that businesses will not commit to downtown, pending what is going to happen if the mall goes in. (This also affects the surrounding towns, Columbia Falls, Whitefish, etc.). 5. This area has a uniqueness that we all appreciate and I strongly believe this quality will disappear if we have the "largest mall in Montana". 6. Approval of the mall site, appears to me to be simply "spot zoning" to enhance the city's tax base, etc.. 7. Lastly and most importantly, the Flathead River, and Flathead Lake will be adversely affected, I have listened to Jack Stanford and his concerns are certainly warranted; Evergreen is the last place for large scale development such as this. I would strongly urge you to NOT APPROVE the new proposed mall of Bucky's because of the aforementioned reasons. It simply is not worth it, as a taxpayer and to our community. Sin erely Ro er dC Certified General Appraiser Real Estate Broker - Consultant 0 w,ci: tvergreen maiij Subject: [Fwd: Evergreen Mall] Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:39:28 -0600 From: "Kalispell.com ckukulski" <ckukulski@kali spell. com> To: twhite <twhite@kalispell.com> Subject: Evergreen Mall Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 20:28:25 EDT From: RW0302@aol.com To: citymanager@kalispell.com, council@kalispell.com, comdey@kalispell.com I am a part-time resident, however I have a big investment in this community, financial and emotional. I also pay property taxes. Because of these facts, I believe that I have a right, and an obligation, to speak to the issue of the Evergreen Mall. At first thought, the convenience of that kind of shopping was appealing. However, given just a little more thought, it became obvious to me that the tradeoff in what we would lose certainly outweighs what we would gain. The first consideration is so serious, if I understand it correctly, that it should negate even the possibility of a mall being built on that sight. That is the damage to the water supply. If it is even necessary to discuss the mall further after that issue, I feel strongly that a mall of this type would ruin the same unique character that drew us to this community in the first place. It also goes without saying the local business owners would suffer a tremendous negative impact. In my other life, in Florida, very little consideration is given to the wishes of the citizens, the developers have friends in high places. I hope that this is not the norm here and that you will give serious consideration to my concerns. Thank you. Lynn Woods 320 N. Wakewood Drive Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 756-6995 more new malls Subject: no more new malls Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 16:43:00 -0600 From: Karen Rosenberg <karenjo@digisys.net> To: cityhall@kalispell.com I am also one who was brought up in the valley, now living in Whitefish. Please, please no more malls!! I am a shopper, for sure and even I am burned out on malls. I have grown to love shopping in both downtown WF and Kal. I am excited about streetscapes!!! Lets focus there, making the most of what we have. We should have learned the lessons being taught to us over the years: Mountain Mall, Ashley Square Mall, Gateway West Mall, Earnst. Pay attention!!!! If shoppers like myself who cannot find what we want, we can always go to Msla. or Spokane or beyond. Thank you. Karen King Rosenberg WF 5/30/02 9:24 AM _zz v- 6rx,i P.O. Box 70 • Polson, MT 59860 406-883-1346 Fax: 406-883-1357 lakers@flatheadlakers.org www.flatheadlakers.org Kalispell Planning Board c/o Tri-City Planning Office via fax 751-1858 17 Second St. E., Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Planning Board Members: Flathead Lakers: Working for clean water, a healthy ecosystem, and lasting quality of life in the Flathead Watershed. May 24, 2002 The Flathead Lakers oppose the proposed amendment to the Kalispell City/County Master Plan which would allow commercial development near the intersection of LaSalle Road and East Reserve Drive in the Evergreen area near Kalispell.'' Please accept this letter as the Flathead Lakers' formal comments on this matter. The Flathead Lakers is a nonprofit, grassroots organization, with over 1,000 members, working to protect water quality in Flathead Lake and its watershed. Lakers' board members Chuck Mercord and Paul Williams attended the May 14 Planning Board meeting and were prepared to provide comments on behalf of the Flathead Lakers. However, due to the length of the meeting, they were notable to stay until the end. It is our understanding that the meeting adjourned before everyone attending had the opportunity to speak, so it is unclear whether they would have had an opportunity to provide comments even if they had stayed to the end of the meeting. Therefore, the Flathead Lakers believe the opportunity to participate in the public process related to the proposed Master Plan amendment was inadequate. Lakers' board members Chuck Mercord and Laney Hanzel presented information to the Kalispell City Council and Flathead County Commission last year regarding the Flathead Lakers' concerns about the impacts of intensive development in this area. Kalispell, as well as the entire Flathead Valley, continues to experience growth. The Master Plan provides a way for the community to guide growth so its residents and those in the surrounding area can enjoy growth's benefits while minimizing problems. The Flathead Lakers have previously encouraged the City of Kalispell to carefully consider the strong connection between groundwater and surface water in the Evergreen area and initiate policies that discourage inappropriate development where there is a risk of flooding or groundwater contamination (see enclosed letter dated February 11, 2000). Polluted runoff is our leading threat to water quality. It comes from contaminants washed off the land's surface by stormwater runoff and carried either directly or indirectly into waterways or groundwater. Precipitation contains phosphorus and nitrogen, nutrients that stimulate plant growth. When the land is covered with grass, crops, shrubs and trees, these plants take up and use the nutrients, keeping them from reaching the groundwater, streams, and eventually Flathead Lake. Water quality in Flathead Lake has been declining due to nutrient enrichment. Primary productivity, or the rate of algae growth, is increasing, according to Flathead Lake Biological Station Director Dr. Jack Stanford, and the amount of dissolved oxygen in water at the bottom of Big Arm Bay is declining. These two trends are indications of declining water quality. As efforts increase to page 2 reduce pollution in Flathead Lake from diffuse sources throughout the watershed, it is important to make sure new development does not add to this problem through increased polluted runoff or contamination of groundwater. As the amount of impervious surface — such as roofs and parking lots — increases, the velocity and volume of surface runoff increases. The runoff carries sediments and nutrients as well as toxic materials like heavy metals, benzene and hydrocarbons (from vehicles). Research shows a strong correlation between the amount of impervious coverage and water quality, with water quality declining with an increase in impervious coverage. Two years ago, the Flathead Lakers initiated a collaborative project to identify and conserve or restore those lands critical for maintaining and improving water quality in Flathead Lake and its tributaries. Eighteen agencies and other groups are participating in this effort. One of the most sensitive areas identified is the Flathead River corridor and associated flood plain and shallow aquifer in the Evergreen area. The geology and hydrology of this area was shaped by receding glaciers. As the glaciers receded, the meltwater became a river many times larger than the Flathead River of today. The river produced a highly sorted gravel matrix. Research by the Flathead Lake Biological Station at Yellow Bay has shown that these gravels are penetrated by groundwater that originates in the Flathead River and returns to the river with high flow rates through the gravel. Any materials that get in the groundwater in this area (such as oil and gas, heavy metals, and tire residue from parking lots) easily percolate into the acquifer and are rapidly transported to the river. Ric Hauer, a biological station scientist, told us that because of this, we would be hard pressed to find a worse place in western Montana to locate intensive commercial development. Our rivers and Flathead Lake are natural treasures that contribute to our quality of life, our economy and the beauty of the Flathead Valley. The cumulative impacts of intensive commercial and residential development in this area must be carefuly evaluated before a change is made in the Master Plan. This is especially true in the river's riparian corridors, floodplains and the shallow aquifer where mistakes are costly to property owners, citizens and taxpayers. There are more appropriate areas for this kind of development. We urge you to recommend denial of this change or defer a decision until a thorough assessment of its potential impacts is conducted. We cannot continue to allow piecemeal development and more asphalt and concrete to be poured on such critical areas of the Flathead landscape without playing the price in poorer water quality. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, /Z." 4;�—,7RZ:2-� Robin Steinkraus Executive Director Enclosure: 2/11/2000 letter to Kalispell City Council cc: Charles Harball, Kalispell City Attorney (fax 758-7771) Kalispell City Council (fax 758-7756) 5-ai-ca �'T1 ��cra�9unc� cvu �` d' wovl�, � � � eXyi✓CSS CGr_ sP.�t�LStneu,�S" zu 11 _net rPr,GlYa',S7 �', WVuy^ h�� �rUP� out 41AI 1rvc�e,Y�_,�, GC�vnz�c `�- J�" G ur �Ectut�l Y� r"✓�,r w'ufir�-G -I��� �s wl�t is gaod irk v <fa c2 /v1�tLQ r Ike � pPp. aq �isY i2co�e � �a�ua� act l'�Ct— ycuwa7f 7�i�` �vts try O MALL Subject: NO MAIM, Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 16:21:27 -0600 From: Virginia Vandebey <vvan@digisys.net> To: <cityball @kalispell.com> Dear City Council and Mayor, Although I have only lived here 3 years and 9 months, I consider Kalispell my home and plan to stay. I have fallen in love with this valley and am happier here than anywhere I have ever lived. My husband and my self are retired senior citizens of very moderate means, but we manage nicely with our conservative lifestyle. We love the friendly small town quality of Kalispell and are hoping and praying that this valley can remain an area of small towns and small locally owned businesses. Every time I drive down Main Street, I think: This is my home town and I love it. It worries me, however, that there are so many vacant business buildings along Main Street and even more distressing is taking a walk through the old Gateway Mall where Stream is located and also close to where I live. When all these business spaces are vacant, why in God's Green Earth would anyone in their right mind be thinking about approving a huge mega -mall for this area! If this community could not buy enough merchandise to keep the old Gateway Mall open when the new Center Street Mall was built, how, in the name of good sense and reason, do the Mall promoters think there are enough shopers/buyers here with enough money to support a new mega -mall. Not that many new residents have arrived! Please tell me, what intelligent reasoning am I missing here. Oh, I'm sure there are lots of business and government issues involved that I know very little about, like the need for tax dollars for one and jobs for two, but the bottom line is always money and power - that I do know. There is still time for Kalispell to NOT be one of the thousands of small towns in America, whose Main Streets have been ruined by the influx of big business with their "just down the road" malls and box stores and prices just a few cents lower. You, the current City Council have the power to see that it doesn't happen here. Please do the right thing and save this town. Of course we currently have our little "strip" in Evergreen with a few of these chain -store giants. That's enough already!! There are a few business people who are working at restoring the down -,town area. Hurray for them!!! Also, I'm in favor of that street improvement plan for downtown. When will that start to be built? I'm sure you have read or heard about the places in our country where cities and small towns that have/had malls that became "ratty" are beginning to restore their Main Streets. Well, Kalispell now has the opportunity to be one-step ahead of them and, in the long, long run, dollars ahead too, I might add, by saying NO NO NO, a thousand times NO to big businesses who will be the ultimate winners at the expense of small business owners and their families, friends and neighbors. We already have the little Center Street Mall, and yes, I do know that is not locally owned, and in my opinion, contains a lot of the businesses that should be on Main Street where there are vacant places, but, for God's sake, lets not go any further with this Mall concept. Oh, I know, there is the problem with parking and everybody is in a hurry and does not want to do much walking. Too bad, as they are missing one of the great joys of life - walking down their very own Main Street! There are countless more issues that could be discussed, but who wants to read a whole novel on this subject. I'm like MLK,Jr. , I have a dream -- a dream of living in a town like Kalispell was in about 1910, you know, that picture post -card small town with light poles and water fountains and parks and carriages and little stores. Oh, I know, technology (and big -business) has changed our world and we cannot go back, but I can dream. That life-style had its problems too - I heard about it from those that lived there - I was reared by my Grandparents who were born before 1800 and I heard all their old stories. Please, my dear friends, and hard-working city officials, be different, be brave and say NO to big business. Do your part to help Kalispell NOT 5120/02 1-40 PM O MALL become like those other small towns that have ghostly, ugly, vacant, Main Streets where no one wants to go. Yes, I too shop at Walmart once in a while, but our needs are so minimal that my visits there are rare. I have decided to not ever set foot in Home Depot - I'm sticking with Cardinal - but I'm only one person. Being the techie Grandma, that I am, I also buy off the Internet and enjoy the modern day conveniences. I believe we can still have our picturesque Main Street type town and all the latest conveniences of life as well. I hate big business and big cities - that's why I moved here. Population growth seems to be slow, but as it continues to increase, it will take serious land -use -planning and rules and regulations to keep the valley from becoming "ruined," but you already know that. I keep hearing the cry: We need more jobs!! Do you think the moderate number of low -paying jobs another Mall could provide will make that much difference? I don't. More and better jobs: that's another subject. What we need most are intelligent people in charge who are wise and caring and willing to do their homework and know what it takes to create and maintain a piece of Mother Earth that is a beautiful and economically and physically healthy place for mankind to reside. Are all of you such people? I hope so. Your fellow resident of Kalispell, Virginia Vandehey t of 2 5/20/02 ] :40 PM lolford mall Subject: wolford mall Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 10:48:04 -0600 From: "curt sbugart" <sbugfart@botmail.com> To: cityball@kalispell.com To whom it may concern, I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed mega -mall. As a Main Street businessperson, I think you are fooling yourselves if you do not think this mall will adversely affect the downtown business community. I have lived in Kalispell half my life and I love this town and community. I hate to see the big box stores erradicating the uniqueness and personality of Kalispell. People come to Kalispell to walk Main Street, visit Woodland Park and the Conrad Mansion. They enjoy shopping at Columbine Glassworks, viewing the art at Marshall Noices or Joe Abbrescia's, dining at Cafe Max,and Norm's News They are taken back by the old-fashioned interior of our store(Wheeler Jewelry) which is the oldest building on Main Street. These businesses and many others are what make Kalispell unique and wonderfull. Do we really want to see these struggling businesspeople have to contend with yet another Walmart, Costco, HomeDepot, etc. Joanne Jenson at Bookswest cannot compete with Barnes&Noble. Wheeler Jewelry and Sargents Jewelry can't compete with a Zales. How about Gordon at Savarud's trying to sell paint at HomeDepot prices? Does Kalispell really NEED another Orange Julius, a Zales Jewelry, a Payless Shoes? My vote is NO to the national chains and the Wolford mall. Lets try to hang on to the bit of individually we have left. