05. Resolution 4324 - Adopt, Revise or Reject Master Plan Amendment - Pack & CoAgenda -April 7, 1997
AGENDA ITEM 5 - RESOLUTION 4324-ADOPT, REVISE OR REJECT MASTER PLAN
AMENDMENT INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL -PACK & COMPANY REQUEST
BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATION: A request to amend the Master Plan for a
20-acre site on Highway 93 North has been processed through the
City County Planning Board. I have enclosed the Findings of Fact
and minutes from the February 11 Planning Board meeting.
There has been many statements made concerning this issue. Many of
them have been emotional and some directly question staff's report,
integrity, motives, and process. I would hope to keep our
discussion on -target as a discussion of land use issues.
The Findings of Fact were adopted by the Planning Board. The board
l
voted to recommend denial of the Master Plan. Many questions are
raised by this request that relate to the city's overall economy,
future retail growth, proper usage of this corridor, and
relationship to historical decisions for growth control within this
area. The minutes of the meeting address each area very well.
RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the minutes, discussion points, and
Findings of Fact, one factor is my major concern. The fact that we
are currently in the process of updating the entire Master Plan is
extremely important and relevant. It's relevancy is that a change
may be needed or desired for these parcels in the 93 North
corridor, but the longer general process will be a more rational
and less emotional decision making alternative. I concur with
r
staff's analysis. I also concur with the recommendation of the
Agenda -April 7, 1997
Planning Board. I recommend that you continue your historical
stance for this corridor by denying the Master Plan amendment for
this parcel. This will allow the more general process to determine
the best usage for the North 93 corridor. This will also allow the
decision to be made without the immediate pressure of economic
interests pressing a decision that may be a long term growth
problem (or even a mistake).
ACTION REQUIRED: A RESOLUTION to approve the request will be needed
if you desire to approve the Master Plan amendment. A Findings of
Fact will be needed to support the resolution since the current
Findings of Fact do not support the change.
RESOLUTION NO. _4.324A_
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT TO THE KALISPELL
CITY -COUNTY MASTER PLAN.
WHEREAS, on April 7th, 1986, the City Council adopted the
Kalispell City -County Master Plan by Resolution No. 3641,
and
WHEREAS, Pack and Company on the 13th day of January, 1997, made
an application to amend said Master Plan by changing the
designation of 20.657 acres of land located generally at
the corner of U.S. Highway #93 and West Reserve Drive and
described as a portion of Government Lot 1, NWT/ of the
NW1/,, Section 31, Township 29 North, Range 21 West,
P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, and
WHEREAS, on February llth, 1997, the Kalispell City -County
Planning Board held a public hearing, after due and
proper notice, received public comment upon, and received
FRDO report #KMPA-97-1 which evaluated the proposal based
upon the goals and objectives of the Master Plan, the
purpose of zoning and current circumstances in the
planning jurisdiction, and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said public hearing and after
consideration of the proposed amendment, the Kalispell
City County Planning Board, adopted report #KMPA-97-1 as
the findings of fact, and recommended to the City Council
of the City of Kalispell, and to the Flathead Board of
County Commissioners, that the proposed amendment to the
Kalispell City -County Master Plan be denied, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell considered it
advisable that they consider the proposed Master Plan
amendment and the recommendations of the Kalispell City -
County Planning Board, and adopt a Resolution of
Intention to Adopt, Revise, or Reject a Proposed
Amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan
(Resolution No. 4321), and
WHEREAS, on April 7, 1997, the City Council met, held a hearing
and considered Resolution No. 4321, and
is\wp\packii.wpd
WHEREAS, based upon the report (#KMPA-97-1), the Minutes and
recommendations of Kalispell City -County Planning Board,
and the input received at the hearing of April 71h, 1997,
the Council may, under § 76-1-604, MCA, adopt a
resolution either adopting, revising or rejecting the
requested amendment to Kalispell City -County Master Plan.
