Loading...
1b. Council Minutes - Regular Meeting July 1, 2002A REGULAR MEETING OF THE KALISPELL CITY COUNCIL WAS HELD AT 7:00 P.M. MONDAY, JULY 1, 2002, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL IN KALISPELL, MONTANA. MAYOR PAMELA B. KENNEDY PRESIDED. COUNCIL MEMBERS JIM ATKINSON, DON COUNSELL, BOB HAFFERMAN, RANDY KENYON, DUANE LARSON, FRED LEISTIKO, HANK OLSON AND JAYSON PETERS WERE PRESENT. Also present: City Manager Chris Kukulski, City Attorney Charles Harball, City Clerk Theresa White, Finance Director Amy Robertson, Fire Chief Randy Brodehl, Police Chief Frank Garner, Public Works Director Jim Hansz, Parks and Recreation Director Mike Baker, Tri- City Director Tom Jentz and Tri-City Senior Planner Narda Wilson. Mayor Kennedy called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA APPROVAL Leistiko moved approval of the Agenda. The motion was seconded. There was no discussion. The motion carried unanimously upon vote. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL 1. Council Minutes - Regular Meeting June 17, 2002 Peters moved approval of the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded. There was no discussion. The motion as carried unanimously upon vote. STUDENT ISSUES None HEAR THE PUBLIC B.J. Carlson, 375 Grandview, invited the Council to attend the Joining Hands Against Hate Community Picnic from 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. on July 13th at Lawrence Park. Diana Bierbaum, 820 3rd Avenue W., criticized the Council for giving the City Manager a raise amounting to about $10,000 a year and questioned the need for a City Manager in a town this size. Kalispell City Council Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 1 Patricia Johnson, 714 4th Avenue E., presented the Council with bottled water as a reminder as to how important clean drinking water is to the valley. Jana Goodman, 50 2nd Street E., spoke in support of the City Manager's raise. She said a good manager saves a business money in the long run. Frank Foot, 1941 Garden Way, asked the City to enforce the no fireworks law within the City limits and spoke against the City Manager's raise. Bill Goodman, 50 2nd Street E., spoke in favor of the City Manager's new contract, stating Chris Kukulski has made a home in Kalispell and the City needs to do what it can to keep him here. PUBLIC HEARING - WATER AND SEWER RATE INCREASE The Council requested comments on proposed rate increases for sewer and water infrastructure, meter replacements and fire hydrants. Mayor Kennedy opened the public hearing. Proponents None Opponents Frank Foot, 1941 Garden Way, stated he doesn't feel taxpayers should pick up the tab for extending water and sewer services into areas being annexed. Constance Clark, 1144 2nd Avenue W., said sewer and water rates have already been increased and she doesn't want to support the placement of water and sewer infrastructure, including hydrants, in annexed areas. Mayor Kennedy closed the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING - 2002/2003 BUDGET The Council requested comments concerning the proposed 2002/2003 budget for the City of Kalispell. Mayor Kennedy opened the public hearing. Proponents None Kalispell City Council Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 2 Opponents Frank Foot, 1941 Garden Way, encouraged the Council to stop looking for and trying to create a utopia. He said this is not a time for tax and spend, but a time to tighten belts. Susan Hollenbeak, 611 5th Avenue E., stated the priority and goals of the Council should be prudent spending. She said the latest increases are "squeezing the taxpayers too much". Constance Clark, 1144 2nd Avenue W., agreed with Hollenbeak, stated many people have two jobs or more just to make it now. Shelly Spilis, 801 Helena Flats Road, stated her family lives under a very tight budget and it's time the City tightens its own belt. Mayor Kennedy closed the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING - MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST - WEST VIEW ESTATES Council received comments concerning a proposal for a master plan amendment on approximately 58 acres located at the northeast corner of Stillwater Road and West Reserve Drive. Mayor Kennedy opening the public hearing. Proponents None Opponents Erin Tintzman, 1406 5th Avenue E., said her family recently purchased property in Stillwater Estates and this proposal does not provide orderly growth. She stated Stillwater Estates has 1/2 acre lots and this high density development will have a negative impact on all property values in the area. Jodi Lindeman, 1973 Greatview Drive, stated her family is also building a home in Stillwater Estates and agreed with Tintzman's concerns. Shelly Spilis, 801 Helena Flats Road, stated the City needs to slow down and redo the master plan before approving any large developments. Dan Tintzman, 1406 Sth Avenue E., said he's seen good and bad planning and this development is bad. He commented the City should develop commercial property that's already available before designating more. Kalispell City Council Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 3 Mayor Kennedy closed the public hearing. RESOLUTION 4715 - RESOLUTION ADOPTING FEES FOR WATER UTILITY Water infrastructure replacements and improvements require an increase in water rates of twenty five cents per thousand gallons, ten cents for future replacements and fifteen cents for improvements. Costs include the continuing installation of new water meters, placement of fire hydrants and water line service. Counsell moved Resolution 4715, a resolution to adopt the fees, schedules, rates, charges and classifications imposed on the customers of the City of Kalispell water utility. The motion was seconded. Kukulski and Hansz gave a staff report and provided Council with an explanation of proposed projects. Hansz said each of the projects was identified in the recently completed facility plan and have been prioritized. Kukulski closed by stating staff is not taking these rate increases lightly, but do feel they're necessary. He added that for the first time since he's been City Manager, the Council is seriously trying to establish a replacement account. Hafferman commented the City needs a rate study and audit of all enterprise funds and a priority list of all needs. He said in the six months he has sat on the Council he has witnessed zero planning, but he has witnessed taxes being raised. Hafferman also questioned proposed work on 8th Avenue E., which is outside the City limits. Olson said if the City has zero increases, there will come a day when it won't be able to catch up. Larson agreed with Hafferman that this may not be the time to do the 8th Avenue East water line project. He also asked if it's really necessary to have an increase if the new meters are more accurate and provide more income. He suggested tabling the rate increase until the accounts that already have the new meters are reviewed. Kukulski stated the meter changes should change revenue, however, the rate that's proposed includes that projected increase. Robertson said the budget