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Curtiss G Shugart MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: httn://Photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx wInuN i •A i PT �,� PA Ili -G qclm�) -j r-- --) I I / nnexanon or proposed unacier man Subject: Annexation of proposed Glacier Mall Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 23:37:59 -0600 From: "Creighton Family" <dcreigh@kalispell.net> To: <council @kalispell. com> To Kalispell City Council: I am very concerned about the direction the city of Kalispell is taking concerning the annexation of the proposed Glacier Mall. According to the public meetings I have attended, Kalispell is not able to provide adequate fire protection and yet the city wants to take away the tax revenue from the county, and subsequently, our Evergreen Firefighters. Also, there will be increased traffic, which will lead to more problems. Currently, we already have a major problem getting out of our subdivision, Silver Shadow Estates, and onto West Reserve. This will only continue to worsen. I also feel that another mall in the Kalispell area will only bring about the demise of Kalispell Center Mall more quickly. Our economy is not able to support such a venture. How long would it be before we would end up looking at another empty building downtown?? I do not support the idea of another mall nor the annexation of the proposed mall. Respectfully, Linda Creighton 'he Malls Subject: The Malls Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 10:37:10 -0600 From: rclvx <rclvx@bigsky.net> To: citymanager@kalispell.com Dear Sirs: I am writing this about my concerns regarding the development of malls. One of the reasons for living in "The Last Best Place" is for the quality of life here. Twenty years ago Denver CO. could have qualified for the Last Best Place, but who would like to live in Denver now? You say it could never happen here. Oh, but it could and it is in progress now. Please vote NO to any mall. We don't need any more concrete, or places to shop. If you want pristine wilderness stay here. If you want industry and malls, move. Karoline Fopp r1i171 ir» 9•1n nni .,,.......,., v. -11.6..,......,. -- Subject: Annexation of Evergreen for mall Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 16:47:29 -0600 From: "Dennis & Terry Divoky" <tddivoky@centurytel.net> To: <council@kal i spell. com> Dear Kalispell City Council We don't think the annexation of a portion of Evergreen for the Wolf ord Development Corp. is a good idea, at this time. Please take the time need to make a thorough analysis of the mall's impact on the city, the surrounding community and future generations. Kalispell's downtown is where we make an effort to shop. We believe is supporting local businesses and our local community. A new mega mall will turn Kalispell's downtown into a ghost town. We just can't believe that any jobs will be added to the community when you factor in the downtown jobs and business that will be lost to this mall. The tax payers of Kalispell should not shoulder the burden of the infrastructure cost for this mall. We live in a highly desirable area. Places like the Flathead Valley are becoming harder to find. If this developer does not want to pay his fair share of the cost, so be it. Someone else will come along (they already have according to the Interl-oke) who will be willing to develop in a manner more fitting our community and pay the true costs. The water quality issue surrounding this area is also a great concern to me. There are just too many unknowns at this time. The decision you make effects generations to come. Please slow down and call for a thorough analysis this mall's impact. Terry and Dennis Divoky P.O. Box 306 West Glacier, MT 59936 406-387-5527 J Proposed evergreen Mau Subject: Fwd: Proposed Evergreen Mall Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 12:03:49 -0600 From: Mike & Brenda McKnight <brendami@aboutmontana.net> To: council@kalispell.com Dear Mr. Peters and Mr. Larson, Please vote "Yes" on Tuesday, May 14th, in support of the proposed Evergreen mall. >Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 11:53:57 -0600 >To: Chris Kukulski <citymanager@kalispell.com> >From: Mike & Brenda McKnight <brendami@abou tmon Cana. net> >Subject: Proposed Evergreen Mall >Dear Mr. Kukulski, >There is lots of interest in the upcoming vote on the 14th of May, in >regards to the new proposed mall in Evergreen. We'd encourage your >support - to say "Yes" to this new mall that will be good for jobs, >business, and Kalispells' tax base. >Respectfully, >Mike & Brenda McKnight >Kalispell Subject: May Ath/Mall Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 22:42:37 -0600 From: "Jane Timmerman" <janeti@cyberport.net> To: <council @kali spell. com> Hi. Just wanted to put in my opinion of the proposed new mall in Evergreen: NO!! I do NOT support this proposal .... I do not think Kalispell needs another big building that will only support low -end jobs .... We can't support the shopping base we have now. We need to support the down town stores, and use what we've got. Some big fellow from out of town will make big bucks and take the $ elsewhere.... and then the mall will "collapse" and be seasonal. I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS IDEA. Thanks. Jane Timmerman rnuNwcu iviau Subject: New Proposed Mail Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 13:04:49 -0600 From: 'Bob" <rrussell @bigsky.net> To: <council @k ali spell. corn> My wife, Marilou, and I are opposed to city annexation of the land parcel for the mall. We are also opposed to the city offering any support for building or providing utilities and police or firefighting support. We believe the new mall would 1. Increase our Mill Levie 2. Be very hard on downtown busineses 3. Make traffic congestion even worse on airport road 4. Hasten developers efforts to blacktop the entire valley Robert Bean 322 Northridge Drive tele 752-2050 :_-ring the proposed mall project Subject: concerning the proposed mall project Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 20:52:10 -0600 From: Elizabeth Cummings Jones <lizc@uswest.net> To: council@kalispell.com, bldgdept@kalispell.com May 7, 2002 Kalispell City Council: Please note my opposition to the proposed mega -mall project in Evergreen. I was born and raised in Kalispell, and I currently attend college in Missoula. I hope that Kalispell officials will make better planning decisions than Missoula has recently. I have watched with concern the great expansion of urban sprawl Missoula has experienced in recent years. I initially anticipated the arrival of discount stores in Missoula, such as T.J. Max, Ross Dress for Less, and Old Navy. However, the mega-stripmall phenomenon of Reserve Street has only resulted in terrible service, poor products, and a traffic nightmare. Many Missoula residents resent the influx of big chain stores in Missoula and long for the community of independent businesses we once embraced. Kalispell has the opportunity to act before it's too late. Soon, I hope to live in the Flathead valley again, and I care very much about the type of town I return to. Young professionals want to move to a community that is beautiful, interesting, and unique. Not a city with empty cement buildings and mega -malls. I fear this project will detract from the community character I love about Kalispell. This future Kalispell citizen hopes for something more. Elizabeth Jones 421 Daly Missoula, MT 59801 406-327-7455 Elizabeth Jones lizc@mssl.uswest.net 5/7/02 Chris Kukulski P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mr. Kukulski: 2962 MAY AM 10: 27 KALISPELL CITY CLERK Should residents support a mega -mall project in Evergreen? I don't think so. Supporters project new jobs. Our existing malls haven't created many jobs, we've just traded jobs in our locally owned businesses for them. And another big mall will only hurt our downtown area, trading the small town I grew up in for a sprawl of box stores. It isn't easy to measure some of the costs. Things like extending sewer lines, fire protection, roads, etc. Not to mention trading open space and wildlife habitat for more traffic. I'd like to vote for more birds, more dirt and less asphalt in the Flathead. We have more than enough retail space in our downtown and existing malls. Don't encourage another big shopping center that will only hurt Kalispell. Chuck Cummings 1002 4th Ave. E. Kalispell, MT 59901 RECEIVED Av Subject: Public hearing on zone change in Evergreen Bate: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 16:49:22 -0600 From: Lou Gates <lou@digisys.net> To: twhite@kalispell.com As tax paying residents of Kalispell, we are unalterably opposed to the proposed zone change at the corner of Reserve Drive and Hiway 2. Land suitable for growing crops is fast disappearing; the highest and best use of this land is as farm land, not commercial or industrial. Louis B. Gates and Clarice M. Gates 426 7th Ave W Kalispell MT 59901 (406)752 1199 of 1 6/19/02 5-03 PM 41002 JUN 20 PM 8: 24' Kalispell City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 To be brief, our concerns are as follows: We'd like to see growth in the downtown area - expansion at the existing mall, incentives to maintain the charm of a healthy, centralized community as opposed to disjointed urban sprawl. Where would the workforce come from to staff all the new stares? The work force at a retail level makes RLIle more than minimum wage, creating jobs but at a low income level - but where could they afford to live? Why does this new mall need to be so big anyway? Is there any guarantee from the owners or builders that it will be sufficiently occupied to justify it's existance? There have been reasonable environmental concerns that haven't been addressed pertaining to runoff and water quality, plus fire and police protection. What did we learn from Gateway Mall - is Kalispell Center Mall so healthy and thriving that we need something newer, bigger, shiney and bright? What is Mr. Wolford really offering us? Is he just a developer doing his job - paving the landscape, bringing in the boxes, and making his fortune and moving on? Granted the valley is growing but many people move here to get away from what has been allowed to happen to their home town. Please don't be hasty in your decision - it's one that won't be easily reversed. Sincerely, w R E C E|UE D |UN1QYlug 4 0 0 E gaa n Ro a d Kalispell MT5B9O1 �G�75O'�8OB ffae�ir��hotma��om Dear Kalispell City As the news surrounding the mail proposal unfolded, I sat on my hands believing that sooner or later good sense and reason would prevail. I now fear that may not be the case. We have all heard the phrase "last best place" until it makes us sick, but as is so often the case, the trite becomes trite because it issmtrue. While }have lived in various places inthe west, the Flathead has always been my heart's home. My grandparents moved here from Malta inthe early part of the century, mymother graduated from Flathead High School in1B51 and | lived here onand off until returning for keeps in1S77. All this just tosay that, aahave many other long-time residents, I've seen myriad changes tothis valley. Some mfthose changes have blessed us; wonow have medical facilities available tousthat rival many larger cities. Some ofthe changes have caused only death and destruction; increased traffic congestion, air and water quality concerns, drug problems -you know the list. To my mind this mail proposal falls inthe latter category. Just this week Stm*otooapewas inthe news again. What awonderful (andexpensive) idea! But what ia the purpose of beautifying our lovely downtown on the one hand while with the other we are attempting to cut its throat? Why bother with downtown when it will begin its downward spiral the minute the doors open inMega-Mall paradise? | don't have obusiness downtown, but if|did I'd balaying siege to your offices this ver-y minute, because the survival of Main Street is surely at stake. I hope in its search for new tax revenue (because isn't that really what this is all about?), that you will do what it takes to make our existing mail and downtown area ever more appealing and profitable. |hope you will do what Kalispell expects you to do and support what is best for Kalispell not what is best for some far -removed developer's financial statement | hope you will serve with integrity and exert every effort tokeep Kalispell the unique and wonderful place that itis. | never could decide if|was areal proponent ofthe whole Master Plan idea. But now | see that it really doesn't matter, because if you flash enough cash in front of the faces of the decision makers, the Master Plan means little ornothing. Itreminds nneofthe old story with the punch line that goes something to the effect of, "I already know what kind of girl you are, I'm just trying to determine what it will cost me.~ While crude, | think itmakes the point, Are weenwilling toprostitute what's left nfthe charm that makes Kalispell different from Missoula and Spokane and every other look -alike town on the map? Oumereally want tolive inone ofthose places? |don^t. And | would suggest that ifyou do, then you could easily pack up and move to the cookie -cutter, malk-ninded town of your choice. There are thousands from which tochoose. 1- ","ieSchleig�eF-1 We the undersigned want the Kalispell City Council to reject the proposed amendment to the master plan and annexation of land for the Glacier Mall. We feel this not the right place to expand commercial development for the following reasons: ® The high water table and potential to pollute Flathead Lake with toxic parking lot runoff. ® The project will cannibalize the current commercial area of Kalispell and ruin the heart of our town. ® Traffic will increase and no funding is in place to upgrade and repair the roads. NameAddress Phone Signature TS Ulf" I . -16LI SY-A IAIJO., AA NA LAI&375. W '714 IJ 120 i t MR June 16, 2002 Kalispell City Council RECEIVED Kalispell, Mt. JUN 1 2��! Dear Sirs, I am writing concerning the proposed new Mall. Do you want to see the Center Mall closed up? Look wh at happened to Gateway West after Center Mall came in. This idea is ridiculous, in that it definitely will take business away from the city of Kalispell. I don't think that is a good idea. Center Mall plans to enlarge which makes sense. They have area to accomplish that. Please don't rush into this proposal. Maybe you need a vote by the people. Sincerely, Eileen Sandefur Kalispell, Mt. JUN 19 2002 f1 noted-om f Brvice Hird 1 'I E U*Ipfce@ ■ g� box From the deskof Wi Ad Id fees Ii. pay July 8, 2 0 0 2iMAN (AP) — Big box to build in ,, _ tin should pay higher fees Mayor Pam Kennedy & Council Members ram—erethrghe"r design stan- ,af, i erty;task force says. City of Kalispell t_ c %a jicotnmission'sbigbox r— M talc force —which includes ar- r -- n usinessmen,.:city offi- c� to i - cuts :a,nd residents — said large The reason I am enclosing the article in Z;Dg9,;d o `stuldfacefeesbased stze,-and stores would be lim- Box Stores, because it is on your AGENDA euidcoalsg the rte`daa.100,000 square feet. same kind of information is appearing r— in %i..tgn Papers all ! e.taskforce:was created of �:, : ter pry posos fxom :chain stores across the STATE. Can the City of ca Kalispell go tttavirgntedto.build warehouse - sites it outlets: in Bozeman. forward with this program. I would suggest from the lnMarch;thecommission -: --alpee,i to a'-90,000-square-foot HENRICKSEN Families (residents of Kalispell since at HomgSepotstore,but put a on - hold'onthe project,hpossible least 1910, and our Parents prior to P that time. It needs a � : cetns'_about the possible impact impact a lot of discussion and a lot of patience and thought _ onezisting, busnesses:The cop ils order also froze a pro - before final decisions. THANK YOU. posaifora.147_,000-square-foot - Lowe'§.. Home Improvement store,,planned. nearby. Other suggestions from .the task force included style require- . meets to make the structures More attractive, and adaptable �! to'`other businesses if the origi- nal tenants close up shop. Commissioner Lee Hietala, a member of the task force, said `. some of the rules; might be too re&trietiye...„ [ ?'t;prefer not to shoo anybody away," .he said. "This may do that. if we're going.to have a structure of fees to mitigate, �( then l think we should start at a r -" lower (size) and get everybody Involved The task force plans to make F its: formal recommendation on duly 15,.Hietala said. e nt tips: iu st (406) 791-1431; j pur address is Business 3riefcas;e; Great Falls Tri- l�utiie, P.O: Box 5468, y` `:Great Falls, MT 59403. RECEIVED J R U N 1_1 21 110; 01 2 Kalispell City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, Montana 59903 What makes this valley unique is its undeveloped beauty and peacefulness — its calm, rural flavor. These assets do not put money in people's pockets directly, but are the very basis for the quality of life we now enjoy. I am not a newcomer to the Flathead, having lived here for 51 years, (except for my college years spent in Bozeman). I have seen malls in Whitefish and Kalispell fail and wonder how we can fool ourselves to believe that a bigger mall is going to be the answer. Please look at the big picture and farther into the future and say no to Wolford's mall. Sincerely, S. I. Love 4790 Blankenship Road Columbia Falls, Montana 59912 Kalispell City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, Mt. 59903 Dear Council Members: AN"'V i 9 NO I OPPOSE any changes to the master plan which would allow development of Glacier Mail on LaSalle Road. My family has been in this valley for close to 100 years now. My dad was born in Apgar in 1915. My oldest son was born in Kalispell in 1991. Obviously this valley has changed immensely in recent years and will continue to change. As council members, you have an opportunity with this mall proposal to steer the development of this valley in the direction of thoughtful planned growth. There is nowhere on the face of this earth as uniquely beautiful as the Flathead Valley. Please make a stand to maintain that beauty by opposing the development of the Glacier Mall. Thank You! &4 'U`"� Cal Sibley 270 Lake Blaine Drive Kalispell, Mt. 59901 RECEIVED JI U! Zoo Keith J. Hammer 3165 Foothill Road, Kalispell, MT 59901 406-755-1379 June 18, 2002 Kalispell City Council PO Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Proposed Mega -Mall Bear Members of the Kalispell City Council; Please do all you can to stop the development of the proposed Mega -Mall in the Flathead, especially in Evergreen. Current mall plans carry considerable risk to the shallow aquifer in the area, which feeds directly to the Flathead River and Flathead Lake. Please delay approval of the mall plans until you have done your homework thoroughly and fully understand the risks this project poses to our treasured lake and waters. Moreover, there must be something you can do to prevent this project from turning downtown into a ghost town. The developer has openly acknowledged his plan will essentially put the City Center Mall out of business. Other downtown businesses have stated they fear being put out of business as well and a recent Missoulian article documented that is exactly what happened in other cities where this developer had his way. There is something terribly wrong when our country's protections of business go too far and allow one developer to essentially steal the heart of a town and its business. There are certainly more cooperative ways for the developer to make money while contributing to the health of our downtown and communities, rather than robbing them blind. Please deny approval of the mall plans and instead invite the developer to invest in downtown Kalispell or expansion of the City Center Mall. It defies both common and moral sense to create a new Mega -Mall only to turn other businesses and buildings into white elephants. The future of the Flathead Valley rests in your hands. Please do the right thing, not the most expedient. Sincerely, RECEIVED 19 2,002 June 17, 2002 Kalispell City Council P.O. Box 2997 Kalispell, MT 59902 Dear City Council, I am unable to attend the meeting on June 24 th , but would like to send my comments concerning the Mega Mall proposal. I am against this Mall at this time. We already have many empty buildings where shops use to be on Main Street in Kalispell and I think we would see a lot more empty buildings if this Mall came to town. ---T �ank you, Jennifer D w Lakeside, MT RECEIVED 1740 Ashley Lake Road Kalispell, MT 59901 June 18, 2002 Kalispell City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Dear City Council Members: JJ 2 0 «IJ� The purpose of this letter is to advise you of my thoughts regarding proposed changes to our master plan that would allow development of a "mega -mall" on LaSalle Road. I am appalled that this issue has proceeded this far at all. I cannot for the life of me comprehend how any responsible citizen who values the quality of life here could support such a development proposal. The issues that mitigate against this development include, but are certainly not limited to, the degradation of general valley aesthetics, core downtown businesses, core downtown civic and social structure and sense of community, our valley's water supply, the quality of Flathead Lake water, the general air quality, traffic flow, and the public's tax liability. I can see absolutely no redeeming