WHEREAS, the requested Master Plan amendment is outside the area
where the community might expect commerical development,
and
WHEREAS, there is adequate property available for development
within the City of Kalispell, and the surrounding City -
County Planning Area, and
WHEREAS, the requested Master Plan amendment would not provide for
compact grouping of commercial activities, and
WHEREAS, the requested Master Plan amendment is not generally
consistent with the purpose of zoning regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. That pursuant to § 76-1-604, MCA, the
City Council of the City of Kalispell
hereby adopts FRDO Report No. KMPA 97-1
as its findings of fact; denies the
requested amendment to the Kalispell
City -County Master Plan and declines to
change the land use designation of the
property described as a portion of
Government Lot 1, NW14 of the NW'/, Section
31, Township 29 North, Range 21 West,
P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana from
Industrial to Commercial.
i
is\wp\packii.wpd
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL, THIS DAY APRIL, 1997.
Douglas D. Rauthe - Mayor
Attest:
Debbie Gifford, CMC
Clerk of Council
is\wp\packii.wpd
RESOLUTION NO. 4324
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT TO THE KALISPELL
CITY -COUNTY MASTER PLAN.
WHEREAS, on April 7th, 1986, the City Council adopted the
Kalispell City -County Master Plan by Resolution No. 3641,
and
WHEREAS, Pack and Company on the 13th day of January, 1997, made
an application to amend said Master Plan by changing the
designation of 20.657 acres of land located generally at
the corner of U.S. Highway #93 and West Reserve Drive and
described as a portion of Government Lot 1, NWY4 of the
NW%, Section 31, Township 29 North, Range 21 West,
P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, and
WHEREAS, on February llth, 1997, the Kalispell City -County
Planning Board held a public hearing, after due and
proper notice, received public comment upon, and received
FRDO report #KMPA-97-1 which evaluated the proposal based
upon the goals and objectives of the Master Plan, the
purpose of zoning and current circumstances in the
planning jurisdiction, and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said public hearing and after
.consideration of the proposed amendment, the Kalispell
City County Planning Board, adopted report #KMPA-97-1 as
the findings of fact, and recommended to the City Council
of the City of Kalispell, and to the Flathead Board of
County Commissioners, that the proposed amendment to the
Kalispell City -County Master Plan be denied, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell considered it
advisable that they consider the proposed Master Plan
amendment and the recommendations of the Kalispell City -
County Planning Board, and adopt a Resolution of
Intention _to Adopt, Revise, or Reject a Proposed
Amendment to. the Kalispell City -County Master Plan
(Resolution No. 4321), and
WHEREAS, on April 7, 1997, the City Council met, held a hearing
and considered Resolution No. 4321, and
r
is\wp\packii.wpd
WHEREAS, based upon the report (#KMPA-97-1), the Minutes and
recommendations of Kalispell City -County Planning Board,
and the input received at the hearing of April 7th, 1997,
the Council may, under § 76-1-604, MCA, adopt a
resolution either adopting, revising or rejecting the
requested amendment to Kalispell City -County Master Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE It RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. That pursuant to § 76-1-604, MCA, the City
Council of the City of Kalispell hereby adopts
the requested amendment to the Kalispell City -
County Master Plan by changing the land use
designation of the property described as a
portion of Government Lot 1, NWl/, of the IWri/,
Section 31, Township 29 North, Range 21 West,
P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana from
Industrial to Commercial.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL, THIS DAY APRIL, 1997.
Douglas D. Rauthe - Mayor
Attest:
Debbie Gifford, CMC
Clerk of Council
is\wp\packii.wpd
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 758-5980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
March 3, 1997
Board of County Commissioners
Flathead County Courthouse
800 South Main Street
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: Master Plan Amendment Request from Industrial to Commercial
Dear Commissioners:
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission held a public
hearing at their regular meeting of February 11, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Kalispell City Council Chambers. During that meeting they considered the
following agenda item:
A request by Pack and Company to amend the Kalispell City County Master
Plan from "Industrial" to "Commercial' on approximately 20 acres of land
east of Highway 93 North which is located near the southeast corner of
Highway 93 and Reserve Drive. The property can be described as a 20.657
acre portion of Government Lot 1 in the northwest quarter of the northwest
quarter of Section 31, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M..,
Flathead County Montana.