identifies $27,000 in anticipated revenue from the new meters. Kalispell City Council Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 4 Larson commented the figures represent the anticipated revenue increase, but the City needs to find out for sure. Hansz said commercial meters were replaced first and because they're the largest customers, he feels the majority of the increase has already been accounted for in the budget. Kukulski said the Council also has to look at the $17,5,000 increase in energy costs for water and sewer. Peters emphasized the City does need to fund depreciation, but he agreed with Larson that the issue needs to be tabled until it can be looked at in depth. Peters moved to table Resolution 4715 until July 15th. The motion was seconded. The motion carried upon vote with Hafferman abstaining. RESOLUTION 4716 - RESOLUTION ADOPTING FEES FOR SEWER UTILITY Sewer infrastructure replacement needs require an increase in sewer rates of ten cents per thousand gallons. Leistiko moved Resolution 4716, a resolution to adopt the fees, schedules, rates, charges and classifications imposed on the customers of the City of Kalispell sewer utility. The motion was seconded. Kukulski gave a staff report stating the facility plan identified several sewer infrastructure replacement needs with the current sewer rates inadequate to address those needs. Hafferman stated his opinion on the sewer rate increase is the same as he expressed with the water increase. Larson stated since sewer is intermingled with water, he feels this resolution should also be tabled. Larson moved to table Resolution 4716 until July 15th. The motion was seconded. The motion carried upon vote with Hafferman abstaining. Kalispell City Council minutes July 1, 2002 Page 5 RESOLUTION 4717 - RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY - COUNTY MASTER PLAN - WOLFORD DEVELOPMENT -OR- RESOLUTION 4718 - RESOLUTION REJECTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY - COUNTY MASTER PLAN - WOLFORD DEVELOPMENT Wolford Development Montana, LLC has requested a master plan amendment on 232 acres of property located near the northeast corner of LaSalle Road and East Reserve Drive. Resolution 4717 adopts the proposed amendment which would change 170 acres from Agricultural to Commercial; 56 acres from Agricultural to High Density Residential; and 6 acres from Agricultural to Public. Resolution 4718 rejects the proposed amendment to the master plan. Kenyon moved Resolution 4718, a resolution rejecting a recommended amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. The motion was seconded. Olson stated he owns property in Evergreen at the corner of Cottonwood and Highway 2 and asked if he should continue to be involved in the discussion. Harball said the concern has now been disclosed and he doesn't feel it would create a conflict. Council concurred. Atkinson said he would like nothing more than to vote in favor of this resolution, but he believes that because of previous actions taken by the County, and because of what he's heard, this mall will be built with or without City participation, even though other Council members disagree. He said he feels this development is the wrong size and in the wrong place, but he firmly believes that Wolford has the right and the will to take past actions forward to build the mall and it's very important the City become involved. Atkinson emphasized that water quality is a main issue and cities of Kalispell's size have stricter water quality standards than the County has. He said it's because he's concerned with the water quality that he will not vote for Resolution 4718, and added that if the City gambles and doesn't participate in this project and it loses, it loses big. Kenyon disclosed that his wife recently made a strong statement on television in opposition to the mall, but added she has had no influence on how he will vote. Kalispell City Council Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 6 Kukulski outlined the history of the proposal and emphasized that if the Council approves the master plan amendment, that amendment is contingent upon approval of the annexation. He also commented that the City has a history of believing that if it says "no to WalMart, no to Costco, no to Shopko and no to Kmart, those things don't develop in our valley". Kukulski said unfortunately those developments occurred anyway, outside the City limits. He concluded by stating developments inside the City limits must meet higher water quality standards, as Atkinson indicated. Harball stated several questions have been raised concerning the master plan amendment and Kalispell's planning authority, including a list of questions from Councilor Kenyon. In summary, Harball explained Kalispell does have the authority to amend the master plan as long as the property is annexed; the Planning Board is a legal entity; and the Attorney General opinion everyone is waiting for could take quite some time. He added because a legal opinion hasn't been issued by the AG's office yet, the Council has determined, and he agrees, that business needs to take place as usual and the City will handle specific legal issues as they arise. Harball answered questions from the Council. Leistiko read a written statement. (Statement is attached and by this reference is made a part of the official record) Hafferman read a written statement. (Statement is attached and by this reference is made a part of the official record) Hafferman also stated he wants it made part of the record that the issue before the Council tonight, which is the master plan amendment, has nothing to do with annexation and zoning. Counsell said he sympathizes with Atkinson's comment that the project will go ahead whether the City participates or not, but he can't make a decision on that basis. He said there's a number of items in the existing master plan that need to be addressed, and he won't repeat them since Leistiko listed all of them. Counsell stated the City has spent, and is spending a lot of money downtown, such as streetscape, and this proposed amendment will stretch the City's resources. He stated he will vote against the master plan amendment because the Council needs to protect the City. Larson read a written statement. (Statement is attached and by this reference is made a part of the official record) Kalispell City Council Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 7 Peters stated there's been a lot of opinions issued on both sides, but not a lot of facts. He said a lot of people have said all reports and studies need to be presented prior to a master plan amendment. It's Kalispell's policy, however, to require a master plan amendment first, and then ask for details of the development. Peters said it doesn't matter whether he agrees with the proposal or not because the Council, at this time, is strictly looking at the master plan amendment request and nothing else. He said as far as he's concerned, the developer up to this point has provided everything necessary for a master plan amendment. Kenyon said he agrees with Leistiko that the burden of proof