qualities such development would bring. I see this proposed development as nothing more than a further fouling of our own nest. We already have the clearest of examples of what has happened in other areas that have pursued unbridled commercial development: Missoula, Hamilton, Bozeman, and further afield, Aspen, Telluride, Sun Valley, and on and on. The mere thought of the Flathead Valley evolving further and further toward a regional commercial shopping center is completely repugnant to me, and violates the very nature of this magnificent land, its history, and its people. Together we have a choice. We do not have to blindly, dumbly follow the same shameful, short-term course of development that others have allowed their communities to follow. We can opt for a clearer, long-term course of planning and action that will keep the quality of life and community in this valley something to enjoy, be proud of, and be proud to pass alongu our children and grandchildren. Let others less visionary allow random, unbridled commercial development turn their communities into squalid, impersonal strips and malls, devoid of the humanity and sense of community we have grown up with here. This is our chance to rise above the short-term gain, the greed, the loss of natural beauty and community. One hundred years from now it will be the natural splendor, the sense of community, and the quality of life that distinguishes the Flathead Valley — not our strips, malls, casinos, and commercial development. Please, for our heritage - for future generations - oppose this change to the master plan! By doing so, you would set an astounding and wonderful precedent that would surely be emulated by communities facing similar pressures around our nation. I can think of no finer contribution you could make at this time, individually and collectively, to the long-range future of this beautiful valley, its people, and other communities in Montana and across our nation. Sinelyours, Richard H. Schaus �4, 4� i4y� z)t ezz),& z2i Z� �%<t dw, Our pristine valley has many meanings those fortunate to live here or to visit. "The dimple in the cheek of nature" was my father's favorite description of our special area. The valley teems with enchantment and delight. Its many lakes: Bitteroot, Swan, Whitefish, to name a few..... Its clear rivers and streams: Flathead, Middle, North, South, Stillwater.... Its mountains: Glacier Park, the Swan Range, the Mission range, Big Mountain afford joys to climbers, hikers, campers, skiers, and all who love the ourdoors.... The spectacular views on all sides, the clean fresh air, the wonders of nature, are all encapsulated in this treasured valley. This valley is the bast Best Place. Mega malls add nothing to this charismatic area. They pollute. They destroy our unique down town. We have the opportunity to preserve our precious gift. Please use vision and reject the mega mall. `` G 6/15/02 I am writing this letter out of concerns that my husband, my family, my neighbors, and friends have with the idea of the mega mall that is being proposed in the vicinity of Highway 2 and Reserve Drive. Don and I have lived in our home in Evergreen for 26 years. We always loved the Flathead, expecially Flathead Lake with its miles of shining, clean water. Before we moved here it was a wonderful place to come to vacation with our children and friends. We spent hours waterskiing and fishing and just sunbathing on its shores. When Don got the opportunity to transfer here with his job as a Montana Highway Patrolman, we were thrilled. We bought our home in Evergreen because we liked the feel of country living yet being close to Kalispell. We enjoyed shopping at the Gateway Mall which offered everything we needed with a little assistance from the downtown shops. All to suddenly, the cherry warehouse went down and Center Mall went in. Within a short time Gateway Mall was gone, unable to compete with Center Mall. Now we are faced with this idea of a large mall located in the middle of a field, far away from the center of town. Where is the logic in this? Where is the money going to come from that will be needed to improve the roads to allow for the excess of traffic on Reserve Drive? We all know that there is a shallow aquifer under this site. Is there any kind of a guarantee that the runoff from all this pavement and sewer will not pollute our beautiful lake and the rivers that run into that lake? Who is going to pay for this investigation and sollution? I am afraid that you are willing to trade what has been sacred and valued for generations for something that will be temporary and self serving for only a few people. There are things that money can't buy, and our clean water is one of those things. My last concern is this. When Center Mall went in, Gateway Mall went down- That didn't have a lot of affect on Kalispell because Center Mall is located in the very center of town. What is going to happen to downtown Kalispell with this sprawling mall miles away form it? With all the money that is being spent to beautify the streets of Kalispell it makes me wonder where the logic is. If we need a lareger mall, the win win solution to me would be to enlarge the mall we have. Thank You, Linda and Don Denning 146 E. Evergreen Dr. Kalispell RECEIVED JU�v'! 8 20102 RECEIVED JUN 14 2002 /Hoi c, /ilrd I -5c 9c) I cl 0 Cool Vn4 ��r -cu} "'c c, d 14a 11c C-S. Lone- a ),5ty- 599o) Subject: Comments on the proposal faster Plan Amendment for Glacier Mall Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:34:38 -0600 From: "Tim Davis" <smartgrowth@mcn.net> To: <tricitytom@centurytel.net>, <council@kalispell.com> Dear Kalispell City Council members and Director Jentz, Please find attached comments on the proposed Master Plan Amendment for the Glacier Mall. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. I am happy to answer any questions that you might have. Tim Davis, Executive Director Montana Smart Growth Coalition PO Box 543, Helena, MT 59624 406-449-6086 smartgrowth(dmcn.net www.mtsmartgrowth.org Name: 6 20 02 Glacier Mall comments.rtf u 6_20_02 Glacier Mall comments.rtf Type: WINWORD File (application/msword) Encoding: quoted -printable of 1 6/21/02 2:50 PM 1111111 [101 :!r, 17V GROWTH COALITION Montana Smart June 21, 2002 Growth Coalition Members To: Kalispell City Council. AERO Tom Jentz, Tri-City Planning Office American Conservation Real Estate From: Tim Davis, Montana Smart Growth Coalition American Farmland Trust Executive Director. American Wildlands Artisan LLP Beartooth Mapping RE: Glacier Mall/Wolford Mast Plan Amendment Comments Bitterrooters for Planning Brown Bear Resources City of Bozeman, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Master Plan Planning amendment for the Wolford/Glacier Mall proposal. While we understand and agree with the Board Citizens for a Better Ci of Kalis ell's interest in annexing new commercial properties in order to provide control p g p p Flathead over development outside the city limit, we believe that too many pertinent questions regarding Clark Fork Coalition the proposed Mall and its affect on the health of the local economy, services, and environment Downtown Billings Partnership, Inc. have been left unanswered for the Council to approve the amendment at this time. Drake Engineering Flathead Lakers It seems that the proposed amendment, if approved, would contradict several important Flathead Resource Organization goals and policies in the Master Plan thereby making the Master Plan internally inconsistent g p Y g Y Friends of the Bitterroot and, in affect, meaningless. It seems reckless for City Council to weaken the Master Plan at a Greater Yellowstone time when the City is relying upon the existing Master Plan to guide growth in the Coalition High Plains Architects extraterritorial area, and when the City is at odds with the County regarding how development HomeWORD should take place around Kalispell. HWY 93 Citizen Coalition Montana Environmental Information Center Additionally, before making this decision the City should consider waitingfor 1 the Y g tY ) Montana Human Rights Attorney General's opinion regarding its ability to use the existing Master Plan for zoning Network amendments, and 2) until a new growth policy is adopted that addresses new commercial Montana Audubon Montana Association of realities through a detailed market stud capital improvement planning, and new policies on g Y� p p p g� Conservation Districts floodplain and storm water management. Montana Chapter of the Sierra Club Montana Farmers Union The amendment seems to violate the Master Plan and make it internally inconsistent in Montana PIRG three areas: Montana Wildlife Federation National Center for 1. Economic health, diversity, and compact development: A) The staff report makes Appropriate the argument that the mall proposal is consistent with the Master Plan because the Technology Master Plan calls for compact and orderly development in Goal 6 (b) and the mall Northern Plains Resource Council could provide the hub for orderly development in the future. However, the mall p Y Plan Helena site is not currently adjacent to existing city services and infrastructure and would Park County result in further division of Kalispell's commercial businesses. Environmental Council Smart Growth Missoula B) The mall proposal also clearly violates Section 5 by severely weakening the Soil and Water Central Business District instead of "ensuring that [it] remain strong and viable." Conservation The developer and the staff report both agree that this mall will create retail flight Society- Montana Chapter from downtown Kalispell. The city conduct duct a detailed market analysis, as p Sonoran Institute the staff report recommends, prior to amending the Master Plan or approving any Tracy -Williams new zoning changes that might result in weakening the Central Business District Consulting Wheeler Center and thereby violating the Master Plan. Addidonall this proposal could result in a Y g Y� p p — 2 — June 21, 2002 Women's voices for the net loss of tax revenues for the City because of the increased cost of extending Earth services, lower tax assessment for strip and mall commercial developments, and the loss of businesses downtown. 2. Protection of the environment: A) The City should conduct a detailed analysis of and plan for 100-year floodplains prior to approval of the Master Plan Amendment or zoning change. The City puts itself at significant economic risk if it permits a development such as this mall in an area prone to floods. Missoula along with developers and others recently paid around $1 million dollars in punitive damages for approving a development that was not known to be in the floodplain, but was, in fact, in the floodplain and flooded several times. Kalispell could be held equally liable in the future if the mall or commercial properties in the area are flooded. B) Similarly, the fact that the staff report indicates that there is no adequate plan or ability to deal with storm water from the mall's massive parking lots could very likely result in the pollution of Flathead Lake, which is already a federally -listed .unpaired water body, thereby violating state and federal law under the Clean Water Act. Lack of an adequate storm water study for commercial property in the area also threatens to pollute groundwater supplies that residents and businesses in the area might currently rely upon for their drinking water. 3. Orderly and efficient use of services: The proposed Amendment would violate Goal 8(a) of the Master Plan by stretching local services to the limit. The amendment would permit commercial development in an area that is not currently served with local services and would require tremendous new public investment to provide adequate roads, wastewater, water supply, fire, and emergency services. The staff report clearly states, in MDT's comments, that funds do not currently exist to upgrade roads to deal with the increased traffic caused by the mall. The Kalispell Public Works Department is clearly not prepared to deal with the amount of waste water that the mall would generate. The fire and police departments, the staff report states, are also not prepared to provide an adequate level of service to the mall at this time and a significant investment would be required. It seems premature to allow such a gigantic commercial development in an area that cannot now be adequately provided with essential public services. The result of this amendment and resulting commercial development in the area could be very expensive extension of services to the area and/or a lowering of the level of service for other city residents and businesses. Before any amendment to the Master Plan is adopted the City and developer should answer the many unanswered questions listed above and in the staff report. The City could use the development of a new Growth Policy to address many of these concerns and questions. In the meantime, we believe that it is essential for the city to protect the integrity of the Master Plan in order to retain control of development in the extraterritorial area. PO BOX 543 • HELENA, MT • 59624 PHONE: 406-449-6086 • EMAIL: S�fAR'Tc>RO\�-"I'H(�7MCN NET \V NX1VV.MTSMARTGRO\X1TH.ORG Subject: Mega Mall Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 10:02:08 -0600 From: "johnholly" <jrhh@centurytel.net> To: <council@kalispell.com> Dear Council Members, I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the planned mega mall in Evergreen. I am sure that you have been reading all of the letters in the Daily Interlake so I won't be redundant about all the possible negative ramifications of this project. The only one I want to stress is that it is inevitable that if this mall is built there will be a horrible degradation of the quality of Flathead Lake. We don't want to ruin the primary reason why people find this valley such a beautiful place to visit and live. We do not need a new mall and people are dreaming if they think it will solve our economic problems. Please do not be shortsighted in your decision. Just say NO! Thank you. John Rodwick, 1465 Whitefish Stage Rd. Kalispell, MT 257-5034 To Kalispell City Council Regarding proposed mega mall on Lasalle Rd. RECEIVED June 19, 2002 2002 JUH 21 pr11U: 24 KALISPELL CITY CLERK History has shown us that the Flathead Valley can support only one major mall, so the construction of a new mega mall would most certainly result in the death of the existing downtown mall. This would be a real tragedy for the downtown area as it would likely result in even more downtown businesses moving or closing. Downtown Kalispell has a unique and valuable asset in having residential areas that are within walking distance of just about any store or business that a person needs. This is of tremendous benefit to elderly, developmentally disabled, and low income persons who do not drive. The community of senior housing, group homes, assisted living, private homes, and more that has evolved in the downtown area really needs the wide range of business that currently exists in the area. Kalispell should be very proud of this unique residential community and needs to maintain it's viability. Rather than a new mall, Kalispell would be much better off by expanding the present downtown mall and encouraging stand-alone businesses as well. If Kalispell wants to be like every other big city, then consolidate business into big malls and shopping districts. If Kalispell wants to maintain its present "community" feeling, then maintain diversity by keeping a healthy mix of residential and business wherever possible, particularly downtown. Sincerely, Bob Stoeckley, Kalispell City property owner PO Box 877 Eureka, MT 59917 RECEj V ED JU,J 2 ?�aZ I;lQu kA ly �s recf- trato vj � kcZ--5 a- (-the, 5TCres 14x II P`Orv, �1 5 l v `-L. ml s a1 2002 JUN 21 PM 2: 52 KALISPELL CITY CLERK Kalispell City Council City Hall Kalispell, MT 59901 June 20, 2001 Ashley Emerson Mason 501 3`d Ave East Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 755-2773 What is the one thing that unites all of us who live and work in the Flathead Valley, despite our economic woes and differences in opinion? What brings several million people here from all over the world each year to visit and spend their money? Our Wallmart? Our K-Mart? Our potential mega mall? No. People come, people stay because this place is like no other place on earth. Whether you itch to get out and hunt in falls crisp air, enjoy the multitude of recreation opportunities, or just enjoy living in a small town where life is more peaceful and simple, this place offers a way of life found in few places elsewhere. What would endanger our uniqueness? A developer from somewhere else who comes in to make our valley look and feel like every place else in the world, then takes off with the profit. You can be at a mega mall anywhere in the world and have no clue what town you are in. They all look the same and they all have the same economic and social ramifications on the communities that they occupy. They run locally owned companies out of business, they cheapen the aesthetic character of the town and they degrade the cultural identity that makes the town unique. The $6.00-8.00 per hour jobs that a mega mall could bring to town will not be an economic windfall for our Valley. They will be an economic travesty because the people making the real money will be corporations and executives that live far away from here. I am certain too that the several million visitors who come from all over the world to visit our Valley and Glacier National Park do not come here because we might get a Mega -mall! They come here because it is spectacular and unique. By approving a mega -mall we sell our souls to out of town developers and say, "Yes. You can have our land, our money and our future." Let's keep our future in our hands by saying no to the mall at Monday nights Town Meeting. Ashley Emerson Mason June 21, 2002 To: The Honorable Pamela B. Kennedy, Mayor and Kalispell City Council Members From: Brian D. Beck Business Address — 50 Second Street East #B 14, Kalispell, Montana I support the proposal of Wolford Development to amend the master plan and its use from agricultural/industrial to business/commercial. I believe the land is suited for the proposed use. You will hear or, you have heard opponents of this proposal and it is my opinion the arguments against the proposal have little to do with this decision for the use of this property. I would ask that you consider the proposal and approve it based on relevant information. I own and operate a few businesses in the heart of downtown Kalispell. I plan to remain downtown, Glacier Mall or no Glacier Mall. Contrary to what a few people believe, I believe downtown will continue to do well. The proposed Glacier Mall does not have to hurt downtown Kalispell. I actually believe the proposed mall can actually enhance commerce downtown. I look forward to new businesses coming to our area and I look forward to competing with new business coming to our area. The one person who has had little mention during many debates is the consumer. Let's let the market dictate what is good for business in our area. Business in America has been based on free enterprise and risk taking. Let's stick to what has worked. Capitalism has worked. I know you will be making the correct choice by approving the proposed amendment change. There will be many issues to work out between now and the ground breaking ceremony but they can nonetheless be worked out. Thank you, Brian D. Beck 2002 JUN 2 1 PH 2. 