Planning board member Kennedy, an employee for Nupac / Pack and Company
for 14 years, stated she has researched the legal issues and believes she does
not have a conflict of interest in evaluating the proposal. In consulting with
legal counsel for the County, Chair Hash also determined that there was no legal
conflict with Ms. Kennedy sitting on the Board as a volunteer planning board
member.
Staff report #KMPA-97-1 was presented by Narda Wilson of the Flathead
Regional Development Office, who evaluated the proposal based upon the goals
and objectives of the master plan, the purpose of zoning and current
circumstances in the planning jurisdiction. Staff recommended the requested
master plan amendment from industrial to commercial be denied because it is in
conflict with the master plan policies which encourages additional commercial
zoning be limited to the expansion and infill of existing commercial areas.
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls - City of Kalispell - City of Whitefish •
Pack and Company Request for Master Plan Amendment \
March 3, 1997
Page 3 of 3
During the public hearing, several people spoke in favor of the proposal. The
applicant spoke strongly of his desire to convert the industrial use on
approximately half of the property to commercial. He cited the upgrade of
Highway 93, the community college relocation and the ballfield relocation as
changes in the area which would warrant commercial zoning. He stated that he
believes the commercial development would benefit the community because
water and sewer would be extended to the area and the entrance to Kalispell'.
would be nicely landscaped. Two real estate brokers representing the potential'
purchaser and the applicant, spoke in favor of the requested master plan
amendment. An adjacent property owner expressed his desire to develop his
property commercially. He noted that the Highway 93 upgrade made the
location less desirable as residential property. He was in favor of the master
plan amendment. Two letters from attorneys representing youth athletics in the
area were submitted stating they did not see a conflict with the lease for the
athletic complex, which is being negotiated with the State Lands.
Two people spoke in opposition. A property owner in Country Estates did not
favor commercial development in a rural residential neighborhood because of
the potential to spur more commercial development. Larry Gallagher, Director
of Planning, Economic and Community Development, testified to the importance
of maintaining the economic vitality of the Kalispell business core and that he
believed this would undermine existing and new businesses. He also stated that
the proposal would be inconsistent with numerous past decisions by the City
and County minimizing commercial development on Highway 93 North.
The Board discussed the issues at length. Several Board members expressed
concernoW that the staff report lacked objectivity because no positive elements of
the proposal were cited. It was noted that the they are in the process of
updating the 1986 Master Plan and felt that this proposal was premature and
should be considered in a broader context.
Ms. Kennedy wanted to table the application for month, so that the master plan
can be reviewed by staff for the appropriateness of designating that intersection
as commercial. Other Board members pointed out that the political process
through public comment needs to be considered on what is :the appropriate
designation for this area in context of the entire planning jurisdiction.
On a roll call vote the motion to adopt the findings of fact and forward a
recommendation for denial to the Board of County Commissioners and City
Council carried on an 5-2 vote. Kennedy and Sanders voted no.
Pack and Company Request for Master Plan Amendment
March 3, 1997
Page 3 of 3
Please schedule this matter for a public hearing at your earliest convenience.
Please contact this Commission or Narda Wilson at the Flathead Regional
Development Office if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
Therese Fox Hash
President
TFH/NW/eo
Attachments: FRDO Report #KMPA-97-1 and back-up materials
Draft Minutes from the 2 / 11 / 97 Planning Board meeting
c: Debbie Gifford, City Clerk w/Att
Pack & Co., 2355 Highway 93 North, Kalispell, MT 59901
Jackola Engineering, Box 1134, Kalispell, MT 59903
Kalispell City Manager
H: \... \KAL\ 1996\KMPA-97-1
� I
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 758-5980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
March 3, 1997
Board of County Commissioners
Flathead County Courthouse
800 South Main Street
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: Master Plan Amendment Request from Industrial to Commercial
Dear Commissioners:
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission held a public
hearing at their regular meeting of February 11, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Kalispell City Council Chambers. During that meeting they considered the
following agenda item:
A request by Pack and Company to amend the Kalispell City County Master
Plan from "Industrial" to "Commercial" on approximately 20 acres of land
east of Highway 93 North which is located near the southeast corner of
Highway 93 and Reserve Drive. The property can be described as a 20.657
acre portion of Government Lot 1 in the northwest quarter of the northwest
quarter of Section 31, Township 29 North; Range 21 West, P.M.M..,
Flathead County Montana.