for amending the master plan has not been met. He said by not approving this master plan amendment request, the Council can send a message to future developers that "they can't march into our valley and dictate where we are going to go". Kenyon commented he is also concerned, just as Atkinson is, that the project will go ahead anyway, but he feels the public understands this risk and the public has spoken dramatically against the amendment request. Finally, he said, Wolford has provided his vision for this project, but he questions whether Wolford's vision is the City's vision. Mayor Kennedy said community interest has been overwhelming on this issue, but the majority of correspondence has addressed concerns with the mall and that's not the issue before the Council this evening. She stated she also has concerns with this development, but she believes the downtown can maintain its personality and she's confident there's enough people interested to make sure downtown continues to be a "valuable" downtown with or without future development. Mayor Kennedy commented the master plan is intended to be a fluid document and by amending the master plan, the Council is making sure the sewer will be property treated and the storm water drainage will be addressed with the care it needs to have. She stated in her opinion, the developer could break ground tomorrow without the City's approval, and that could result in the degradation of Flathead Lake without the standards that the City can and will place on this development if it gets involved. Motion failed on roll call vote with Counsell, Kenyon, Larson and Leistiko voting in favor, and Atkinson, Hafferman, Olson, Peters and Mayor Kennedy voting against. Atkinson moved Resolution 4717, a resolution adopting a recommended amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. The motion was seconded. Kalispell City Council Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 8 Kenyon stated he feels more information is needed prior to making a decision, such as water quality, environmental and traffic studies. Kenyon moved to table Resolution 4717 until August 5th. The motion was seconded. The motion failed upon roll call vote with Kenyon, Larson and Leistiko voting in favor, and Atkinson, Counsell, Hafferman, Olson, Peters and Mayor Kennedy voting against. There was no further discussion. The motion carried upon roll call vote with Atkinson, Hafferman, Olson, Peters and Mayor Kennedy voting in favor, and Counsell, Kenyon, Larson and Leistiko voting against. Atkinson excused himself from the rest of the meeting. RESOLUTION 4719 - RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY - COUNTY MASTER PLAN - WEST VIEW ESTATES -OR- RESOLUTION 4720 - RESOLUTION REJECTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY - COUNTY MASTER PLAN - WEST VIEW ESTATES Mark Owens, dba LBO Limited Partnership, has requested a master plan amendment on 58 acres located at the northeast corner of Stillwater Road and West Reserve Drive. Resolution 4719 adopts the proposed amendment which would change 42 acres from Agricultural to Urban Residential; 9 acres from Agricultural to High Density Residential; and 7 acres from Agricultural to Neighborhood Commercial. Resolution 4720 rejects the proposed amendment to the master plan. Hafferman moved Resolution 4719, a resolution adopting a recommended amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. The motion was seconded. Kukulski gave a staff report commenting this development is intended to be on public sewer which would mean the City could get sewer into Stillwater Estates before that subdivision is filled. Larson commented he will vote against this master plan amendment for many of the same reasons he rejected the last one. He said the City doesn't know it's legal standing, he's against leap frog annexations, and he's not sure the land use is suited for this project. Kalispell City Council Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 9 Peters said as he stated previously, because of the directions developers are given, annexation issues come later and right now the Council is simply addressing a master plan amendment. He asked, however, at what point can the Council make changes to the site plan because he does have some concerns about the high density residential designation. Kukulski said if the Council is concerned with specific land use designations in the master plan amendment request, then this is the time. He said if the concerns involve the actual development, then the Council needs to wait until later. Wilson explained the developers are proposing high density residential and neighborhood commercial in order to create a mixed - use development that would allow some higher density residential and perhaps office buildings along West Reserve Drive, which would be consistent with what's been approved by DNRC immediately to the south of the property. Because of concerns about multi -family units and offices bordering Stillwater Estates, she said the Planning Board required that properties adjoining Stillwater Estates be developed single-family residential. Wilson added, however, if the Council wants to made additional amendments to the master plan amendment proposal, then tonight would be the time. Olson said unfortunately the Council has to "leap frog" to get to this development, but he feels the City needs to place sewer systems wherever it can. He said by starting with this development, the City can then move in a controlled manner to lessen the number of septic tanks. Hafferman said he agrees with high density development, and will vote for the amendment, but he wants to see an extension of services plan prior to annexation. Leistiko inquired as to the possibility of requiring a buffer next to Stillwater Estates. Olson moved an amendment to the policy statement requiring a minimum 100 foot buffer area be established between West Reserve Drive and any new development. The motion was seconded. The amendment carried unanimously upon vote with Atkinson absent. Kenyon stated it would be hypocritical for him to vote in favor of this amendment because he feels the criteria for changing the master plan with this project hasn't been met either. Kalispell City Council Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 10 The main motion as amended carried upon roll call vote with Counsell, Hafferman, Leistiko, Olson, Peters and Mayor Kennedy voting in favor, Kenyon and Larson voting against, and Atkinson absent. RESOLUTION 4721 - ANNEXATION REQUEST - BIG SKY PROPERTIES Dennis Osburn has requested annexation of approximately .38 of an acre at the southeast corner of Highway 93 South and Kelly Road where Big Sky Properties real estate office is located. Peters moved Resolution 4721, a resolution to provide for the alteration of the boundaries of the City of Kalispell by including therein as an annexation certain real property, more particularly described as Assessor's Tracts 2AAE and 2AAD located in Section 20, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, to be known as Osburn Addition No. 315; to zone said property in accordance