52 James & Jean Cross 618 Lesiure Drive Kalispell, Montana 59901 June 18, 2002 Kalispell City Council 312 1" Avenue East Kalispell, Montana 59901 Dear Council Members: Much change has occurred in and around Kalispell in the last 20 to 30 years. In spite of many new citizens, many new businesses and many urban and rural residential developments that have occurred with very little long range planning in place, we still like and enjoy living in the Kalispell area. Recent projections for growth in the Flathead Valley in the next 20 to 30 years along with some observations on affects of past growth in the Kalispell area, however, cause us to be greatly concerned. Kalispell uptown area contains much less diversity in retail shopping opportunity than years ago. The Uptown Mall development hasn't alleviated current concerns for vitality of Kalispell's uptown retail area and certainly didn't foster continued occupancy in the Gateway West Mall. Today, there is significant unoccupied retail space in all 3 areas. As citizens of this community, we am not in support of the proposal to create a new mall in the Evergreen area, especially when the developer anticipates drawing 2 major outlets from the Uptown Mall, thereby leaving 3 retail areas trying to survive without major retail outlets. Even Billings, the largest city in Montana, struggles to maintain viability in 2 malls and the downtown area. We would be remiss if we didn't include any concerns for development at the proposed location and possible adverse impacts to the underground aquifer system. If there was ever a need to think long term in the case of Flathead Lake water quality, this proposal certainly should be center stage. It has been our experience that being proactive in situations like this is much less costly than being reactive at a later date. In closing, we truly hope you will consider the welfare of the present Kalispell uptown shopping situation and the water quality issues in Flathead Lake over a new mall proposal that may adversely affect both concerns. The only winner in the proposed scenario will be the developer who will profit from the construction, initial occupancy and early sale of the development while the real chore of filling in empty retail space in the left -behind shopping areas is shouldered by the community. Sincerely, 1:7 C)L Aames & Jean Cross An issue that hasn't been well addressed are the traffic concerns as seen from the perspective of school children in close proximity to the proposed mall site as well as countless families who call this area home. Are we willing to allow an amendment without even seeing a traffic impact analysis? I discovered that between January 1, 1999 and March 31, 2002, there were 43 crashes between Reserve and Rose Crossing, one of them fatal; 138 crashes between Rose Crossing and MT 40, seven of these fatal. Please do not vote to make our children just another statistic until you car. assure me that their safety is more important than how many millions a developer has invested. Demand traffic issues be addressed before this proceeds any further. Maintaining water quality is crucial. It want evidence that my family will be safe! I discovered some interesting information in my research on water quality, uncovering past evidence of degradation due to land use as well as learning how important wetlands are to my water quality and helping to prevent flood catastrophe. Here is the report prepared by the Flathead Conservation District on East Spring Creek Rehabilitation Project as well as a well-done and informative video synopsis of the effort. I hope you pass this amongst yourselves in the coming days and see for yourself what bad decision -making caused. By choosing to rehabilitate and now preserved this area as crucial to our health, safety and enjoyment for years to come. East Spring Creek was almost lost to us once. It had eroded into a widened, shallow sludge and was designated an impaired stream. Beginning with planning in 1978, East Spring Creek underwent a complicated, multi -phased rehabilitation. This project spanned 20 years and took over $300,000, the cooperation of over 200 streamside landowners, and numerous government agencies to complete. Hard work, diligence and the realization of the importance this crucial riparian wetland holds in the hydrologic cycle, people banded together to save it. In 1998, it was removed from the 303(d) 'List of impaired streams and this project won awards for "Most Improved Fishery" as well as for a "Protected and Enhancement of a Fishery." The causes that led to East Spring Creek's dysfunctional state were listed in the Flathead Conservation District's Rehabilitation of East Spring Creek report as: urban development, improper land use, overgrazing mid sedimentary deposit from the 1964 flood. All but one of these contributing factors was based on human error and neglect and could have been prevented. The sedimentary load from the flood shows us the wetland was doing it's job. What is the job of a wetland? Even though riparian or wetland areas make up less than 5% of most geographical areas, they govern the activities of the other 95%. And in turn, what takes place on that 95% governs how well the wetland does it's job. Wetlands act like natural sponges, storing flood and surface water and slowly releasing them. Trees and other wetland vegetation help slow floodwater and can lower flood height and reduce the erosion potential. They reduce the likelihood of flood damage to crops in agricultural areas and control the rate and volume of runoff in urban areas. If they didn't exist, to what extent would the 1964 flood have ravaged our area beyond it's notorious history? Research has shown that whert impervious cover reaches between 10 and 200,/o of the area of a watershed, ecological stress becomes clearly apparent. After this point, stream stability is reduced, habitat is lost, water quality becomes degraded and biological diversity decreases. Typical total imperviousness in medium -density, single-family home residential areas range from 25% to nearly 60%. Total imperviousness at strip malls or other conimercial sites can approach 100 % The effect of impervious surfaces on the volume of stormwater runoff can be dramatic. For example, a I - inch rainstorm on a !-acre natural meadow would typically produce 218 cubic feet of runoff, enough to fill a standard size office to a depth of about 2 feet. The same storm over a I -acre paved parking lot would produce 3,450 cubic feet of runoff, nearly 16 times more than the natural meadow and would fill 3 standard size offices completely. Worldwide, at least one third of all developed urban land is devoted to roads, parking lots and other motor vehicle infrastructure. Wetlands also help improve water quality including drinking water by intercepting surface runoff and renewing or retaining it's nutrients and processing organic water and reducing sediment before it reaches open water. While wetlands are sometimes used to enhance stormwater filtration systems, this is not always the safest and most efficient way of handling the runoff and does nothing to assuage the impermeability factor associated with flooding, Best management practices are not always good enough & contamination does occur. Destroying, degrading and filling wetlands results in lower water quality. Each year the Center for Disease Control estimates that nearly one million Americans become ill every year, 900 of them fatally, because of polluted drinking water. The quality and quantity of America's drinking water are seriously at risk. Uncontrolled development on critical watershed lands is threatening our water supplies every day. We saw it with Spring Creek before and I fear it won't survive a blow of this size and intensity. Doubtful, our valley won't survive either. While it's true, we need to address job disparity and think of some solutions about how to reinvent Downtown, I don't think the solution will come in the form of a giant prepared to be "the only game in town" as Mr. Wolford was quoted as saying. It certainly shouldn't come at the price of clean water, increased flood risk-, and the safety of our children. Please choose to make a decision based on facts- I have provided the City Council with other documentation including information on stormwater solutions, something I think we should address for all our safety. I also included documents outlining what other communities have done to make healthier, more economically viable places to live. 'included as well is an in depth report on the value of fiscal impact analysis on decisions such as the one the Council must make. Thank you for hearing my concerns and please, ask all the right questions before you forge ahead. Change can be a good thing but it must be in a direction that benefits and sustains us not in a back -ward approach that will ultimately be our undoing. tam=0 2 0 0 2 J U N 2 4 PM 6: 2 5 4--- Montaz— T- J 2-7 n M been a CAsn cow zor the develoners . The t3--me +- H±ahwav 2 East wouId nlaca a drain on the of the c3Ltv of Kal±s-oell. nortend to become ±nterests. develonment Cundoubtedly woull earn the L P. -F would be mo-ra rece-pti-ve to this oronosed 'M I - , - ---- RECEIVED 20102 JEAN 2 4 PM I : 1 ALIPELL CITY CLERK / am a .51 if if b s7 ell �4 _!�� , of ea- i. E 7 Well 3 F� l- will. S� �n 0 -kcij �1 a,-d lie sly, i Ae)ld Ike, On n 1. /coo � F ,,gy�pp}} q ®Jy ,c bocjt ..0 J V i off" i9jt ip � cy a) 6v 01 I-e4s <c' _ e K(��,45�cejl no W11, ho x June 22, 2002 Mayor Pam Kennedy City Council Members City Manager Chris Kukulski RE-CEN, ED 20 � 2 J UN 24 P M 1 : 12 The following is a list of concerns regarding the proposed Glacier Mall to be considered for an amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan on June 24. Most of the legal, economic, engineering, and scientific specifics that underlie these concerns are detailed in a submission to the Council from Citizens for a Better Flathead dated June 19, 2002. 1. The developer has provided far too little substantive information for an informed analysis, let alone upon which to base a decision. To my knowledge, technical reports promised by the developer have yet to be submitted. 2. Major concerns regarding air quality and groundwater and surface contamination exist and must be fully analyzed in light of State and Federal standards. What are the possible long-term impacts, and who will be financially responsible? Is the developer willing to post a bond to cover potential future problems? No analysis is in hand to assess the full range of economic impacts to the existing business centers or the tax impacts on business and residents —positive and negative. In the long run, w I gains, who loses? 4. A thorough analysis of traffic impacts is unavailable. 5. A legal morass exists regarding City and County jurisdiction, the status of the City -County Master Plan, the legality of prior County action for approval of the Master Plan Amendment, the effect of SB 97, and jurisdiction of the City of Kalispell. 6. We feel the city is at least guilty of poor judgment, if not in violation of laws requiring adequate opportunity for public input, when, as of this writing, this meeting is still scheduled for the City Hall chambers, with a capacity far below expected turnout for an issue of this magnitude. In addition to these significant issues, important philosophical questions regarding the future direction, look, feel, and values of this valley have been raised, as evidenced by many well -written and thoughtful letters in local papers. Jay Billmayer's report debunks the concept that if we don't capture this development, it will happen anyway in the County. As the elected decision makers, your job is not an easy one, and the burden of responsibility for the future of this valley rests heavily upon you. It is impossible to satisfy everyone, but the recent Commissioner election was probably an indication that many residents are tired of a prostration of our home to anyone with a plan and a bankroll. Sincerel. Lex Blood and Judith Pressmar 844 Third Avenue East, Kalispell, MT 59901 (756-3170) Dear mayor and city council of Kalispell: ECEIVED Dear major & city council members of Kalispell R I am in favor of the Glacier Mall being built in Evergreen. Here are some of my commel ��2 JUN 2 4 PM soine� said t i t the wator quality 1h Flathead Laki is declining. Hikhmak 2 a pidplifililie -- - ivid- - --- ---- from Kalispell to Columbia Falls displaces several times more run off than the Mall par E L L C I T Y will ever displace There are several gravel pits in this area that do daily mining in the ground water and that is direct into the water table Alt hki run - off at Home Depot & the Target location goes into a gravel pit and in turn infiltrates into the .Stillwater River just like a direct pipeline to the Lake. Another thing, most all the drive ways around Flathead Lake drain directly down to the Lake WoYord has stated that his development will involve a storm water treatment system. This, I think will be the first storm water treatment system to be required in the Flathead Valley. This also will be paid for by the developer. Some people say they are worried about downtown businesses. What guarantees to life or business ventures has anyone??????????????? I don't think you have a guarantee like that .................................... There are a lot of states that advertise shopping in there ads aimed at tourism ........................lust ask a tourist driving a motor home & pulling a car where he can park or even stop to spend money in the Valley. ??????????????????????????????????????????? I think I have heard that the city wants to work with the county. Maybe the city could contract with the county to police the new Glacier Mall. Evergreen might work out something for the sewage I know that the city & Evergreen have a contract now. Also there is afire Dept that the city calls upon for back up. All in all I think it will be a great loss if we allow this huge asset to slip through our fingers ............. Growth must continue. Without progress & growth this valley will die----------- -------------------------------Thanksforyour time Maurice Eddie, Hwy 2 east. June 22,2002 21: 17 Subject: comments for the public record Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:55:43 -0600 From: "Bob Muth" <canyon@bigsky.net> To: council@kalispell.com Bob & Laurie Muth 2902 Foothills Rd. Kalispell, MT 59901 6/24/02 Dear Sir: I could not make it to the public hearing tonight; However, I did call the city clerk and was told that if I got an e-mail off today it would be entered into the public record on the hearing for Wolford's Mall. I teach Jr. High in Columbia Falls, my wife, Laurie, is an ICU nurse at the Whitefish Hospital, and we have lived at the same Foothills Rd. farm for 40 years. We have raised our children in the valley and are now enjoying our grandchildren. We both would like to go on record as opposing the Wolford Development's request for a master plan amendment to allow commercial and residential uses on the 247 acres located near the intersection of LaSalle and East Reserve. Please do not approve this request for development that would destroy our water quality and community culture. The sprawl that would be effected by the mall affects everyone. It is a fundamental issue of just use of resources. And it is a spiritual issue. How we develop, or preserve, our land affects the sustainability of life on earth and reflects how we view the rights of every person and every living thing. Please do what is right and just and put an end to this insane idea while it is still possible. Please do not sell out our community's concerns for Mr. Wolford's money intensive and non human scale project! Thanks, Bob & Laurie Muth of 1 6/25/02 8:30 AM Elaine Snyder 13UCKSKIN CLOTHIER 540 Country Way South Kalispell, MT 59901 1-406-755-0767 azvLA � � 1% � � /7 7-5- 2 a5/10/1996 02:33 000000000000 000000 PAGE 01 MEIC MONTA,NA.ENVIRONMENTAL INFORivMATION CENTER June 24, 2002 Mayor Pam Kennedy. " Kalispell" City -Coupcil ..P.O. 13ox;1997 Kalispell; MT 59903 RE: Glacier Mall Vaster Plan ,Amendment Dear Mayor and City`Council Members:, The Montana Envir6nmental Information Center opposes the*.Glacier'Mall Master Plan . Amendment"to, the Kalispell City=County Master Plan. Laud use planning is supposed to establish a set, of goals based upon a, con) I hens;ve"a.nalysis that is. designed to benefit. the entire" community: The, purpose of•planning according "to. Montana Statutes is "to: "encourage local units of., government to improve; the present health, safety, convenience, and"welfare of their. citizens " ... and to plan for 'the future development of their communities to the end that highway systems be carefully planned; that new community centers grow.ohly with adequatehighway, utility, health, educational, and recreational facilities; that the needs of agriculture, industry, and busirre.ss be. " recognized in the future growth; that., residential areas provide healthy surroundings for family, life; and that the growth of the community be commensurate with and promotive of the efficient aind economical use of public funds." §76-1-102, MCA. MEIC believes the, adoption of this master plan amendment would be contrary. to both the. spirit and the letter of this law; the "existing Master Plan and the Montana Constitution.: MEIC's two biggest conice i' s with this proposal are its impacts on water duality and the downtown of Kalispell. Additional information is needed oid the project's effects on water quality ""andyuantity`before a decision can .be made. Dr. Jack Stanford made some very important and critieat points regarding the effects of this project on water,quality in the Flathead basin. Until more information is gathered regarding the, effects: of this .project on stormwati.r runoff, non -point source pollution,.wetlands and.surface and groundwater ,the City should not make "a final decision. ",The potential impacts are significant and should be addressed and understood p>'ior.to making a deeision,.not at:sotne laterdate when impacts cannot be"accounted for or mitigated. , The economic healthand vitality of downtown centers is critical to good.land use planning. ;As stated by the developer' himself; the Glacier small threatens the.health and vitality of downtown businesses in KalispeA. This is contrary to :the existing Kalispell Master plan,; the purpose of planningunder state law as stated above; and.smarrgrowth techniques.' The city should be extremely coincerned about'the drain this mall wail have on existing businesses, its tax. and, its ability to adequately provide'services in the f6wre..The, city should wait until the suggested, Main Office: P.O. Box .1184, Helena, MT 59624,'felephoi' (406) 443-2520, Fax (406) 443-2507 114 W: Pine; Missoula, MT"59802, Telephone (406) 721-3589 i . ,print parhaonstMis!wunpMpA! piGceis eNoma'MB " 05/10/1996 02:33 000000000000 000000 PAGE 02 market analysis,.of this projects impacts on existing businesses is complete before making a decision.' Of course MEICis also eoricerned.about the negative effects this proposal may have on.prime farm lands, strip development,, residential use, and transportation. We believe ,additional analyses are necessary to guarantee that `existing businesses, Kalispell residents, and Montana taxpayers are not burdened with poorly planned and unnecessary development_ And these additional studies are critical to guaranteeing that. the city is complying with Montana's constitutional duty to maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment. Without this necessary information that city cannot guarantee this fundamental right. Until additianal,information has been collected and' analyzed and the public has had the opportunity to review that information and comment on it, this action is premature- We request that you gather the necessary information to make a reasonable and prudent decision that is in, the long-term best interest of the citizens of Kalispell and the State of Montana. gince ly, Anne Hedges program Director 06/24/2002 15:41 4065425632 CLARK FORK COALITION PAGE 02 .CLUX FORK OALITION :Mayor Kennedy and City Council City. of Kalispell . 