Planning board member Kennedy, an employee for Nupac / Pack and Company
for 14 years, stated she has researched the legal issues and believes she does
not have a conflict of interest in evaluating the proposal. In consulting with
legal counsel for the County, Chair Hash also determined that there was no legal
conflict with Ms. Kennedy sitting on the Board as a volunteer planning board
member.
Staff report #KMPA-97-1 was presented by Narda Wilson of the Flathead
Regional Development Office, who evaluated the proposal based upon the goals
and objectives of the master plan, the purpose of zoning and current
circumstances in the planning jurisdiction. Staff recommended the requested
master plan amendment from industrial to commercial be denied because it is in
conflict with the master plan policies which encourages additional commercial
zoning be limited to the expansion and infill of existing commercial areas.
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls - City of Kalispell - City of Whitefish •
0
Pack and Company Request for Master Plan Amendment
March 3, 1997
Page 3 of 3
During the public hearing, several people spoke in favor of the proposal. The
applicant spoke strongly of his desire to convert the industrial use on
approximately half of the property to commercial. He cited the upgrade of
Highway 93, the community college relocation and the ballfield relocation as
changes in the area which would warrant commercial zoning. He stated that he
believes the commercial development would benefit the community because
water and sewer would be extended to the area and the entrance to Kalispell:,
would be nicely landscaped. Two real estate brokers representing the potential
purchaser and the applicant, spoke in favor of the requested master plan
amendment. An adjacent property owner expressed his desire to develop his
property commercially. He noted that the Highway 93 upgrade made the
location less desirable as residential property. He was in favor of the master
plan amendment. Two letters from attorneys representing youth athletics in the
area were submitted stating they did not see a conflict with the lease for the
athletic complex, which is being negotiated with the State Lands.
Two people spoke in opposition. A property owner in Country Estates did not
favor commercial development in a rural residential neighborhood because of
the potential to spur more commercial development. Larry Gallagher, Director
of Planning, Economic and Community Development, testified to the importance
of maintaining the economic vitality of the Kalispell business core and that he
believed this would undermine existing and new businesses. He also stated that
the proposal would be inconsistent with numerous past decisions by the City
and County minimizing commercial development on Highway 93 North.
The Board discussed the issues at length. Several Board members expressed
concemoV that the staff report lacked objectivity because no positive elements of
the proposal were cited. It was noted that the they are in the process of
updating the 1986 Master Plan and felt that this proposal was premature and
should be considered in a broader context.
Ms. Kennedy wanted to table the application for month, so that the master plan
can be reviewed by staff for the appropriateness of designating that intersection
as commercial. Other Board members pointed out that the political process
through public comment needs to be considered on what is the appropriate
designation for this area in context of the entire planning jurisdiction.
On a roll call vote the motion to adopt the findings of fact and forward a
recommendation for denial to the Board of County Commissioners and City
Council carried on an 5-2 vote. Kennedy and Sanders voted no.
Ir
Pack and Company Request for Master Plan Amendment
March 3, 1997
Page 3 of 3
Please schedule this matter for a public hearing at your earliest convenience.