with the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, and to declare an effective date. The motion was seconded. Hafferman commented he will vote in favor of the annexation because it's contiguous to the City and all City services are presently available. He emphasized, however, that an extension of services plan is required by State law, even though the City government "has become addicted to not following this law and it will take time to withdraw from this addiction". Hafferman stated he assumes the City Manager and department heads have reviewed this request to see that all rules and regulations have been followed. The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote with Atkinson absent. ORDINANCE 1427 - INITIAL ZONING REQUEST - BIG SKY PROPERTIES - 1ST READING Osburn is requesting a zoning designation of 13-2, General Business, upon annexation of the above mentioned property. Kenyon moved first reading of Ordinance 1427, an ordinance to amend Section 27.02.010, Official Zoning Map, City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, (Ordinance No. 1175), by zoning certain real property described as Assessor's Tracts 2AAE and 2AAD located in Section 20, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana (previously zoned County B-2, General Business) to City B-2 (General Business), in accordance with the City -County Master Plan, and to provide an effective date. The motion was seconded. There was no discussion. Kalispell City Council Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 11 The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote with Atkinson absent. ORDINANCE 1428 - ZONE CHANGE REQUEST - ANTHONY LUPO - 1ST READING Lupo has requested a zone change from RA-1, Low Density Residential Apartment, to B-2, General Business, on approximately 1.5 acres of property located on the east side of Third Avenue East between 14th Street East and 18th Street East. Wilson gave a staff report. Larson moved first reading of Ordinance 1428, an ordinance to amend Section 27.02.010, Official Zoning Map, City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, (ordinance No. 1175), by zoning certain real property described as Lots 1 through 7, Block 1, Ryker Addition located in Section 17, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana (previously zoned City RA-1, Low Density Residential) to City B-2 (General Business), in accordance with the City -County Master Plan, and to provide an effective date. The motion was seconded. Larson commented this zone change "makes perfect sense" because there's commercial on the north and west of this property and the Council doesn't have to amend the master plan to change the zoning designation. The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote with Atkinson absent. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST - ERIC AND LISA WURSTER The Wursters are requesting a conditional use permit to construct a four -unit apartment complex at the east end of Washington Street. Wilson gave a staff report. Leistiko moved approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Eric and Lisa Wurster with the attached conditions. The motion was seconded. Kenyon asked about sidewalks. Wilson said the recommendation is not to require sidewalks, however, it would be appropriate to install sidewalks on Washington Street if an SID is enacted for the entire neighborhood. Kenyon commented the Council is always talking about requiring sidewalks and hydrants, but about half of the time the Council doesn't follow through. Kalispell City Council Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 12 Wilson explained because of the location of this property and because there isn't a lot of pedestrian traffic in the area, the Planning Board recommended not to require sidewalks. Leistiko remarked this is a dead end street and there's really no place to put a sidewalk. The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote with Atkinson absent. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST - JOE CLARK Clark is requesting a conditional use permit to construct three four-plex units and one tri-plex unit on the west side of 1st Avenue West just north of 18th Street West and south of the Kalispell City Shops. Larson moved approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Joe Clark with the attached conditions. The motion was seconded. Wilson gave a staff report, noting that the Planning Board, in order to be consistent with requirements placed on the applicants, recommended that the City install a buffer along the fenced area of the City shops and install a sidewalk along the property. Mayor Kennedy said the recommendation for buffering and sidewalks is not listed as an agenda item this evening and should be addressed at a separate meeting. The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote with Atkinson absent. ORDINANCE 1425 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN AND REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM - 2ND READING This ordinance establishes how program income generated through the Revolving Loan Program and Redevelopment Fund will be utilized on an equitable and effective basis. Ordinance 1425 was passed on first reading June 17th. Counsell moved second reading of Ordinance 1425, an ordinance relating to the City of Kalispell, Montana Community Development Revolving Loan and Redevelopment Program; establishing program requirements; creating community development revolving loan program and redevelopment accounts and specifying revenues to be deposited therein. The motion was seconded. Kalispell City Council Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 13 Hafferman said he will be voting against the ordinance because the language in Section 2 and Section 6 remains the same as it did at the first reading which he feels creates a slush fund. The motion carried upon roll call vote with Counsell, Kenyon, Larson, Leistiko, Olson, Peters and Mayor Kennedy voting in favor, Hafferman voting against, and Atkinson absent. ORDINANCE 1426 - GLACIER VILLAGE GREENS GOLF CART PATH - 2ND READING Larson moved second reading of Ordinance 1426, an ordinance creating a dedicated golf cart path on those certain streets in Glacier Village Greens and declaring an effective date. The motion was seconded. There was no discussion. The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote with Atkinson absent. RESOLUTION 4722 - HOCKADAY MUSEUM OF ART LOAN Olson moved Resolution 4722, a resolution authorizing the Finance Director to loan funds to the Hockaday Museum of Art in the amount of $10,000 for capital financing to be used for roof repair. The motion was seconded. Olson asked if this is taxpayers' money. Robertson answered it's recycled income from the Community Development Loan Revolving Fund. The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote with Atkinson absent. CITY MANAGER CONTRACT This is a new three year agreement between the City of Kalispell and City Manager Chris Kukulski. Mayor Kennedy explained the Council recently completed evaluations for the City Manager and a Council subcommittee