312.1"Avenue East . ;Kalispell, MT 59901 June 24,, 2002 Dear Mayor Kennedy and. Council members: On beltalf of the Clark Fork. Coalition, please accept'the following eornments'regarding-the proposed Glacier Mall amendment.. The. Coalition .. is a._membe.r-supported group, of 1200 citizens, scientists,. business people, and recreationists dedicated.to protecting and restoring water quality throughout the Clark Fork. River basin: Vi(e have.serious concerns about the water quality inapacts.o. the! proposed . ;project. In..particular; we think the proposal to discharge large amounts of untreated stormwater runoff to a.fast moving aquifer that discharges directly. .. into Flathead Lake is unacceptable.. Stontnwater runoff typically.contains harmful concentrations of petroleum products and other pollutants that are .-harmful to aquatic life. Moreover, the particular aquifer in question.has' been shown to.providc. important habitat for stoneflies and other maci'.oinvertebrates that are a key part of the lake's ecosystem.' We seriously ' doubt that this project could'be approved in its present forin, and still comply with the non -degradation policy that prvtects.surface waters;:or•the constitutional right. to a clean environment, which protects all ecosystems . from unnecessary, degradation. We are'also. concerned about the large amounts of nitrogen and phosphorous that the proposed -,mall would generate.' We, seriously doubt these pollutants. could be treated to. environmentally acceptable levels through anon=site treatment system, We, in cooperation with'the cities of Butte, Missoula; and Deer Lodge and the Stone Container Corporation,- have invested a great deal' . of time.and effort in redu6ng.nutrient loading in the Clark Fork/ Flathead/ Pend Oreille river basin. Another large-scale:source of nutrients in -the basin would be a step in the wrong direction, ,particularly when there are other . treatment options available. 11.would also serve: to undercut the substantial . gains that have been made by. the above -.named dischftrge�s in the Clark 'Fork basing PO lox 7593. ' Wssoub, MT 59601 1. 406/542-0539 (tel( 406/542.5632 ((ox? wrw�r.$mk6k.orp 06/24/2002 15:41 4065425632 CLARK FORK COALITION PAGE 03 In sum, we believe the proposed project, if built at the site in question, would create a serious threat to water quality in the basin. We do not think this project in its present form would be good for the watershed or its people, and we urge you to reject the amendment that would enable it to move forward. Sincerely, Matt Clifford Conservation Director/ Staff Attorney June 26, 2002 The Honorable Pamela B. Kennedy w Mayor of Kalispell City Council City of Kalispell P. O. Box 1997 Kalispell, Montana 59903 Dear Council: RECEDED 311 Bio Station Lane Polson, Montana, U.S.A. 59860-9659 JUL - 1 20,92 Phone (406) 982-3301 Fax (406) 982-3201 http://www.umt.edu/biology/flbs a - Via facsimile (406) 758-7758 I could not attend the public hearing on the proposed Glacier Mall Master Plan Amendment on Monday, June 24. Apparently, in my absence, the long record of water quality research by Flathead Lake Biological Station (FLBS) and my newspaper statements concerning this research were rather loosely interpreted. Please allow me herein to clarify matters. Our research clearly shows that the shallow alluvial aquifer of the Flathead River circulates water back to the river in the Evergreen area and, hence, to Flathead Lake. Natural processes cleanse the water as it is carried through the aquifer. But, the ability of the river -aquifer system to do this is limited and can be destroyed by gravel mining or pollution. We have twice demonstrated that the cleansing function has been compromised in the Evergreen area by point (septic systems) and nonpoint (diffuse runoff, especially from roads and paved parking lots) pollution. This was partially mitigated at considerable cost to Evergreen residents by connection to the Kalispell Sewage Treatment Plant (STP). However, the portion of the aquifer within the urban area of Evergreen has not yet recovered, due to continuing increases in nonpoint inputs associated with new development and latent effects of the many household septic systems that were present prior to STP connection. This aquifer has to be protected if the high water quality in Flathead Lake is to be maintained. Water quality problems associated with urban development, like the proposed mall and the collateral urbanization that will come with it, in this sensitive area cannot be held anywhere near zero by any treatment systems that might (or might not) be installed. We have clearly demonstrated water quality in Flathead Lake has deteriorated by one third since 1977 due to incremental increases in pollution within the Kalispell Valley and the airshed of the lake. The mall and its collateral development represent another and potentially huge increment. Flathead Lake is our most treasured asset. The mall and its collateral development should not be juxtaposed with the river -aquifer system, especially since it can be built in more benign (from a water quality perspective) areas of the valley. I again offer to present our research in more detail upon your request. Sincerely, Jack A. Stanford Jessie M. Bierman Professor and Director cc: Ms. Diane Conradi, Executive Director, Citizens For A Better Flathead Mr. Sid Rundell, President, Flathead Lakers Mr. Greg Butts, Water Quality Specialist, Montana Department of Environmental Quality Mr. Frank Miele, Managing Editor, Daily Inter Lake Ms. Erika Binger, Outreach Coordinator, FLBS An Equal Opportunity University Subject: Flooding Problems at Hattiesburg NIS Mall Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:13:46 -0600 From: "Ann & Bill" <bat@cyberport.net> To: <twhite@kalispell.com> Dear Mayor and Council Members, In speaking with friends in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, today concerning the proposed mall here in Kalispell, they informed me of the on -going flooding problems occurring in neighborhoods adjacent to theTurtle Creek Mall. I called Alana Abney, who is the county planner for Lamar County to verify this. While Ms. Abney did not state that the mall was the direct cause of the flooding, she did say that many people attributed the increase in flooding to the storm run-off from the mall. And she did say the flooding was severe --during El Nino, houses were flooded 14 times in 2 months. She was waiting for information from the Corps of Engineers to get federal funds to repurchase homes and relocate the families in this flooded area. And the mall denied any responsibility and offered no help. This problem exists despite the extensive engineering studies done by Wolford Development and signed off by city, county and state officials. PLEASE check further before you make your final vote. Your vote will have a major impact on the future of our precious valley!! Ann H. Tucker 115 Swan Range Drive P.O. Box 1627 Bigfork MT 59911 of 1 6/27/02 100 AM r.. b 177 -'a- i 's 41106:1u".✓' .,.''K.' .'yw't"°=�',�v`t ,z. is: ,�.. sff ���,� %��`- '`,.,, -/ � f ''c. -„ t - r` w r r . !+`'° r� ''�'--' /e✓ ;,�'�pd!l.�.r f ��*,�..go �.,,?'_ `/.l :f„ �ri..,�:,.,is'.>%.,^,�.,.�s'=• a;.'v,s`s"'>.;,."' %'.'_--`�.....=° ,'' °` : ' -`r' - ,"s r'x''r` `f ,,,�;'`rr--''.' - '"rj✓' �'f' .X a. l `� ; ) ,•✓; r,=s ^:' yy_.,'=-`c'.os ' '`; �t .,�?y, ?%-: zP`I;,. , z4_6 Jam''.: ✓` -°"','' ;".J` .r ` .{ I/ - ' Jim! jS, ANY ISAT him SAN r' d f �1, Ohl! , f �''.,e f -1 f oil, _�'✓� s d �� i�� d F`w ��!-E,...one '� -� / e (�-^ <✓ k b '�� ''ta`„ r.%� �j'';,"� ~p /v °f Syr 1.r� °rf ✓P �`,/elgel VON A16 l _ 'j t ��°"y'"r''.�' - `-L L' sf v,/,/Gj' ,f �/f�/V �'.,C'r�,-• J/,..-"' fi''S�C-�G E'`$�`" �� L. ,�"�' f�,;'y"�"' XXI >- j i t r ram% Am nz- '+ ''j c ` , �S (�� 2H2 JUN 2 5 FA 2: 4 2 KALOPELL CiTy CLERK To the Kalispell City Council: P.O. Box 1861 Kalispell, MT. 69903-1861 june 25, 2002 The action of Mayor Kennedy at the public hearing relative to the proposed amendment of the City -County Master plan cuting me off from furnishing testimony on that issue was blatantly wrong and discrimatory® He terminated my remits on the Bounds that my subject motter wis not pertinent to the issue before the council® Had I been allowed to continue my presentation would have been as follows: The issue before the council is whether or not the proposed amendment would be beneficial or not to the City's best interest. The proposal of Mr. Wolfordl being the basis for the proposal to amend the Master Plan makes that proposal pertinent but not dispositor, to the amendment. It had been widely publicised that the development would include construction of city sewer and water lines from the city limits to the development site at the exrense of the developer® It was publicized that the route of this extension of city services would be along East Reserve to the development near the intersection of La3alle Rd. (U-3. ff2* and East Reserve, a distance of a mile or more outside the existing city boundary. Accordinqly, that pa-t of his project was integral to the existence of the proposed change in the Mcster Plan currently PoverninR the area and it was a vital part of the testimony at the public meeting from both proposers and antagonists to the chanpe. The construction and maintenance of the new sewer and water services outside the city is what has influenced my interest in the whole issue and prompte! my v-pearnee before the council at the public hearinR and testify. The subject of my proposed testimony had not surfaced U the general public debate on the issue, but T feel it is very important to the council in mqkinq its decision® The decision of the Montana supreme Court in the case originating in Polson is very important a,nd should be considered by the council in mpking any decision to extend city services outside the city® Even if the proposal of Mr. Woolford does not become fulfilled or the effected property co7er(d by the proposed amendment to the Master Plan is enacted at all, the effect on the development of property outside the city along Reserve is important® -2- As I told the council before b jthg stopped by Mayor Kennedy, The Supreme Court held in the Polson Case that the City becomes a "Public Utility" when it operates its water and sewer facilities. As such, it is governed by the general lows and regulations governing other Public Urtiiies in the same function. Those regulations pro7idd that a property owner whose property abuts the line of the city's service are aballable to anyperson so situated. Reasonable hook -on fees can be charged and reasonable rates for service can. be imposed. This is a "Right" established by law and effect everybody whether user or provider. At the same time property owners outside the city limits have a right to oppose the city extending its juris- diction to include th property. That "Right" is also established by our laws governinp the ctivity of Cities in defining their boundaries The City of Kalispell has on its books a rule in its policy of operation of the city's sever and water facilit- ies. Thot "Rule" however, has not been tested in the courts. The city's management personnel have felt that that "rile" is enforceable but so far there his been no test of its enflrceability. If the Wolford plan is carried out and the sewer arJ water lines ire constructed along Reserve at. the abutting properties en route to the iolford project may desire to Avok on to the city's lines. The City will, of course, try to impose its "rule" that the applicant must give a waiver of its right to protest annexation or furnish a direct petition for annexation. If the applicant refuses to do so but still worts the service, we have q problem of major proportions. The applicant will be being asked to give up a "Right" in order to exercise another WOO both "Rights" hqvelng been granted by law. I am firm in my believe that the aenerol rule of lRs that one does not have to give up a "Right" in order to exercise another "Right" will be applied b7 th4 Montana :supreme Court if such a case is presentdd to it. If the court rules as I think it would , the effect is clear. All properties outside the city having a city water or sewer line running by the front door can get the service and never annex to the city and share in its tax load. It is entirely possible that such a senario could occure should the Wolford project proceed as planned. This could result in chaos in the city's orderly development in that and other areas where the city does have or is planning to extend thesse uti. ities outside the City. I'm sure you can imagine what could happen should you grant the amendment to the current Master Plan and the holford project proceed to completion® I have no objection to the aolford project per se, its other problems could most likely be worked out, but the Dity's control over its extension of sewer and water facilities in that Prea would not be in the best interest of the City Of Knlispell in the long run® Although not a part of this issue, the some situation exists relative to the city's plans to extend sewer and wRrer down the the tour -Corners intersection. The council should #ive this problem in its plane for orderly development outside the present city boundaries. You h-vee a very important decision that will need your utmost care because of its long ranee effect on the tutu n of this city. The present policy to extend city utility services into areas that meet the criteria of contiguity, immedinte annenation and following all city sub -division rules is a Good one and shoulld not be abandones for a "pie -in -the -sky" plan that will put you in jeopardy® The "Best Interest of the City of Kalispell" should W y9ur only criteria for positive action of any sort. Respectfully submitted �- 4 hAw, Norbert F I Subject: Former Resident Has Concerns Tate: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:15:44 -0700 From: "Link Dyrdahl" <link@bigbox-ent.com> To: <council@kalispell.com> CC: "'Lynn and Doug"' <Mikkelsen@centurytel.net> Dear Council Members, I grew up in Kalispell and will always have an affinity for the valley. My parents and sister still live there. I return as often as possible to visit and enjoy everything the area has to offer. I have lived in Seattle for the past ten years and love living here as much as I did Kalispell. The city of Seattle has managed to grow rapidly and still maintain the appeal of small towns. There are many areas throughout the city that have maintained their charm for decades and in my opinion will continue to do so for many more. For this reason, I love living in Seattle. The one concern I have always had with Kalispell is that it has never put an emphasis on aesthetics. Our neighbors to the north and south, Whitefish and Bigfork, have always been very cute and quaint while Kalispell seemed to lack a desire to improve it's appearance. While Whitefish and Bigfork bare far smaller populations and do not carry the burdens of running a larger city, I have never felt that Kalispell has planned well or looked very far into the future. A case in point is the old mall by the fairgrounds and the current one in the city center. Once the current mall was built, the old one slowly died until it was nothing more than an eye sore. Will that chapter repeat itself if the evergreen mall gets built? My opinion is that it will. It will hurt to see the current mall vacated and sitting in the middle of town like an old battle ship. Is there a plan for the current mall once the evergreen mall is built? I think that problem should be solved prior to building the new one. I fully understand the appeal of the evergreen mall - more land, more jobs, better roads, larger/name brand stores. However, it is my opinion that the people of Kalispell are not that interested in having more selection in shopping. I don't even think that the average Kalispell resident can afford to shop at higher end stores. If you ask the average resident if they want a new mall, I am confident that most will respond affirmatively, but those people do not have the responsibility of long term city planning either. Bottom line, the fundamental benefit the evergreen mall would offer to full time residents is new jobs. However, as is often the case in small resort towns, the full time residents work for minimum wage at stores that cater to more wealthy tourists. This in itself is not a bad thing, but when you have to reshape the community in a way that may be asthetically harmful to full time residents, then I think you need to rethink plans. How much core value to the community would a new mall really generate? I also feel badly for all the businesses that have invested their time, money and energy into keeping downtown Kalispell alive. A new mall would surely be the end of them and would further create a void in the downtown area that has been present since I was a teenager (or longer). This has always been an issue with me since it is necessary (in most cases) to drive down mainstreet to both enter and leave town. It makes Kalispell look worn down and ugly when there are no quality business on main street, quite depressing in my opinion. Lastly, I would like to tell you a story about a friend of mine from Seattle who recently visited the valley. He had always heard me speak proudly of Montana as most of us former residents do. But when I ran into him at a party he did not hesitate to tell me what a crappy little town Kalispell was. He mentioned how beautiful Bigfork and Whitefish were and asked why Kalispell was such a hole in the ground. To be honest, I had nothing to say because I myself have wondered why Kalispell has not progressed over the last twenty years. As a non-resident, my opinon is simply that, an opinion. I simply ask that you take into account my statement and think long an hard about your decision. I know your heart is in the valley or you would not be on the city council. All the best in your decision. Kind Regards, Link Dyrdahl Vice-President Big Box Entertainment Link Dyrdahl 206-783-6292 - office 206-276-3732 - cell www.bigbox-ent.com of 2 6/36/03 7;57 AM Subject: comments for the public record Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:55:43 -0600 From: "Bob Muth" <canyon@bigsky.net> To: council@kalispell.com Bob & Laurie Muth 2902 Foothills Rd. Kalispell, MT 59901 6/24/02 Dear Sir: I could not make it to the public hearing tonight; However, I did call the city clerk and was told that if I got an e-mail off today it would be entered into the public record on the hearing for Wolford's Mall. I teach Jr. High in Columbia Falls, my wife, Laurie, is an ICU nurse at the Whitefish Hospital, and we have lived at the same Foothills Rd. farm for 40 years. We have raised our children in the valley and are now enjoying our grandchildren. We both would like to go on record as opposing the Wolford Development's request for a master plan amendment to allow commercial and residential uses on the 247 acres located near the intersection of LaSalle and East Reserve. Please do not approve this request for development that would destroy our water quality and community culture. The sprawl that would be effected by the mall affects everyone. It is a fundamental issue of just use of resources. And it is a spiritual issue. How we develop, or preserve, our land affects the sustainability of life on earth and reflects how we view the rights of every person and every living thing. Please do what is right and just and put an end to this insane idea while it is still possible. Please do not sell out our community's concerns for Mr. Wolford's money intensive and non human scale project! Thanks, Bob & Laurie Muth of 1 6/25/02 10.56 AM JUN 2 5 2002 C) Rosanne Marozzo 2 Big Sky Blvd a Kalispell, M;T159901-3304 me �csc �� teacp ch o aAaA o°zsCc) " �a;�o�,zszs aoo�cv,yoz-c�:~ o +'' Ur�i S••iQ.' O V) y, ..r a) a) +' ,y •,O.y ° O cz 5�. O c O N �4 n ai O'vUi O U- it cl� CZ a) ' C U ® /)4 �a)C�6a)a) +�a) v��Ctio°cCS �6�'1� +-��.' � CCS � •� cn � '� "' O � � � O �'.' -�'' .L". SU•i � � vi � ti �'"O O .ti � U a) + + p2 c a + as cif u" s- t� C2 ai O s a O a) as U O S� cn y s a) O+ m O aS O'er O4 v O C c1 c�' �w F Sip N.