Please contact this Commission or Narda Wilson at the Flathead Regional
Development Office if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
Therese Fox Hash
President
TFH/NW/eo
Attachments: FRDO Report #KMPA-97-1 and back-up materials
Draft Minutes from the 2/ 11/97 Planning Board meeting
c: Debbie Gifford, City Clerk w/Att
Pack & Co., 2355 Highway 93 North, Kalispell, MT 59901
Jackola Engineering, Box 1134, Kalispell, MT 59903
Kalispell City Manager
H: \... \KAL\ 1996 \KMPA-97-1
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 758-5980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
March 4, 1997
Clarence Krepps, City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Drawer 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: Master Plan Amendment Request from Industrial to Commercial
Dear Clarence:
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission held a public
hearing at their regular meeting of February 11, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Kalispell City Council Chambers. During that meeting they considered the
following agenda item:
A request by Pack and Company to amend the Kalispell City County Master
Plan from "Industrial" to "Commercial" on approximately 20 acres of land
east of Highway 93 North which is located near the southeast corner of
Highway 93 and Reserve Drive. The property can be described as a 20.657
acre portion of Government Lot 1 in the northwest quarter of the northwest
quarter of Section 31, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead
County Montana.
Planning board member Kennedy, an employee for Nupac / Pack and Company
for 14 years, stated she has researched the legal issues and believes she does
not have a conflict of interest in evaluating the proposal. In consulting with
legal counsel for the County, Chair Hash also determined that there was no legal
conflict with Ms. Kennedy sitting on the Board as a volunteer planning board
member.
Staff report #KMPA-97-1 was presented by Narda Wilson of the Flathead
Regional Development Office, who evaluated the proposal based upon the goals
and objectives of the master plan, the purpose of zoning and current
circumstances in the planning jurisdiction. Staff recommended the requested
master plan amendment from industrial to commercial be denied because it is in
conflict with the master plan policies which encourages additional commercial
zoning be limited to the expansion and infill of existing commercial areas.
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish •
Pack and Company Request for Master Plan Amendment
March 4, 1997
Page 2 of 3
approximately half of the property to commercial. He cited the upgrade of
Highway 93, the community college relocation and the ballfield relocation as
changes in the area which would warrant commercial zoning. He stated that he
believes the commercial development would benefit the community because
water and sewer would be extended to the area and the entrance to Kalispell
would be nicely landscaped. Two real estate brokers representing the potential
purchaser and the applicant, spoke in favor of the requested master plan
amendment. An adjacent property owner expressed his desire to develop his
property commercially. He noted that the Highway 93 upgrade made the
location less desirable as residential property. He was in favor of the master
plan amendment. Two letters from attorneys representing youth athletics in the
area were submitted stating they did not see a conflict with the lease for the
athletic complex, which is being negotiated with the State Lands.
Two people spoke in opposition. A property owner in Country Estates did not
favor commercial development in a rural residential neighborhood because of
the potential to spur more commercial development. Larry Gallagher, Director
of Planning, Economic and Community Development, testified to the importance
of maintaining the economic vitality of the Kalispell business core and that he
believed this would undermine existing and new businesses. He also stated that
the proposal would be inconsistent with numerous past decisions by the City
and County minimizing commercial development on Highway 93 North.
The Board discussed the issues at length. Several Board members expressed
concern that the staff report lacked objectivity because no positive elements of
the proposal were cited. It was noted that the . they are in the process of
updating the 1986 Master Plan and felt that this proposal was premature and
should be considered in a broader context.
Ms. Kennedy wanted to table the application for month, so that the master plan
can be reviewed by staff for the appropriateness of designating that intersection
as commercial. Other Board members pointed out that the political process
through public comment needs to be considered on what is the appropriate
designation for this area in context of the entire planning jurisdiction.
On a roll call vote the motion to adopt the findings of fact and forward a
recommendation for denial to the Board of County Commissioners and City
Council carried on an 5-2 vote. Kennedy and Sanders voted no.
Please schedule this matter for the March 10, 1997 City Council work session.
It is anticipated that a resolution of intent will be adopted by the Council at their
March 17, 1997 regular meeting and a public hearing date of April 7, 1997
Pack and Company Request for Master Plan Amendment
March 3, 1997
Page 3 of 3
Please schedule this matter for the March 10, 1997 City Council work session.