met to review the evaluations and the present contract. She said Kukulski received an excellent review and the Council determined he has exceeded all expectations. Mayor Kennedy said the City expects excellence from its City Manager and she believes Kukulski has performed to those standards and will continue to meet the needs, desires and demands of the Council. She said the contract presented this evening Kalispell City Council Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 14 includes a two-year salary schedule which the Council hopes addresses equality issues between Kalispell's City Manager and other cities, specifically Whitefish. Leistiko moved Council accept the contract for Chris Kukulski as presented. The motion was seconded. Leistiko moved an amendment to number 16 of the contract by replacing "compensatory time" with "flexible time". The motion was seconded. The amendment carried upon vote with Counsell, Kenyon, Larson, Leistiko, Olson and Mayor Kennedy voting in favor, Hafferman and Peters voting against, and Atkinson absent. Larson said this raise is well deserved and he's not sure if the public really understands the responsibilities of the City Manager's job. He said even with this increase, Kukulski's salary will still be below, and in some cases well below, some managers' salaries in peer cities. Hafferman stated he will be voting against the contract because he feels a raise of this amount is "unconscionable." He said many citizens make less per year than the raises and perks in the contract. Secondly, Hafferman said any raise beyond the cost of living should only be made for extraordinary accomplishments and finally, the City Manager should lead by example and other employees should get the same consideration if this contract is approved. Peters said he agrees Kukulski is doing a great job in a lot of areas and those the Council has concerns with he is working on, however, he feels there are a lot of people who deserve raises and don't get them. He said even though he feels Kukulski is well deserving, there are a lot of things in the contract he disagrees with. The main motion as amended carried upon roll call vote with Counsell, Kenyon, Larson Leistiko, Olson and Mayor Kennedy voting in favor, Hafferman and Peters voting against, and Atkinson absent. ORDINANCE 1429 - CITY PLANNING BOARD EMERGENCY ORDINANCE This ordinance extends the duration of the Interim Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission for an additional 90 days. Leistiko moved Ordinance 1429, an emergency ordinance amending Ordinance No. 1414, extending the duration of the Interim Kalispell Kalispell City Council Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 15 City Planning Board and Zoning Commission for an additional 90 day duration. The motion was seconded. Harball answered questions. The motion carried unanimously upon roll call with Atkinson absent. MAYOR/COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS Mayor Kennedy reported she attended a meeting in Big Sky last week with La: "Strengthening Council Effectiveness" included several wonderful suggestions the Council will agree to implement in National League of Cities 'son and Leistiko entitled . She said presentations and changes that she hopes the near future. Mayor Kennedy complimented the Fire Department with regards to its performance with recent fires in the area, and congratulated Harball on the guilty verdict he obtained in the David Burgert trial. Olson commented he would like a letter sent to the City Planning Board expressing how strongly the Council feels about sidewalks and hydrants. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. ATTEST: Theresa White City Clerk Pamela B. Kennedy Mayor Kalispell City Council Minutes July 1, 2002 Page 16 FRED LEISTIKO MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT JULY 1, 2002 WOLFORD DEVELOPMENT REQUEST I know we have all spent a lot of valuable time agonizing over and thinking about this important decision, I know I have. On the plus side, we have received hundreds of letters from wonderful and thoughtful people on both sides of the issue, on the minus side, we have been called names by people we thought to be our friends, we have been threatened with not being re-elected and threatened with law suits by people on both sides of the issue. I thought we were in a no win situation, damned if we do and damned if we don't. At times I thought that the best we could hope for was to make the best of a bad situation. But you know we were not sent here to agonize, and to pull out what little hair we have left, no, we were sent here by the citizens to make the hard decisions. All of a sudden one day last week it became very simple to me. Remember who you represent, and remember your duty as a governing official. So, I went back through the same material, information, documents, letters and the video tapes of the public hearings, basically the record before us, with this thought in my mind and nothing else. You could say the light came on very clearly; my responsibility, my duty, became very clear: FOLLOW THE RULES, FOLLOW THE LAW, AND FOLLOW THE PLAN Where did this come from? It was repeated in so many words by both the proponents and the opponents throughout the testimony and throughout the documentation. This is a land use decision and as a governing body we are required to follow the rules, follow the laws and follow the plan. I also remembered Bill Astle's words, Bill is a well respected land use attorney here in Kalispell, hired by this Council last year to come in and brief us about potential problems coming down the road. Bill told us that above all, we must abide by the legal process -- In other words, FOLLOW THE RULES, FOLLOW THE LAW, AND FOLLOW THE PLAN It was repeated at the public hearing by Mr. Kalvig, the applicant's attorney, by Mr. Kaufinann, the land owner's attorney, by Mr. Clark, a respected downtown business owner, and by Ms. Conradi, an attorney and Director of Citizens for a Better Flathead. In the documentation given to us on this issue it was repeated and explained in detail in a legal analysis prepared and signed jointly by an attorney from a firm in Helena and an attorney from another law firm here in Kalispell. So, in coming to my decision I have followed this advice to the best of my ability. I haven't reacted to threats, or emotions, or signs and placards, or name calling, or who shouted the loudest, instead I have looked to the rules, applied the laws, and followed the only plan we have, the 1986 Master Plan. We followed the rules by not making any official decisions on this matter until it was properly presented before us. After the application was filed, it was reviewed by the Planning Staff; and presented to the Planning Board who conducted their public hearings, made a recommendation and forwarded it to this Council. We have conducted our public hearing and now we must make a decision. To this point, I believe we have followed the rules. However, what does the law tell us we have to do now? The Montana Supreme Court has established, in several cases, that governing bodies making land use decisions must consider and adhere to the policies set forth in their planning documents as required by State statutes. To do otherwise the court said, would defeat the whole idea of planning. The court went on to ask the question, "Why have a plan if local governments are free to ignore it at any time". So, we have followed the rules to this point and now the law tells us we must look to the plan to guide us in amending the plan. When we now look to what the 1986 Master Plan requires, then significant questions start to arise that we must answer before approving this amendment. 