�Uj 45 ,V.c+ o ° > Ts- zs o 3rn o c ,4� 5 c ° m °;O.� '� c� ° Qj O co '� a) cz O A yc�s�ao�Acz o-.= s�gz y+,c ov��ac �nc�v�o ' a O C° �O LO ° `TS +gyp �2 CCS zU o a�J + '~ti O N j p '� a) �° . i- c� s s a o O fs7 .� 4 at y ® i-r P• ° ,�"�.Q N U) •� a) �, 4� Oo z" a-; � a '+ U 1, '6 ! 0 SU-i y0 = '� a 0 'CS .� c Q '� oa ti +' 0 a0 a°yj ,. A 'C a) o cz co a) cis a) .� 'O c da�yy) � cif cf) +� a cz a) U c� ,� . ,.p �+ U cV >, — cp .- s o � CL$ U C/� +� C6 0 ,U w --+ N Q) �j co • �-' �, o O �"' Q1 0 Tl �" Fes" � v) w os~�+$ c�c a)a a)c��Npcz�� C�a)o�U�O�M�c°rs�Rsp cq z•+ � � ° y di 'CS � � U .,..�O N �•+ � �, � � � p � 'CS � - .r Uw o+�++_r6'+ P4•ti+�+tY P4 C �+.a+� 10 00 4i.Ei c o �C O 41 N 41 N � y ° a a � � � vi �.� z c0'S.�y O O �i-y y O� ° 0 �.� a) fl F O aA C6 o ° ° cn 4 M U c 'o0�a'�a�oaoo�cdc �3�v J c c U O P' CO U.� o c �'� p '�.� ° 4.1 a azs czo� ��'� o �." ao " R�3co3obbm0 yTs cn Ic zSrO C N z cSSo nit �f0. an0 p `� U U o aa) ay o °�"�i�3 oc�c a � °Ts�yc�aa y � En'y O U) cS .fl N �" cn to O c6 bA .�-"+ o > c- Zj d CS T-+ �+ •� �-+ ° «5 �+Fia�¢{ N+�cnrn aCS'UO U ch ct N�"CIS $ °OUP". " 4 r_� y U O �' U a .-1 O a0 O cS O O. a) 0 n � S] O U n V'f - Ca O:.i+:f-+ -�-c.. cn a) cl� a) �..+ r+ J to Q yccmIn 2cm �o c �c 4 s V °O�'oc�)'�� ro��� U�' r°z ��cz�=��aaai�y� coy o�ys o�4 m� �o�, p��y�y�.� ��. i TS O O O bD A S" cc5 U ct RS 8- O cS O ci cS 0 'i�„a+ � � � � � ? � � ^r"" �,.�S•-i•` � �j ��,,-+ ° �+ �r .yC�"'U., o o cdy to n U Via) cn :� 3 c aA �> _ n b,O5UcS S °ta) a) cn � -�-a) c3U v wO -+ co c) v �" _ I feel I must add my voice against the construction of Wolford Mall, "the largest mall in Montana" in Flathead County. 11 1 RIME I 1 02011 Ili I F ��I I! I I M My family has lived in Montana since 1891. We have witnessed the comings and Zl goings of generations of rich and greedy outlanders who have pillaged the resources and beauty of Montana and left us with the mess., When will we learn? Betty Eiselein Wetzel P.O. Box 693 139 Pierce Lane Bigfork, MT 59911 Phone: 847-5288 2602 1.14H 26 PH 4* 4' 1 KALISPELL CITY CLERK June 25, 2002 Dear Kalispell City Council Members, As a resident of Kalispell, I urge you NOT to approve the Master Plan amendment that would allow the development of Bucky Wolford's mega mall in Evergreen Why do most of us live in the Flathead Valley? We cherish our world -class lakes and rivers and the small-town character of our towns. We do not want or need a huge mega mall. A recent survey ( by the Institute for Tourism and Research at the University of Montana's School of Forestry, released May 2002) shows that a large majority of Kalispell residents rate as most important "maintaining the existing character of the town." The same survey asked Kalispell residents what new attractions the city needs. Only 3 percent said "a bigger mall." Clearly, tourists come to the Flathead Valley to visit Glacier Park, Flathead Lake, Big Mountain and the surrounding "natural attractions." They do not come here to shop at a mall that resembles the "Anywhere USA" mall they have at home. It is your job to listen to what the majority of Kalispell residents say and not to what one Tennessee developer says. Please help preserve Kalispell's downtown and our small- business owners. It is also important that you fully understand the adverse effects the mall will have on the Evergreen aquifer and Flathead Lake. Do not let increased sprawl and a mega mall ruin our community and our clean water. Thank you for giving your most serious consideration to this decision. Karen Nichols 920 Sixth Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Kuehn Wednesday June 26, 2002 Members Kalispell City Council Re: New Mall in Evergreen Dear Members of City Council, RECEIVED Zoi�2 J11JH 26 43 KALISPELL CITY CLERK 3349 Highway 40 West Columbia Falls, MT 59912 406-892-9810 I know you had your public hearings on the new Mall, but it is my understanding you will accept written comments until Thursday, June 27, 2002. I would like to express my views regarding the proposed Mall. I do not know anyone involved in the program, but I do know from -.• the papers that they have spent a lot of money trying to do the right thing. Meet all requirements etc.. I do not have a business in the valley so I do not speak with a vested interest. My interest are the people of the valley. Mr. Ed Gallagher once told me that there was no reason why Kalispell and the Flathead Valley could not be a destination center for shopping. And he was right. Why should we have to drive to Missoula or Spokane to get a wide range of shopping. Someone said that a Mall never pays for itself and the tax payers have to make up the difference. That is such a lie. I guess like Hitler, if you tell a lie long enough people will believe it. There are some people that will do anything in this valley to stop progress. This is another case of just that. A few with special interests should not decide for all the people in Kalispell and the valley. You represent ALL the people in Kalispell and they deserve to have that shopping center if people are interested in putting up the money, the huge risk to build it. If this site is not approved, I am sure that Columbia Falls would be glad to accept it on the comer of Highway 40 and U.S. 2. There are some people in this valley that would boo a cure for cancer. I strongly support the proposed new Mall in Evergreen and pray that you feel the, same way and let all the residents of the valley have the right to shop there. It will bring in huge tax dollars for everyone concerned. Some say this will kill the downtown. Look, you have WalMart, Shopko, Costco, K-Mart, all out of the downtown area and the down town area survives beautifully. People will shop where they want and if the business gives them quality and service they will go to their place of business. Page 2 Kalispell City Council Members Please support the new mall in Evergreen and let ALL the folks of Flathead Valley enjoy the benefits and not the interest of just a loud few. Sincerely, William E. Kuehn i. CIERTIFIED GENERAL APPRAISER .. REAL ESTATE BROKER CONSULTANT . ;. June 25, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council PO Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Evergreen Proposed Mall After watching the public input on the proposed Mall and reading the morning paper, a number of clear and important points came to my attention, and I hope they also came to your attention, which are as follows: Proponents mainly talked about new jobs and growth, however, what will the loss be in tourism, recreation and jobs that are associated with such, if the Flathead River and Lake are degraded. Professional engineers are in disagreement, which in my experience, until all professional opinion is in agreement that there is no risk, the risk exists. Having worked with Developments, once the necessary approvals are obtained, the "crunching" of numbers and savings that must be obtained for the viability and profit to the Development will entail short-cuts and cost -cuts in quality of safeguards and monitoring. ® I noted that Bucky said he had over $ 600,000 invested, but a homeowner on the East side said he had $ 400,000 invested in his residence too. I reflected that I myself have over $ 600,000 of personal residences, investments and commercial property on Fiat read Lake at risIc and I too am not going away. I noted it interesting that Bucky lives in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, where mega -stores and malls are not allowed. After all this and more, it is readily apparent, this particular site for the Mall is nQ.t appropriate, perhaps another one is better suited. y Rex Bo June 26, 2002 George R. Taylor 504 51h Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901-4929 Mayor Pam Kennedy and Members -of City Council City of Kalispell City_-.Ha1L. Kalispell, MT 59901 Re: Glacier -Mall Dear Hon. Mayor and Members of City Council: Thank you for according the public Monday evening an opportunity to express their views concerning the Land Use issue associated.with the proposed Glacier Mall. I was one of the individuals who spoke. Let me say that I greatly appreciate the patience and pgofessionali.sm all of you show on this issue. As a retired judge, it's absolutely. .abhorrent to me to witness any disrespect in a public forum. Despite the temptation to "throw the rascals out" I have to say I was very impressed with the manner in which you received all comments. We are very_fortunate having each of you representing the public interests. .As a postscript to my comments of Monday, my ONLY concern is that the big picture be kept in mind. It seems to me that any action favoring the Mall coming into being must be accompanied by a concomitant plan of action to vitalize the downtown. As it is now, the downtown needs much more reconstruction and in -building if it is to work.as a cultural draw in the Flathead Valley. Yet, if the Mall goes through. without planning for, and aggressively committing to, a positive growtb.._for downtown, I think it'll be twenty years or more before any sort .of _renaissance takes place. Such a result would not be in the best interests of our community. It struck me that instead of voting "yes" or "no" to the issue at hand, which obviously polarizes many people, can we not find a way to achieve a result which reduces the rampant negativity to a mere hiccup? Most sincerely, 1395 Creekside Drive w Kalispell MT 59901 June 25, 2002 Mayor and Councilmen P O Box 1997 Kalispell MT 59903 Ref: Public Hearing, Wolford Project Your Honor and Councilmen: You are to be complimented on the efficiency by which you conducted last nights' meeting. With a few exceptions, I felt things ran quite smoothly. As you know, I am in favor of this project. Growth is coming whether we want it or not. Flathead Electric is averaging 1200 hook ups per year. We can't fence Flathead County off as the Citizens for a Better Flathead (Bullit Foundation and Ted Turner) would like us to do. However you do have the opportunity to plan for our future in this free market society. As you are well aware, there is a silent majority that has not been heard from. Even in the business community, the chamber survey showed 2-1 in favor of the project. I feel that the silent majority is of this opinion as well. Instead of polluting our lake, I feel this project will help the aquifer. Once the sewer line is extended to Rose Crossing and down to the project all of the homeowners and businesses along this route will be able to hook up. If you take into account all the homes that surround the project, mostly to the east, their hooking on would have a dramatic effect on reducing pollution. On Mr. Wolford's behalf, downtown Hattiesburg was already a dump before the mall went in. Our chamber executive pointed this out in his presentation based on info he received from the two southern malls Wolford built. A positive vote on the amendment change is a vote for progress. Your consideration is appreciated. Sincerely yours, 0641e,�— Brent L. Hall Subject: opposed to mall plan Bate: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:00:05 -0700 (PDT) From: hannah plumb <saddestpleasure@yahoo.com> To: council@kalispell.com i would like to voice my opposition to building a mall in kalispell. we watched one mall's demise and i don't imagine another one is going to be different. many of us who live here moved away from mall sprawls for good reasons. let's keep kalispell different from any city, usa. sincerely- hannah plumb "The big question is whether you're going to give a big hearty YES to your adventure." j. campbell Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com of 1 6/26/02 11:19 AM Subject: new mall Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:09:00 -0600 From: "Ron Goldhirsch" <ron.goldhirsch@centurytel.net> To: <council @kalispell. com> Good Day, We don't need another mall. That is for sure. Thank you, Ron Goldhirsch of 1 0/20/02 11:20 AM Subject: Zoning Change for Mall Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:21:09 -0600 From: 'Benjamin Spradlin" <bspradlin@centurytel.net> To: <council@kalispell.com> I would like to voice my opposition to any zoning changes that may occur due to the proposal to build a mall in the Evergreen area of Kalispell. Including the unknown environmental impact that may occur from such a project, it is imperative that the council see the devastating commercial effect such a project would have on Kalispell as a community. In these times of rapid change and development in our communities, it is the responsibility of the government to direct that growth for the benefit of the community as a whole and not a few individuals. I ask that the council members consider the impact of this type of development. It is a fact that the vitality and cohesion of America's communities is dying because of what is commonly described as sprawl. Many of our cities are fracturing and dying because of this ideology and lack of directional control. In contrast to the current paradigm of urban development used in our society, I like to point to the principals employed in the growth of Vancouver, BC over the past 15 years. The community of Vancouver is thriving because of the foresight of the planning boards to see the benefits of keeping the city center area vital and pertinent. I beg the Kalispell City Council to do the same. Thank You Benjamin Spradlin of 1 6/26/02 11:27 AM Subject: Proposed Glacier Mall - REJECT Amendment to Master Plan Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:11:38 -0600 From: "Margaret M. Henderson" <mhenders@digisys.net> To: council@kalispell.com To: City Council of Kalispell Montana From: Margaret M. Henderson 212 Lakeshore Drive Kalispell MT 59901 Members of the Kalispell City Council, I urge you to REJECT the request for master plan amendment for 247 acres located near the intersection of LaSalle Road and East Reserve Drive from designated for light industrial, commercial, residential and agricultural uses to commercial and residential use. If this Amendment were allowed, this area will be zoned that way hence forward whether the Glacier Mall happens or not. The Valley Arena did not go through so Home Depot took advantage of the zone change. I encourage you to plan if this is the most reasonable place for commercial development in this area. This mall would happen in a 100 year flood plane. In 1964 the location for this mall was under water. This decision will affect the next 100 years when there will likely be another flood and the ramifications of the water running through a commercial development would threaten water quality down stream for miles, including our pristine Flathead Lake. The infrastructure necessary for sewage treatment and runoff is far beyond what was planned for our current facility. To expand it will fall on the tax payers. At least have an environmental impact assessment on this proposal. The city council has not been provided adequate information to make a sound decision. Bucky Wolford assures us that there will not be any problems. W.R. Grace company made the same assurances to the people of Libby. And they left us to clean up the mess while spinning off the companies assets and then filing for bankruptcy. of course Mr. Wolford says "Don't Worry." He is only worried about his investment and it's return, not this valleys long term economic or environmental health. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Margaret M. Henderson of 1 6/26/02 12:43 PM f ILI l � k e G ..mac ��,,,- JUN-:;�`'-02 WED 10:14 AM HOOFER'S NURSERY 406 756 0183 P.01 KALISPELL CITY COUNCIL FROM: Bob Hooper Hooper's Garden Center 2205 HWY. 35 Kalispell, Mt. 59901 I am writing this letter to inform you of my sincere hope that you Do NOT amend the zoning change to allow the con- struction of the new Mega Mall proposed by Mr. Wolford. My family moved here 30 years ago to.get away from the "progress" Mr. Wolford would like to bestow upon our beautiful valley. The protection of our quality of life here far outweighs anything Mr. Wolford has to offer. I would not trade one grain of Flathead topsoil for the entire state of Mississippi and all the malls he has built there for the uniqueness of this valley! Whether you .realize it or not, you folks on the Council right now control the fate of this valley more than any previous council. As far as the water quality issues go, I would not want to be in your shoes if water -well, contamination does happen and it will happen in that particular location. I cannot imagine a poorer location for this proposal than on top of an aquifer that runs 2 to 7 feet below surface level. I do not see how the people elected to represent all of Kalispell, could, in good conscience allow a proposal like this to gut downtown and the Center Mall. I think if you took a poll of the valley, you would find most people feel we neither need or want this mall--- JUN-2a-02 WED 10:15 AM HOOFER-S NURSERY 406 756 0183 P.02 especially at that site. Please do the right thing for this valley. Do not allow this mail on this site. You have the downtown merchants in your hands. You have all the people who depend on wells south of the proposed site in your hands. You have the water quality of Plat- head Lake in your hands. You have the people who live here for the quality of life --that no mall, could ever replace in your hands. Thank you for allowing comment on this issue. I hope you understand the magnitude of your decision on the future of our valley. Thank you, Bob Hooper ifisM 6 f►►�RtT�ii'f�.'R1. 