It is anticipated that a resolution of intent will be adopted by the Council at their
March 17, 1997 regular meeting and a public hearing date of April 7, 1997
would be set. Please contact this Commission or Narda Wilson at the Flathead
Regional Development Office if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
KAL PELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
Therese Fox Hash
President
TFH/NW/eo
Attachments: FRDO Report #KMPA-97-1 and back-up materials
Draft Minutes from the 2/ 11/97 Planning Board meeting
c: Debbie Gifford, City Clerk w/Att
Pack & Co., 2355 Highway 93 North, Kalispell, MT 59901
Jackola Engineering, Box 1134, Kalispell, MT 59903
Board of County Commissioners
H: \... \KAL\ 1996\KMPA-97-1
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 758-5980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
March 4, 1997
Clarence Krepps, City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Drawer 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: Master Plan Amendment Request from Industrial to Commercial
Dear Clarence:
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission held a public
hearing at their regular meeting of February 11, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Kalispell City Council Chambers. During that meeting they considered the
following agenda item:
A request by Pack and Company to amend the Kalispell City County Master
' Plan from "Industrial" to "Commercial" on .approximately 20 acres of land
east of Highway 93 North which is located near the southeast corner of
Highway 93 and Reserve Drive. The property can be described as a 20.657
acre portion of Government Lot 1 in the northwest quarter of the northwest
quarter of Section 31, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead
County Montana.
Planning board member Kennedy, an employee for Nupac / Pack and Company
for 14 years, stated she has researched the legal issues and believes she does
not have a conflict of interest in evaluating the proposal. In consulting with
legal counsel for the County, Chair Hash also determined that there was no legal
conflict with Ms. Kennedy sitting on the Board as a volunteer planning board
member.
Staff report #KMPA-97-1 was presented by Narda Wilson of the Flathead
Regional Development Office, who evaluated the proposal based upon the goals
and objectives of the master `plan, the purpose of zoning and current
circumstances in the planning jurisdiction. Staff recommended the requested
master plan amendment from industrial to commercial be denied because it is in
conflict with the master plan policies which encourages additional commercial
zoning be limited to the expansion and infill of existing commercial
a areas.
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish •
Pack and Company Request for Master Plan Amendment
March 4, 1997
Page 2 of 3
approximately half of the property to commercial. He cited the upgrade of
Highway 93, the community college relocation and the ballfield relocation as
changes in the area which would warrant commercial zoning. He stated that he
believes the commercial development would benefit the community because
water and sewer would be extended to the area and the entrance to Kalispell
would be nicely landscaped. Two real estate brokers representing the potential
purchaser and the applicant, spoke in favor of the requested master plan
amendment. An adjacent property owner expressed his desire to develop his
property commercially. He noted that the Highway 93 upgrade made the
location less desirable as residential property. He was in favor of the master
plan amendment. Two letters from attorneys representing youth athletics in the
area were submitted stating they did not see a conflict with the lease for the
athletic complex, which is being negotiated with the State Lands.
Two people spoke in opposition. A property owner in Country Estates did not
favor commercial development in a rural residential neighborhood _because of
the potential to spur more commercial development. Larry Gallagher, Director
of Planning, Economic and Community Development, testified to the importance
of maintaining the economic vitality of the Kalispell business core and that he
believed this would undermine existing and new businesses. He also stated that
the proposal would be inconsistent with numerous past decisions by the City
and County minimizing commercial development on Highway 93 North.
The Board discussed the issues at length. Several Board members expressed
concern that the staff report lacked objectivity because no positive elements of
the proposal were cited. It was noted that the they are in the process of
updating the 1986 Master Plan and felt that this proposal was premature and
should be considered in a broader context.
Ms. Kennedy wanted to table the application for month, so that the master plan
can be reviewed by staff for the appropriateness of designating that intersection
as commercial. Other Board members pointed out that the political process
through public comment needs to be considered on what is the appropriate
designation for this area in context of the entire planning jurisdiction.
On a roll call vote the motion to adopt the findings of fact and forward a
recommendation for denial to the Board of County Commissioners and City
Council. carried on an 5-2 vote. Kennedy and Sanders voted no.
Please schedule this matter for the March 10, 1997 City Council work session.