1) I have a real problem with the fact that we are now being asked to act on this amendment without the concurrence of the County in making this amendment. The plan clearly requires joint action with regards to land use decisions when in the extra territorial area. The amendment before us is apparently not the same one submitted or approved by the County. In fact, we are currently in a lawsuit with the County challenging the County's action on this same Master Plan without the City's concurrence. Isn't that what we are being asked to do here, now. Make a decision without the County's concurrence. 2) There is also a legitimate question as to whether our City Planning Board has jurisdiction to hear this matter because the land is outside the city limits. 3) Even if we could somehow get beyond these Catch 22 legal hurdles, we still must be absolutely sure that any plan amendment we approve adheres to the goals and policies set forth in the body of the Plan itself. To do otherwise, would be to violate the laws of the State of Montana. And we don't need to do that at this time. So, looking specifically at this amendment as a land use decision, we must ask ourselves if it is compatible with the economic, environmental, transportation, and land use goals (just to name a few) as outlined in our Master Plan? Let's start off with a scenario that considers our economy and land use goals in the Plan. The vision set forth in the Master Plan, is to have a diversified economy which includes maintaining a viable and stable central downtown business district and tourist attraction 1) For the last 20 years or so we have spent $30+ Million of our Tax Increment Funds to improve our downtown business district; 2) We are spending the last of the TIF money this year, $2.3 Million to do a Streetscape Project to make our downtown more friendly and hopefully more prosperous: 3) We established an Airport TIF to improve the south end of the City. We established a Westside TIF to improve the west area of our City: 4) We have poured a lot of money into building a relationship with Hamstead Partners to build Senior housing close to our downtown business district and the Center Mall. 5) We have seen countless individuals invest in downtown and the surrounding residential areas because they saw the City leading the way and following the Master Plan. The City was using the vision set forth in this Master Plan. 6) We have continued this course with support for the Central School Museum Hockaday Museum, Conrad Mansion, Depot Park, and have started efforts towards a Performing Arts Center and a Business Improvement District. 7) We cleaned up the Dome Project mess and brought in Home Depot and Target, soon more will join that development. We brought Section 36 into the City with plans for a tech park and other developments, and we continue to press for the truck route so our downtown can be more pedestrian friendly. All these efforts are compatible with the community's vision as set forth in the 1986 Master Plan. Now, we have before us an amendment to this vision the community has been working towards for the last 20 years, the vision we have been pouring their hard earned tax dollars into. This amendment will admittedly Kill our mall, cannibalize our downtown and make much of our efforts and investments for the last 20 years worthless or for nothing. We are being asked to approve moving our central business district to a piece of farm land five miles away, outside our current city limits. We are being asked to approve an amendment to the Master Plan that will undo what we have spent 20 years building. And we are asked to believe that it is compatible with that Plan. If it is so compatible with the plan, why does the plan not even address such a move or even contemplate such a move. This plan amendment is not a change in vision from within this community, we have seen proof of that at the hearings and in letters to this council, rather, it is a change in vision and promoted from outside the community we live in. This is a Wolford Development vision, not necessarily that of the community. We are asked to believe that circumstances have changed to create a need for such a drastic move to amend the Master Plan. I have been searching the records for that drastic need, that huge circumstance that would cause us to scrap our downtown, our vision for the future, in favor of this amendment. The only circumstance that has changed is that Wolford Development has come to town and said I want to build this huge mall outside of town. Without sounding to facetious, that is not listed as a circumstance that requires us to change or amend the Master Plan. The increase in population over a ten year period, 200 more people a year, what's new, the Master Plan calls for that size of growth in the planning. The plan calls for a need to have 400 or 500 acres of commercial space available over the 20 year plan, we have over 1200 acres available for development at this time. Adding 200+ more acres north of Evergreen will only make the negative impact of development along the Evergreen strip even greater than it is. I would agree there may be some minor changes or circumstances that would warrant some updates to the Master Plan and we did that last year and submitted it to the County for review. But that newly drafted Growth Policy Plan (as it is now called by law) did not envision such a drastic move as this either. Let's talk briefly about two other categories in the Master Plan. Environment and Transportation. The Plan calls for and the State law requires that we do not approve developments that cause a negative impact on traffic movement and our natural resources, in this case water. Amending the Master Plan would cause this area to be subject to a large commercial development. The site has been identified as a sensitive area because of the 100 year flood plain, Trumble Creek Drainage, a small wetland area, and most importantly a shallow aquifer which provides drinking water to hundreds of residents, and channels to the Flathead River and ultimately to the Flathead Lake. How can we approve this amendment when we do not know the affects of building on this site. I can imagine the size of footers needed for the buildings on this site, how far down into the aquifer will they go? We have a responsibility not just to the residents of Kalispell, but to the residents of Evergreen, and anyone connected to this aquifer. We not only have legal problems with this proposed amendment, we have