1um.TiTil737 �.IIh T�1�7� - 11Tom: �%.7d w d L w.1 T Q SQK 21 cc co ®.©k2o its3 4W4- A&66JL4� ` r � I (5 FLATHEAD SALISH THE CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES OF THE FLATHEAD NATION P.O. Box 278 NA/ Pablo, Montana 59855 (406) 675-2700 FAX (406) 275-2806 E-mail: csktcouncil@cskt.org Joseph E. Dupuis - Executive Secretary Vern L. Clairmont - Executive Treasurer Leon Bourdon - Sergeant -at -Arms June 25, 2002 City of Kalispell City Council 312 1" AVenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 To Whom It May Concern: TRIBAL COUNCIL MEMBERS: D. Fred Matt - Chairman Jami Hamel - Vice Chair Carole J. Lankford - Secretary Lloyd D. Irvine - Treasurer Joel A. Clairmont Margaret Goode Mary Lefthand Elmer "Sonny" Morigeau Charles D. "Denny" Orr Ron Trahan The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation have been receiving expressions of concern from numerous individuals and organizations regarding the proposed Glacier Mall. The Tribes have particularly noted concerns that stormwater from the proposed development could degrade the swift and shallow Evergreen aquifer, which is directly connected to the waters of the upper Flathead River and Flathead Lake. The Tribes recently signed a Memorandum of understanding with the State of Montana and the Environmental Protection Agency, in which all three parties affirmed their joint responsibility to manage and control nutrient loading to Flathead Lake through the Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL process. Non -point Source pollution, such as stormwater runoff from large developed areas, is a key piece of that TMDL puzzle. The documented, ongoing degradation of Flathead Lake requires that we all turn a critical eye on major developments in environmentally vulnerabe areas. While the Tribes have not yet had the oppo-riunity to craft a tinn.position on the Glacier Mall, Tribal staff are collecting information and staying abreast of new developments. The Tribes cannot be expected to look favorably on any project, which degrades the waters of the Flathead Reservation. Sincerely, . CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENAI TRIBES CFred Matt, chairman CSKT Tribal Council 06/25i`200!Y 23:02 14068376231 GLACIER COUNTRY PAGE 02 Glacier Country ltcgional Tourism Commission 1? O. Box 1035 Bigfork, MT 59911-1035 406-837-621.1 Fax 406-837-6231 800-956-6537 email: glaciercountry,@montana.com glacienvisitmt.corn June 26, 2002 Mayor Pam Kennedy and Members of the City Council of Kalispell 312 First Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Honorable Mayor Kennedy and Members of the City Council: On behalf of Glacier Country Regional Tourism Commission, we would are sending this letter in support ofBucky Wolford of Wolford Development, Inc., and their development of the Glacier Mall. Our tourism commission represents all of western Montana including Flathead County. All of our research shows that at least 25% of every tourism dollar is spent on shopping. Restaurants receive another 25%. So about 50% of the tourist dollar is spent on food and beverage and shopping. Visitors expect convenience and duality and will shop both local. .stores as well as malls. We support efforts in bringing another shopping experience to the Flathead. It gives us one more entity to promote to our visitors and potential visitors. Information from the Travel industry of America says that shopping has become the number one activity in tourism right along with soft adventure and cultural tourism. The Flathead and all of Glacier Country, the 8 northwest counties of Montana, should fulfill this demand. Attached is infonuation from the Travel Industry of America to support these numbers. Visitors in, Montana spend approximately $395 million a year on retail sales. If you consider that Glacier Country contributes will over 25% of the Accommodation Tax that means over $98 million is spent on retail sales in Western Montana. Missoula and the combination of Kalispell/Whitefish make up over half of our collections so they would contribute at least 50% of this $98 million. We would certainly like to see Wolford Development be allowed to bring in even more retail sales dollars to Glacier Country. On the average, in the United States, the tourism dollar rolls over 7 times in a community. Montana is more conservative and uses 3 in that formula but that gives you some idea of what this new business could mean to the Flathead. Additionally, this is economic development something Montana is desperate for! Competition is good for the economy. If this mall, which has a good plan for the land, isn't allowed, to come in, eventually the land will be sold and broken up into small businesses, industrial businesses possibly, and what will that do to the land and water? Will it bring more jobs? ICA 06/25/2092 23:02 GLACIER COUNTRY gffjaM'-.kq I travel a great deal throughout the country and especially in Montana and I constantly hear about people from this area either driving to Missoula to shop or driving to the Northern Idaho panhandle and Spokane to shop. We need to keep these people and their dollars in the Flathead, as well as attract more tourists to the area who will use the Glacier Mall, not send them down the road to spend their dollars. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 837-6211. We thank you for taking into consideration what the Glacier Mall will mean to tourism, retail sales and food and beverage, not to mention the labor force and jobs in the Flathead Valley. Sincerely, Gr Linda J. Anderson Executive Director Enclosure 06/25/2002 23:02 14068376231 GLACIER COUNTRY PAGE 04 11A - rress - VMS .Keleeases Page X of 3 Press Releases Date: 4/26/01 PreviqWs Page Contact: Cathy @efe 202-408-2183 Press Room TIA AND TAUBMAN CENTERS RELEASE FIRST EVER SURVEY ON U.S. SHOPPING AND TRAVEL EXPERIENCE Washington DC — Shopping 'is an integral and, arguably, the most Important element of the travbl experience for U.S. residents who travel and shop, according to a first -ever comprehensive research study of the relationship between travel and shopping. The study, The Traveler, was conducted by the Travel Industry Association of America (TIA) and commissioned by Taubman Centers Inc. (NYSE: TCO), a real estate investment trust that develops and manages shopping centers throughout the U.S. Based on a representative sample survey of 1,000 U.S. adults who took at least one trip in 2000, the study indicates that more than half (51%) of all shopping travelers say that shopping was the primary or secondary purpose of one or more of their trips taken last year. Travelers who shop spend a lot on their purchases -- an average of $333 during their trips, with 22 percent spending more than $500. The study also disproves an old stereotype regarding what people buy while on trips —according to the survey, shopping travelers most often spend money on clothes or shoes for themselves or others (77%), rather than on souvenirs. TIA estimates that travelers spent approximately $37.3 billion", in total, on retail trade purchases while shopping in 1999, the latest data available. "These and other findings in the survey clearly Illustrate the essential ingredient that shopping is in the travel experience. Indeed, the report confirms a change in the way this relationship has been perceived," commented William S. Norman, president and CEO of the Travel Industry Association of America. "As recently as the mid-1980s, the so-called 'traditional' travel industry thought of itself as a competitor, not a partner, of retail outlets, shopping centers and malls for consumer dollars. Now, it can be submitted that shopping is a'cause, not an effect of the decision to travel and the travel experience." The joint Taubman Centers and TIA report validates what has been, for some time, a basic tenet of marketing wisdom among the businesses and merchants who furnish the shopping experience. "We've recognized the link between shopping and tourism for years," said Karen MacDonald, director of communications for Taubman. "We have actively and strategically supported and contributed to the travel -and -shopping experience by providing shopping centers that feature some of the world's most well-known and unique retailers, restaurants and entertainment venues, and this survey shows how important shopping is to today's overall travel and vacation experience." http://www.tia.org/Press/pressree.asp?Item--1 16 8/8/2001 06,/25/2002 23:02 14068376231 GLACIER COUNTRY PAGE 05 '1,'1 A. - Press - Press Releases — - Page 2 of 3 Rem Pumhmd an Win ROU0 UP AR=p5hom*V Trardem �etAkga ahae Oow�trfrs tn9ao gr�yta 4kPal Mmhb-rVd1wr 14dsie� ga�sl0ryttslrylo�M papa �mlau�eeaptU+elfa+ Je*+hyor�naporirF tbnr�Ieerraerirsar:at4ka, Fbm►R��atpo�s �aro� Ian WZft n«r.gtyr,e,t • ' �ua�at sX lay w% 10% N% ►►A�t�rw�rrraml�vf. SWU ftW 0VAy4M** n<VAvNA* V*ql V rri+*rSOW fl�tpingaawirs The release of the study comes at a key time for both Industries, as they prepare for the peak spring/summer travel and shopping seasons. Also next week, the country commemorates the 18th Annual National Tourism Week (May 6-12). The Shopping Traveler Report Highlights • Shopping continues to be the most popular of common activities for U.S. t welers. About 91 million people, or 63 percent of travelers in 2000, included shopping as an activity on a trip. Because people can go shopping on more than one trip away from home, TIA estimates that over 335 million U.S. person -trips include shopping (one person -trip equals one person on one trip). Travelers most often turn to people they know and hotels where they are staying to obtain information about shopping. Interestingly, 59 percent of shopping travelers obtained information about shopping areas from friends, family or co-workers. Hotels were another popular source with travelers getting information from in -room maps, brochures, a TV or the hotel concierge (25%). Fewer travelers used travel guides, books or magazines (20%),. the Internet (16%), newspaper travel section (12%) and/or a destination brochure ordered from •a local tourism organization • Shopping is a top priority, Half (51 %) of shopping travelers say that shopping was the primary or secondary purpose of one or more trips taken in the past year. Most travelers (87%) say that their most rece t trip that included shopping was for leisure purposes. And nearly four in ten shopping travelers (39%) agree that a trip is not complete without going shopping during the trip. • One In five shopping travelers spend $600 or more on purchases during their trip. On average, shopping travelers report spending $333, in total, on purchases on their most recent trip. Nearly one In five (22%) of shopping travelers spent $500 or more on purchases. Interestingly, on average, men outspend women ($349 vs. $319) while shopping on a trip. • Travelers who shop want to visit different, rather than familiar, http://www.tia.org/Press/press.ree.asp?Item=116 8/8/2001 06/25/20R2 23:02 14068376231 GLACIER COUNTRY PAGE 06 TIA`- Press - Press Releases - Page 3 of 3 stores. Most (73%) traveling shoppers want to shop at stores they do not have in their home city or town. This is not surprising considering that most shopping travelers are on leisure trips, Over half (53%) of -traveling shoppers also say they:go shopping on trips in order to find items that represent the destination they are visiting. ® Traditional enclosed shopping centers or malls are the most popular places to shop on a trip. The most popular place to shop on trips is traditional enclosed shopping centers or malls (62%). Half shop at major downtown shopping districts or outdoor 'main street' shopping areas (53%) and/or strip malls or plazas that are not enclosed (48%). Four In ten (38%) of shopping travelers shop at outlet centers. Shopping travelers are likely to be Baby Boomers and have higher - than -average household Incomes. Shopping travelers tend to be Baby Boomers, aged 36 to 54 (42%). One-third are Generation X or Y'ers, aged 18 to 34 (35%) and 23 percent are Matures, aged 65 or older. Over half are married (56%) and most are employed (69%). Four in ten have children at home (41%). Their average annual household income is $69,400. *Preliminary figure. Consists of traveler spending on retail trade purchases including gifts for others, clothing, souvenirs, personal services, medicine, cosmetics, and other items of this nature Click here So order publication TIA is the national, non-profit organization representing all components of the $582 billion travel industry. TIA`s mission is to represent the whole of the U.S, travel industry to promote and facilitate increased travel to and within the United States. Previogs Page Press Room Top of Page ( Sitemap I Feedback I Search About TIA j For TIA Members I Join TIA Nowl I Travel Statistics & Trends ( National Councils 1. Govt Aff TIA Home I Prgss Room I Publications &. Products I Programs & Events (Links j Tourism Awarenes_= Travel Industry Association of America 1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 450, Washington, DC 200064934, 202-408-8422, Fax 202-408-12, Copyright Q 2000 by the Travel Industry Association of America. All rights reserved. hq://www.tia.org/JPress/Pressree.asp?ltem116 8/8/2001 06/25/2002 09:44 FAX 10001 BARBARA GUTS CRENRITTER, M.D. 310 Sunny View Lane Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 752-1790 FAX #.- (406) 756�3529 Im im to M�M � THIS IS PAGE 1 OF: I FROM -- aak W&Arj & J-? jj�-v� RA m nELIVERT-nIORI L) SAME DAY vv1% WITHIN 4 HOURS WITHIN 2 HOURS U a ak URGENT/IMMEPIATE A I-B " June l-"+, cvvc Kalispell, MT 59901 C- ii-V Council V�j;11 kA-r !Zni'lz Noll, ivi i JJ Z/ V I 2002 AN 2 4 PM 2: 3 7 KALISPELL CITY CLERK I am writing to express to you my concerns about the proposed Glacier KA 11. 1 am a -resident of -Helena ':fats an-' the President n the Northwest 1.0 1] - -_A I --t _f L VV U-h A,, N.altnn V 5;tarinal Society which r;. in OentrP.1 1-hr-Ind M,tj�- qj.m_ L i seern to be the ordy person in thle- va-liev who is 1-ta-Virig -a 1-rard. Urne unaerstanaing now trie city can annex such a large area which is not contiguo-us to the city limits. It seems that the logistics of this action need to -be carefully considered, and I was surprised to read remarks bv Mr, Kulkulski- that seemed- to irn ly that the- sirnDIV h,Ptasn't time to studv ol n e the iMnnntc-z- jc-zn't ;-i c;tjAv of the nf _-,iinh P. jnrnp di:�vihnnnipnt 0A ka -nkn; H-? r-.rnz;nr-i-;^n4q r-nn nnA ra A 1 - A 1 1 si loulu L)V Uone lutimil 1g. at- all t-the ranni ficat-iGnlsm t-111V- increased tax reven ue; th e -cas t -of - increase a-3 Se rvi C e s; -1 o S-s -or, Ica x I De n e ffits if, rn a- J- -or- taxpayers relocate; increased demand for- City r annexation as- the Vevelopment exceeds its original boundaries. nift of t.hP -Nor Mn tana Historit-al '��'tv, am As Preside 7 114 - thwest I I on __ 1 bode V --- cenr-prnpri nn - only aboi it the inj-prjr-jV nnrl xjitn'it- - im - 'icripff- v rd rh -int kin. Knii 1+ irnznvmr.� 0-%f J-Ijn __11 4 1Af_ L..V 1111V"ML -Ja uiiV Hic4ii Vii RALY !r= C-=-r%nn=-c -. -.. — 1'. v 1�w�,J. V� i 3 W I-Cilleu U.11 ly olft-Ven to the Museum, U-Jue too fii-e Or anovernent alai-rins, which up to now luckily have 'been false alarms. i he proposed mail is quite a distance from the existing fire and police stations. V - Vouid this impact the speed and availability of police and fire protection in the city proper? Would satellite stations serve the M211 area? Would they -r0 ss into the C. county fo r a n e a - r1b, v L fire or to chase a c-'rilinal, or would the Flathead {7ni intv 'hP-4*ff nr FvPrq.rPPn Vill anteer Fire Departrnent hnXIC& f-r-1 tP AJ %,%_1LA11Ly M11%A %A%.y VV%JIIN .5. East Keserve Drive at its juncture witnKte. 2 is becoming a ternDie bottleneck as far as traffic is concerned, backed up almost to Whitefish Sta.qe even in non -rush hour times. The only alternative route to the mali w 0 uld. I be lifeleria Flats Road. which is very narrow with no sidewalks. bike path!; -I ._)r_ room f-o_r_ exAp-a_n�sO-nnTt2 The rrF n-- o-f, Ir!lw--1y--P--n-- d nI-.- l� e- -a-- F-l-n-- z -- Pnnri nn PvI-nnmPixt i1mici in! nnrl Annnprni;c t-nmPr nnnrl nmri-m-nixt n iy.-4-Fae- -Y AA 11lJIIL VVVUIU IIOVV-- LV LJC UIC-AU LV If0JIUIr_- U-ir_- d0uiLiviidi UdHIC. Who would De responsibife IUr CUIrtUL1119 Lfldtit UdrIqt!rUUs IrrifJd(Atif Of Kalispell as the center of economic arowth. The -r000sed mail on Ruffaini Hill sin- dr-nir-d in favor of the Kal'!Rnell 'Pnter Mail near clovtintown - --- - - - - - - - __ - __ - - - - - - - - - - - � ___ _'_ - -2 !_ T __ - t - - ____ - � _. - __ - - _ � = T t V-aficnall T-mv inr-an minra nrn.%A_-4nA -&e% ane-niirnrfo rirno.v4, no-ar -&kn- e-it- F . -11 . __ .. - 1 - : I - I- .Y IIA K proper. Master Pla, is, 1 mrmuf 1LJVI I IUUU F 173d lan's, a,-,U Of I ICII L Ulowtli Flails have Deen n-i written and amnde ed ar renego iateu Over ule years, and 'it seerns that in the long run none of it has made a bit of difference. The creatior of an entirely new town, which is what the Glacier Mall is, cannot in any way be good for the city of Kalispell. annrpriptr- vni ir nonqirh�rption of mv rnmm�niz Sin of, icerely, _j 2002 JUN 24 PM 3: 32 6/24/2002 KALISPELL CITY CLERK Freda Mahugh 528 3rd St. E. Kalispell, MT 59901 Kalispell City Council Re: Proposed Glacier Mall Development I HEREBY EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED GLACIER MALL DEVELOPMENT. I- I FEEL THAT WE DO NOT NEED A MALL OF THIS MAGNITUDE IN THE FLAT -HEAD VALLEY. THE NUMBER OF SMALL INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES WHICH WOULD BE DISPLACED CONCERNS ME AS WELL AS THE LOSS OF THE UNIQUENESS AND NATURAL BEAUTY OF THE AREA. DO WE HAVE TO STRIVE TO BE LIKE ALL THE OTHER CITIES IN THE STATE? WILL BUCKY WOLFORD MAKE HIS MONEY AND PULL OUT AND LEAVE US WITH ANOTHER FAILED MALL? AND POLLUTED WATER? AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION, ETC. HE DOESN'T HAVE OUR INTERESTS AT HEART IN SPITE OF TELLING US HOW WONDERFUL IT WILL BE. I URGE YOU TO VOTE AGAINST THE MALL DEVELOPMENT. Freda Mahugh I rel F'.1 W&- 6/24/02 20,012 JUN 24 PM 3: 32 To: well Tell City Council Members Dear Cj uncil Members, KALISPELL CITY CLERK !I live in Polson which I am sure is one of the communities the builder of the FIvergroen Mall is hoping to draw customers from. Should it ever be built, I am going to make � I point of never shopping at that MU. I will encourage the many people I know to stay aWay as well. The reasons for this Oersonal boycott are as follows: 1) Weldo not have the population in this valley to support this new mall as well as the Central Mall of Kalispell and downtown Kalispell. I have lived in this area for many years. Owing that time I watched the building and dying of the Westgate Mall and I watchpa as the mall south of Whitefish nearly died. The Central Mall is prospering and the pro " of the convention center and downtown Kalispell makes t1iis a good c iiation If mom "mall" is needed, the Central Mall should be enlarged. The building of a new giant monstrosity will destroy both the Central Mall and the downtown area I find so attractive. 