It is anticipated that a resolution of intent will be adopted by the Council at their
March 17, 1997 regular meeting and a public hearing date of April 7, 1997
Pack and Company Request for Master Plan Amendment
March 3, 1997
Page 3 of 3
Please schedule this matter for the March 10, 1997 City Council work session.
It is anticipated that a resolution of intent will be adopted by the Council at their
March 17, 1997 regular meeting and a public hearing date of April 7, 1997
would be set. Please contact this Commission or Narda Wilson at the Flathead
Regional Development Office if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
KAL PELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
L"' fk
Therese Fox Hash
President
TFH/ NW/ eo
Attachments: FRDO Report #KMPA-97-1 and back-up materials
Draft Minutes from the 2/ 11 / 97 Planning Board meeting
c: Debbie Gifford, City Clerk w/Att
Pack & Co., 2355 Highway 93 North, Kalispell, MT 59901
Jackola Engineering, Box 1134, Kalispell, MT 59903
Board of County Commissioners
H: \... \KAL\ 1996\KMPA-97-1
PACK AND COMPANY
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT
FLATHEAD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFIC
REPORTSTAFF
A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board, the Kalispell City Council and
the Board of County Commissioners regarding a request by Pack and Company to
amend the Kalispell City -County Master Plan from Industrial to Commercial. A
public hearing has been scheduled before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board
for February 11, 1997 beginning at 7:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council
Chambers. The Planning Board will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell
City Council and the County Commissioners for final action..
Zkol1vt k N-Z • OR
A. Petitioner and ers:
Pack and Company
Highway 93 North
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 752-4215
Jackola Engineering
Box 1134
Kalispell, MT 59903
(406) 755-3208
B. Nature of the Request:
The applicant has requested a master plan amendment from industrial to
commercial for an approximately 20.66 acre site so that he may apply for a
commercial zoning designation of B-2, General Business. Concurrent with
this request, the applicant has filed a petition for annexation into the city of
Kalispell and initial zoning of B-2. The applicant will also be requesting that
City water and sewer be extended from Grandview Drive, south of Flathead
Valley Community College to the site. The purpose of rezoning the property
to a commercial designation is so that the property may be sold for the
development of a large shopping center.
C. Location and Legal Description of Property:
The property proposed being proposed for the master plan amendment is
located approximately 300 feet from the southeast corner of Highway 93
North and West Reserve Drive. The property fronts on both of these
.roadways. - A boundary line adjustment is currently be filed which creates an
approximately 20.66 acre parcel which is under consideration. The property
proposed for the master plan amendment can be described as 20.657 acre
portion of Government Lot 1 located in then northwest quarter of the
northwest quarter of Section 31, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M.,
Flathead County, Montana.
D. Existing Land Use:
The site is currently being used as a gravel pit which has served the batch
plant that adjoins this property to the south. Both of these properties are
located in the county and are currently zoned I-1, Light Industrial.
E. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning.
The area is characterized by single-family residential development on
northwest corner of West Reserve Drive and Highway 93, agricultural uses
on the 600 acre section of land on the southwest corner, the northeast
corner is undeveloped a Riverside Alliance Church to the east. The southeast
corner has a convenience store and gas station, and the gravel pit is further
to the east.
North: Undeveloped property and church, zoned R-1
South: Gravel processing plant, zoned I-1
East:: Undeveloped, zoned I-1 and SAG-10
West: Convenience store and gas station, zoned B-1
F. Evaluation of the Master Plan Amendment Request:
The Montana Planning Statues -provides the enabling legislation for local
governments to adopt and implement planning and zoning. Section 76-1-
102 defines the purpose of these provisions which states that it is to
encourage local government to improve the health, safety, convenience and
welfare of the citizens and to plan for the future development of their
communities. This includes the construction of highway systems; and new
community centers that grow only with adequate highway, utility, health,
educational and recreational facilities, and that the needs of agriculture,
industry and business be recognized in the future growth. That residential
areas provide healthy surroundings for family life, and that the growth of the
community promote the efficient and economical use of public funds.