significant unanswered questions in the record on how storm water runoff will be addressed. I know, Wolford's hydrologist stood up here and said we have a plan. But other hydrologists question whether the problem can really be mitigated. The records have an article from Ames, Iowa that said Wolford Development has not submitted an application for a zoning amendment yet because he has not finished the Environmental Impact Study, the Economic Impact Study, and the Traffic Analysis. Why have we not asked for the same treatment here in Kalispell, Montana. Taking all this information and applying the theory of: FOLLOW THE RULES, FOLLOW THE LAW, AND FOLLOW THE PLAN There are too many incomplete and contradictory records before us to make a decision on this issue. I feel we would be reckless in approving this amendment. In effect, we would be saying to an out of state corporate developer "We trust you to take care of us and do the right thing", Unfortunately we have too many examples in Montana that that approach has not worked. In conclusion, I believe that if we are to follow the rules, follow the law, and follow the plan, we cannot and should not approve pthis amendment that is before us here tonight. AU-9 , 2 BOB HAFFERMAN MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT I share the concerns of those who spoke or wrote about keeping this area an enjoyable place to live and a need to protect the environment. Having been born in the Kalispell/Evergreen area, I have fond memories of growing up in the Flathead Valley. I often think of when I hunted gophers in Evergreen where you could fire a gun in almost any direction without fear of harm to person or things. When I graduated in 1949 from Flathead County High School, there were 159 seniors, 148 juniors, 205 sophomores and a freshman class and hardly any private schools. Now there are about 2500 students in these 3 grades in Flathead High alone - over 5 times as many today. Kalispell had a population of around 8000 and there were several thousand people living in the surrounding area. Kalispell had a number of "little box stores" uptown - Woolworths, Montgomery Wards, Penneys, Butterys, Safeway, Coast -to -Coast, Ben Franklins as well as lots of locally owned businesses. Kalispell was truly the center of activity of the Flathead Valley. Kalispell IS STILL the center of the Flathead Valley, there are just more people everywhere. When I look at my Class of `49 annual and try to equate the number of children my wife and I had and now 8 grandchildren, and do the same for my classmates, I have come to the conclusion that if everyone who was born in the Flathead had stayed in the Flathead, the County would probably have a population of between 120,000 and 150,000. But many had to leave to seek employment elsewhere to fulfill the dreams of their chosen profession. Now, with telecommunications, people can live here and electronically commute with their main offices in LA, Denver or New York simply by flipping a switch, and they are now doing just that. This bit of heaven on earth has always attracted people and I know of no reason why it will not continue to attract more. Times change. The commercial part of Kalispell started at Demersville, the head of navigation from the south. When the Great Northern Railroad came, the town built around that facility. For sometime now, there has been significant growth to the north and northwest of Kalispell as well as around and in the cities of Whitefish and Columbia Falls. Hence, it appears that the proposal to build a large commercial development in the near -center of today's population has merit. But the issue tonight is not approval of a mall. The real issue before this Council is: does the proposed Master Plan amendment in land use from light industrial, low density residential and agriculture to commercial, high density residential and parkland follow the intent of various policies and goals adopted by the City. Since 1986, when the Master Plan was adopted, there has been significant development in the Evergreen area, all being over the gravel aquifer. With regard to this proposed amendment, it appears to me that if we compare light industrial to business very little effect, if any, would result. However, comparing low, density residential -agriculture to high density residential -commercial - parkland, on either, there is the potential for impact on the environment, i.e., the discharge of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers vs. discharge of various elements and chemicals in parking lot runoff Knowledge of the characteristic and sensitivities of this aquifer has been known for many, many years, in fact, the bible for this geologic formation was chronicled in the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology publication of July 1968 called GEOLOGY AND GROUND WATER RESOURCES OF THE KALISPELL VALLEY. The design technology for protecting and maintaining these sensitive characteristics has also been known for at least 30 years, and there are a number of methods available. Protecting these sensitive characteristics is not only in the design, which will be reviewed by a number of regulatory agencies, but foremost in the MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING of the system as designed. The City of Kalispell has the maintenance equipment and the City's field crew has always been outstanding in the maintenance of our storm facilities. If you look at your property tax statement, you see a line item called Kalispell Storm Sewer. This tax is specifically for maintenance of storm sewer facilities. The question then must be asked, which is the best way to protect the aquifer, by one large collection system that is maintained and monitored or many smaller developments, that will surely occur over the years, with unknown expertise and some without maintenance and monitoring vs. leaving in agriculture with leaching throughout into the aquifer? With regard to the traffic, as the Flathead Valley continues to populate, the traffic will increase accordingly. The information on the traffic study and proposed solutions will soon be available. Sooner or later, roads will have to be updated due to increases in population. For the purposes of the Master Plan amendment, it appears to me that we will better benefit the Valley to identify the improvements needed for an increase in traffic of the magnitude expected. Even if the proposed mall is not built, there will have a useful document that can be used when development does comes, as it surely will. I plan to vote for this amendment to the Master Plan. That vote should NOT be construed to mean that I will vote to annexed the subject property when the issue of annexation and zoning comes before this Council. I have many, many concerns about its effect on the future of taxation to city residents. Before there is any hearing on annexation, state law requires an Extension of Services plan be made available to the public. That plan needs to outline how the services to this satellite city are to be provided. While any developer must pay for all the public works