2) Touksts do not come to Kalispell for the purpose of shopping. Kalispell is a gateway commtq to recreational areas. These recreational areas are the sites that put Kalispell in tour lbooks around the nation —not the area's malls. When tourists do shop, they want produds that are made in and unique to this area and these products are more likely' to be found in a quaint shop in downtown Kalispell, not some sprawling ugly mall just like all the other sprawling ugly malls in thousands of other cities across the country. 3) The 1278+ acres to bb used for this ill-advised project has too much potentiaJ for dAma&g the aquifer and presents many water -related problems. The report fi-om the University of Montatid saying that this project N very risky to water and water quality is absolutely correct and you ignore it at your peril. The possibility of mitigating these water jroblems is absolutely ridiculous and completely arrogant. This area was compldtely under water in the 1964 flood. How is this builder going to mitigate this type of event which surely will happen again? I want to be able to shop in downtown Kalispell for many years. Allowing the buildir; of this mall will bp a huge mistake for Kalispell. Please do not support this pi ojectl or listen to- the claims of the developer that all of these problems have been forese0a and dealt with, They haven't and you will end up holding the empty bag long after the developer has left to perpetuate his greed in another place. Thank you for considering my comments on this important subject. Polsoni Mt. 59860 1, - -7 �_7 2012JU Nl 24 P M 2: 18 KALISPELL CITY COUNCIL KALISPELL CITY CLERK 1523 STILLWATER RD. KALISPELL, MONTANA 59901 KALISPELL, MT 59901 DEAR FRIENDS: WHILE WE DON'T LIVE IN KALISPELL PROPER (WE ARE 6 MILES NW OF TOWN) KALISPELL IS DEFINITELY OUR TOWN AND WE FEEL A DEEP SENSE OF BELONGING TO IT. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU KNOW, UP FRONT, WE SUPPORT FREE ENTERPRISE AND AFkE NOT OPPOSED TO CONSTRUCTIVE DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE FELT FOR SEVERAL YEARS THAT KALISPELL SUFFERS FROM PRETTY LIMITED SHOPPING. HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE SOME REAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE CURRENT PROPOSED MALL. FIRST, iNE HAVE GRAVE CONCERN ABOUT ONE MAN AND/OR CORPORATION (A NON RESIDENT) DICTATING TO OUR HOME CITY AND COUNTY TELLING US THAT HE PLANS TO CHANGE OUR WATER QUALITY CONTROL, OUR DOWN TOWN, OUR TRAFFIC AND OUR LIFE STYLE WITH NO SAY FROM THOSE OF US WHO LIVE HERE. IT IS ALMOST AS IF OUR COMMUNITY IS BEING HELD HOSTAGE --CHANGE YOUR RULES OR I'LL DO IT MY WAY, ANYWAY. THIS DOESN'T SOUND LIKE MUCH OF A DEMOCRATIC WAY OF MAKING DECISIONS. SECONDLY, THERE HAS TO BE A WAY FOR OUR COMMUNITY TO ENCOURAGE AND FOSTER DEVELOPMENT AND IMROVEMENT WITHOUT DESTROYING OUR DOWN- TOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT. IT SEEMS SHORT SIGHTED AND UNFAIR THAT OUR MAJOR SHOPPING AREA SHOULD MOVE OUT OF TOWN THUS CLOSING DOWN/TOWN BUSINESSES THAT HAVE BEEN SUPPORTING OUR COMMUNITY FOR YEARS. ANOTHE R SERIOUS ISSUE IS THAT THE PROPOSED MALL WOULD BE BUILT ABOUT 12 FEET ABOVE A HUGE, FAST MOVING AQUIFER THAT DRAINS INTO FLATHEAD RIVER AND LAKE. WE SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. APPROXIMATELY 20 YEARS AGO WE OWNED 80 ACRES OF FARMLAND ON THE SAME AQUIFER. WE HAD A BACKHOE DIG A HOLE ABOUT 10 FEET DEEP THEN DROVE AN 8 INCH PIECE OF WELL CASING ANOTHER 3 FEET INTO THE CENTER OF THE 'WE LL'. WE HIT THE MOST AMAZING ARTESION FLOW OF WATER. IT WAS MORE THAN ADEQUATE WATER TO IRRIGATE THE 80 ACRES AND IS STILL IN USE TODAY. PLEASE TAKE YOUR TIME, CONSIDER THIS CAREFULLY, DON'T LET KALISPELL BE STAMPEDED INTO A HASTY DECISION; ONE THAT WE MAY REGRET IN YEARS TO COME! SINCERELY, Bob Herron 781 1st Ave EN Kalispell, MT 59901 June 24, 2002 Comments of Support For The Wolford Development Master Plan Amendment. Good Evening, My name is Bob Herron, I live at 781 1st Ave EN in the City of Kalispell. I own Bob Herron Insurance located at 35 Main Street in Downtown Kalispell. I employ 3 people in Downtown Kalispell. I love the city of Kalispell, and I choose to live and work in the City of Kalispell. I support the Wolford Development Proposal, and I also speak for many, many other people, friends, neighbors and other business people who also support this proposal. ...... Why aren't they here? Three main reasons ........ (1) It's summer in the Flathead, (2) they are busy with their jobs and families, (3) and finally they are somewhat intimidated by the mob mentality of the opposition to this development proposal. It is tough to stand up here and support this proposal and stand up for what is fair, and to follow the Rules of Law when the selfish, socialistic opposition is doing everything possible to obstruct and to kill this proposal. Nevertheless, here I am. And I want to take a moment to say thank you to you the City Council and also the members of The Planning Board for your service to us the citizens of the City of Kalispell. You need to know that the vast majority of the citizens of Kalispell do not think that your values are lame, and we do not believe that you are pimps or prostitutes. What is a better Flathead? What is a better Kalispell? To me as a Kalispell City Resident and a Main Street Business Man, A Better Flathead and a better Kalispell is .................... Well Paid City Employees with good health insurance (issues you as a council were dealing with just last Monday night) ...... A better Kalispell is a city with two good fire stations adequately providing fire protection to its citizens......... A better Kalispell is a city with a sewer plant with adequate capacity.......... Page 2 The city of Kalispell needs to increase its tax base in a meaningful way. We need to grow ........... It is desirable for growth to occur through quality development that promotes a strong tax base for our schools, our county, and The City of Kalispell....... All of downtown Kalispell, plus Kalispell Center Mall and the Hotel were valued at $52,600,000 for the 2001 tax year ............ The Wolford Proposal will add $100,000,000 to the City tax rolls in the first phase alone, and perhaps as much as $500,000,000 as it builds out over the next 15 to 20 years ............. The total taxable value of Kalispell, School Dist 75, for tax year 2001 is $622,611,000 to put things in perspective. y math may not be the best, but even if Kalispell Center Mall and all of Downtown go dark in 4 years as the doomsayers suggest...... the Wolford Proposal is a huge net gain in city taxes for the City of Kalispell...... Mr Wolford is paying for all of the additional infrastructure needed for this project, he will be extending the Sewer at his expense all the way out Whitefish Stage to Dose Crossing and then over to his development. Mr Wolford will be making a substantial monetary contribution to the city to help provide a second fire station for the city. Now, let me address briefly the water quality issue........... the opposition to this project is making this the center of their opposition as all of us in this room knew that they would ................ Yesterday - Mr Spence in his Daily Interlake article asked this question ....."Are mall opponents simply using water quality as an excuse to block the project, or are they Sincere?" Do we currently have a problem with stormwater runoff from parking lots, roadways and all development above the aquifer? Do we? The Glacier Mall is not yet built, it is not currently a problem ............. However, if there is a stormwater runoff problem now above the aquifer that is polluting the Flathead Page 3 River, Flathead Lake, and wells in the area...............then we need the Governor to declare an immediate emergency and close Highway 2 between Snappy's and the Blue Moon and we need the Governor to close the airport and its runways, and we need to start removing and hauling away all of that pavement, and we need to tear up and remove the pavement at Snappy's, K-Mart, Costco, all pavement over the aquifer between Kmart and the Blue Moon ............ while we are at it, we better condemn all homes in the area over the aquifer with septic systems......... If this is a real problem of pollution then lets do something about it ................ I'm not stupid, members of the council you're not stupid .................. The Wolford project will be the only project over the aquifer that treats stormwater runoff, plus as already mentioned they will be hooked up to the sewer for their wastewater .............. Roger Noble is the best hydrologist and water quality expert in the area, if you don't already, you will soon have his 40 page report. Roger Noble says that any pollution from stormwater runoff can be mitigated so that the wells in the area, the river and the lake will not be polluted. Citizens For a Better Flathead tried to hire him before they hired their consultant and came in with their last minute report last Wednesday. I love Flathead Lake, I've already got 15 hours on my boat this year on the lake, I'd rather be there tonight..............I don't want the lake polluted............ I'll put my money on Roger Noble and his report. Finally tonight I would like to offer an apology to Mr Wolford on behalf of the citizens of Kalispell for the personal attacks against him by the opposition............ His proposal has been called Bucky Mall, there are bumper stickers saying "Back Off Bucky", he has been called a greedy out of state developer........ I'd like to say to you Sir, I'm sorry..............the opposition has the right to free speech, but their personal attacks on Mr Wolford are classless. Speaking about out of state money, I reread the Citizens For a Better Flathead — Summer of 2000 — Report on Sprawl..............and I was struck by the fact that the report was paid for by The Bullitt Foundation, Seattle, Washington and The Turner Foundation, Atlanta, Georgia You know what they say ...............Follow the Money Finally, there are approximately 3,264,000 acres of land in Flathead County, this proposal which over the next 15 to 20 years will be built on 247 of those acres will hardly change our quality of life........... The Wolford proposal is the best high density urban planning that has ever been done in the Flathead Valley. What we have now is sprawl, this is not sprawl....... Citizens For A Better Flathead in their own report admits that commercial development pays for itself. ............ This project is a huge win for Kalispell......... Thank you June 19, 2002 Honorable Mayor Kennedy and Council Members: We, the undersigned recognized leaders of the community, are unanimously against blind approval of the Glacier Mall. Besides our own educated opinions, the Hattiesburg experience proved our many fears are well grounded. The mall there increased downtown vacancies "dramatically" and killed their existing mall. Even our city manager recognizes that this sort of growth costs the taxpayers money. At the expensive sacrifice of our downtown, "this sort of growth" has a price too high to pay. Our values must include integrity, not simply "more is better." Our community's integrity is clearly at stake. Vote with your conscience. Bob &Jane Lopp t Chief Award Mary ( n eordo�Pi e Gib Bissell i st' garet •Bill Z1�,WI'ITIIFI5i--Qood-na-t - Great Chief Award Business Man of the Year 1995 Great Chief Award Business Woman of the Year 1996 Business Man of the Year 1996 Business Woman of the Year 1997 Business Man and Woman of the Year 1999 Woman of the Year 2000 Woman of the Year 2001 Woman of the Year 2001 Business Man of the Year 2001 RECEr VED -P'V2G , Lisa J. Bate 389 LaBrant Road Kalispell, MT 59901 June 18, 2002 Kalispell Mayor and City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903-1997 Dear Mayor Kennedy and Kalispell City Council members, I am writing to you to express my concerns about the huge shopping mall that is now under consideration for Kalispell. Regretfully, I will not be able to attend the meeting on this subject June 24 because of work commitments. Please accept my written comments instead. My family and I live on a small farm just south of Creston. We have many family members and friends visit us throughout the year because of the wonderful setting of our farm. Increasingly however, I am hearing from my friends and family that they want to avoid Kalispell because of its "strip -town" qualities. I can only imagine that building more stores will just add to the negative impression of the city of Kalispell and its immediate surroundings. It is the downtown area that our friends and family ask about most often. I also strongly believe that the jobs created by a shopping mall are not the kind of jobs this area needs. Most mall jobs that I know about only pay minimum wage and most of the money earned would go into the pocket books of developers out-of-state. Finally, I am strongly concerned about the impacts of such a large mall on the water quality in our valley. People come here because of the natural beauty of the area, not to shop. Please, I urge you to not support this project. I strongly believe that such a mall would ultimately do more harm than good for our community. Sincerely, 1/� Lisa J. e �7 June 18, 2002 Steve Eckels 619 2nd Ave. W. Kalispell, MT 59901 Kalispell City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Dear council members: I am writing in support of the development of our downtown area, and am opposed to the mega mall idea which would detract from out sense of community. Let's work to have a sense of community and not be just another metropolis. Thank you Sincerely, Steve www.guitarmusicman.com FRILVE-M BOLLEK CPA RECEIVED CERTIFIED GENERAL APPRAISER # 442 REAL ESTATE BROKER CONSULTANT June 13, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council PO Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Evergreen Proposed Mall (Bucky's) After a long time of "sitting on the fence" and in some cases feeling as thought private enterprise should be able to do what it wants, I have now changed my position and I feel I must write you to express my views and hopefully aid you in making a decision. I am against the new proposed mall in Evergreen, primarily because of the following: 1. The costs of the new infrastructure, the increased capacity of the waste treatment plant, I don't feel as a taxpayer I should pay for. 2. The increased fire and police protection, I as a taxpayer don't feel 1 should pay for. 3. The new and improved roads and traffic lights, etc. I as a taxpayer don't feel I should pay for. 1 4. Downtown is struggling as it is, with vacant buildings, and in the Montana Building which I manage, with over 6,000 sf of vacant space presently. Additionally, as a commercial real estate appraiser, recent appraisals of downtown properties, indicates a decline in value, mostly contributed to the fact that businesses will not commit to downtown, pending what is going to happen if the mall goes in. (This also affects the surrounding towns, Columbia Falls, Whitefish, etc.). 5. This area has a uniqueness that we all appreciate and I strongly believe this quality will disappear if we have the "largest mall in Montana". 6. Approval of the mall site, appears to me to be simply "spot zoning" to enhance the city's tax base, etc.. 7. Lastly and most importantly, the Flathead River, and Flathead Lake will be adversely affected, I have listened to Jack Stanford and his concerns are certainly warranted; Evergreen is the last place for large scale development such as this. I would strongly urge you to NOT APPROVE the new proposed mall of Bucky's because of the aforementioned reasons. It simply is not worth it, as a taxpayer and to our community. Sin erely R x o er, CPA Certified General Appraiser Real Estate Broker - Consultant N To: Kalispell City Council, THE I`NTERLAKE JUl"C' 'Q Lul From: Shirley Anderson Re: Glacier Mall Date June 19, 2002 In the words of the old pop song "Slow down, you move too fast." Re the Glacier Mall, there are so many unanswered questions and all we hear is the repeated refrain, "those [problems are to be worked out in the future." Wrong! Shifting the valley business center to Reserve and Lasalle would have severe consequences for the county and city taxpayer. Please consider the road situation in that area, only one part of the inftastructure: : -A year ago staff at the Flathead County Department was two people down from 198 yet the County population had increased by 14,000 people and traffic on County roa had grown 20%. Each one of the road crew was responsible for maintaining 44 mile of roadway. -Many county roads have less than the required minimum 60 foot right-of-way. Thus drainage, utilities and pedestrian needs cannot be met on some stretches. On Helena Flats Road, which would become a key entry road to the Mall, one of two cars meeting has to come to a stop if there is a child walking to school. There is no roo for two cars and a pedestrian. There is no shoulder -We lack a fully funded County paving program, hence there is limited maintenance existing County roads. Are any adjacent county roads scheduled for improvement? -Many county roads were built to a minimal standard and are now very costly to maintain. They were never intended for long service or heavy traffic. Additional commercial or industrial uses will increase traffic, wear out existing roads quicker require stronger and more expensive roads. For the sake of those county or city taxpayers whose taxes support the infrastructure, please reject this proposal. With the lack of proper infrastructure, increased use of Internet shopping, the new emphasis on smaller shopping centers, a gigantic mall is not the wave of the future and will die of its own excesses leaving the taxpayers holding the bag. "Slow down, yoga move too fast " REJECT THE MALL PROPOSAL! 1475 Helena Flats Road Kalispell, MT 59901 257-2654 a_1 I Subject: Concerning questions on proposed mall. Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:21:52 -0600 From: "richard d. riley" <patrick@digisys.net> To: twhite@kalispell.com I was told to use this email address to voice my objections to the proposed evergreen mall. I am very surprised that the city has allowed the promoter to get this far with his proposal. There were many miss statements and untruths in Mr.Wolford's statements. His projections on emplyeement and payroll are very much exaggerated. This is real pie in the sky. He has not satisfed all the concerns for water quality and his statements are more hope than fact. Yes the mall would make the down town areas a ghost town. He might have some commitments from large chain stores but look what happens to them, as time goes by. KMart financial problems. We need a good more imput on this and some real investigations as to his other efforts and what effect they had on the communities. These are just some of my objections. Thanks for the opportunity to state my opinion. I have lived in the Flathead for over 76 years and do not feel the proposal is sound. Richard D. Riley 945 Sunnyside Drive Kalispell, Mont. 59901 of 1 6/25/02 4:46 PM