infrastructure needed, my concern is will this development pay enough in taxes to operate and maintain the storm drainage system, to plow the snow and maintain the roads now and in the future, will we need a satellite fire and police station and how will it be paid for now and in the future, are the sewer rates sufficient to not only operate and maintain after constructed by the developer, but also in the future to replace the lines and hugepumps and standby generators needed for power outages last for maybe two days. The latter is of my deepest concern since I understand that sewerage will be pumped over hill and dale to our present wwtp when other alternatives are available. I caaAgt see how adding huge pump stations and long lines can be done within our present rate structure. Before I could vote for annexation, I need to see the Extension of Services plan together with submittals from each department head outlining the cost to their respective departments now and in the future as well as a revenue projection from the finance director showing the revenue that will be produced. THIS DEVELOPMENT MUST PAY ITS OWN WAY, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. I hope the Extension of Services plan also addresses how the Evergreen Volunteer hire Department will be compensated for their loses in revenue if this development is annexed into the city in lieu of the development remaining in the county. We need all the VFDs surrounding the city to protect our perimeter and we cannot continue to nibble away at their tax base. In my opinion, amending the Master Plan appears to be in the best interest of the environment in the long run. Too date I have not received significant information to guide me if the question of annexation should come before this Council. Comments for City Council Meeting on July 1, 2002 Duane Larson Reasons I will vote on the proposed Master Plan Amendment the way I do I've been doing a lot or reading, thinking and listening the last few months, especially the last few days. About 3.5 inches worth recently. Included in that stack of info were many contacts with technical folks, special interest groups, professionals, planning board, business people, developers and people concerned about the issue in many ways. I tried to read and listen in all forums, letters, e-mail, technical reports, proposals, planning board minutes, and public hearing testimony. I tried to not just look at sheer numbers so many for, and so many against a Master Plan Amendment. Rather I tried to glean the reasons behind their opposition or proponency. Then further I sought to apply those reasons as to the Master Plan. The first hurdle I encountered was the legality of amending the Master Plan. The 1999 legislature passed SB97 revising - enabling laws for Master Plans or now known as Growth Policies. As the legislature does at times, it kind of left us wondering. Can we make/create new zoning changes, amend master plans after 10-1-2001. For that matter, what happens to the current master plan. On 9-28-01, the County approved a Master Plan Amendment delineating 145 acres as commercial In 1986 the City and County jointly adopted the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. Both agreed to only amend the Master Plan in agreement. On 9-28 the County didn't seek our agreement. As a result of that action, we asked the court to declare judgment on the county's unilateral action. We have not heard yet. Further, we requested an Attorney General's opinion on 4/1/02 on SB 97 to determine the effect it would have on existing master plans. No word yet. Can we amend the master plan? Who knows. The City Attorney's office has advised that the City Council move forward using the existing Master Plan to Amend or not. Some legal authorities say Mr. Wolford's proposal is not simply land use planning but because of its specificity, it is a quasi-judicial decision. If that is the case, then Mr. Wolford must do the following and bear the burden of proof that: The amendment is consistent with existing unamended portions of the Master Plan. 2. There is public need for change. The amendment is the best way of meeting that public need. My belief is that Wolford Development has not bourne this burden. There are many areas where this amendment can't co -exist with the Mater Plan (1986). Environment Goal: Air, water, open space scenic vistas unhindered by pollution, blight or degrading factors. Object: Establish strict standards for developments which occur in sensitive areas such as flood plain and drainage way. Another object: Develop a citywide drainage plan to mitigate harmful water pollution and damage created by stone or surface runoff. We have received several reports and testimonies by respected professionals stating that in their opinion harm to the Evergreen aquifer couldn't be mitigated appreciably. Out of 193 people offering public testimony, forwarding letters and e-mailing opposing amendment, 57 listed aquifer damage and 25 other environmental concerns. Wolford Development Consultants have stated that harm could be mitigated. I haven't seen anything in writing yet. The goal of the existing Master Plan in regard to economy is a healthy diverse economy promoted by careful planning of type location and design of industrial areas shopping center. Object: Undertake activities to ensure Central Business District remain strong and viable. 74 opposition responded in letter and Public Hearing - City destroy the Downtown viability as reason to deny amendment. Mr. Wolford's own words, "I will cause the demise of the Kalispell Center Mall". (And since the viability of the downtown and Kalispell Center Mall are entwined, it will affect downtown, too {my words.}) The planning staff said the proposed mall would "cannibalize" downtown Kalispell. Transportation Goal: Safe, convenient and economical access to all facilities in area. Traffic impact and safety was also a big concern of opponents to the Master Plan Amendment. To date we (the Council) haven't seen a traffic study to determine if these concerns are legitimate. 15 concerns. Other concerns expressed by those at the Public Hearing and communications by letter or e-mail: too much retail - sprawl - inadequate information - destroy last best place. Other environmental concerns: Costs to City of annexing that area Police and Fire Wastewater Plant update Shifting tax base downtown - Evergreen It will cost more to provide service Destroy quality of life Destroy uniqueness of Kalispell Letters and e-mail View petitions opposing Comment cards opposing Public Hearing Proponents Letters Public Hearing 148 412 signed 163 45 768 opposed 12 22 34 proponents Water quality issues will have to be addressed. Transfer of tax base will only cost money. Morrie Schechtman advanced to the Council the Theory of Plenty or Theory of Scarcity. Federal Storm Water Rules require cities to deal with stricter storm water standards. It's going to be harder to deal with 247 more acres of commercial. Sewer assessments won't monitor a private storm water system. We received varied opinions on the mitigation of storm water runoff.