The current Kalispell City -County Master Plan was adopted in 1986 and is
currently being updated. The plan is comprised of three major components
which include the master plan text, the master plan map and the goals and
objectives of the master plan. - All three components are equally important
and must be equally weighed to adequately interpret and implement the
plan. This request is for an amendment to the map which must be evaluated
in the context of the goals and objectives of the overall plan whose primary
purpose is to guide the growth of the area.
The proposed map amendment will be reviewed in accordance with the
following evaluation criteria:
a. Whether conditions or circumstances in the area have changed since
the adoption of the master plan which justify the map amendment.
b. Whether the map amendment furthers the goals and objectives of the
master plan as a whole.
pq
C. Whether the proposed map amendment is consistent with the purpose
of the zoning regulations.
a) Whether conditions or circumstances in the area have changed since
adoption of the master plan which justify the snap amendment.
In order to demonstrate that conditions or circumstances have changed since
the adoption of the plan, it seems reasonable to look at the economy of the
planning jurisdiction and the need for additional commercially zoned
property, commercial growth and expansion in the planning jurisdiction,
land uses in the area and the available infrastructure and services.
In evaluating of the local economy and the demand for additional commercial
land, it can be observed that the Central Business District in Kalispell and
the Evergreen area provide the economic base for the community. The City
of Kalispell has taken a proactive approach to attempt to compete with the
commercial development taking place in the Evergreen area which does not
provide a tax base for the City. The City has done this with the creation of
tax increment finance districts within the city limits, i.e., the Downtown
Urban Renewal District, the Airport Urban Renewal District and the West
Side Urban Renewal District which is under consideration by the City
Council. These district are intended to encourage businesses to locate within
these areas by providing adequate infrastructure, low interest loans and
other incentives.
The Evergreen commercial strip has seen tremendous growth over the past
several years due primarily to the availability of community water and sewer
in the area. However, it appears that there is still an adequate amount of
commercially zoned property currently exists within the planning
jurisdiction. This is evidenced by the fact that the Evergreen area continues
to have plenty of space available for commercial development. This is
demonstrated by the fact that existing residences along LaSalle Road, which
are zoned for general business, have not yet been converted to commercial
uses. Additionally, there appears to be a surfeit of retail space within the
Gateway West Mall, downtown Kalispell and along Idaho Street.
Land uses and services in the area the applicant is proposing to designate as
commercial is outside of the commercial service area where the community
would anticipate this type of development. It is understood that the
applicant is willing to extend water and sewer to serve the site, but the
efficiency and timeliness of that extension should be questioned. It does not
appear that other development in the area would require these basic services
in the near future. Additionally, the City should consider whether or not this
is the area in which the, allocation of the water and sewer resources should
be expended. It does not appear that this is the case. Efficient use of
existing resources would dictate that the development take place in areas
which have already been established and that have not been fully developed.
Furthermore, the master plan recognizes that "industrial development is
sorely deficient" and that the "entire planning jurisdiction contains only one-
half and Kalispell only one -fifth of the industrially developed land normally
found in a community of ,similar size." This situation has not changed. It
i
3
b)
does not appear that conditions or circumstances have changed since the
master plan was adopted which would warrant the proposed plan
amendment.
The master plan policies for highway commercial development are found on
page 46 of the master plan and are described as "an area which provides for
compact grouping of commercial uses which require the automobile and are
typically located along arterial and collector streets. Those district within the
planning jurisdiction are perceived to occur as compact axp ansion and infill
of existing strip commercial developments occurring on Hiway 93 South of
13th Street, on Highway 2 between Meridian Road and Evergreen, and on
Highway 2 between Reserve Drive and the BN crossing to the north." The
area proposed for rezoning does not lie within these established commercial
districts. Additionally, these areas have not been fully developed.
The master plan policies for neighborhood commercial development are
found on page 45 of the master plan and are defined as 'areas serving the
neighborhood populations within one-half to three -fourths of a mile radius.
Neighborhood commercial areas are found throughout the planning
jurisdiction including the intersection of West Reserve Drive and Highway 93.
The property adjoining this property is zoned B-1, Neighborhood
Commercial. This area is not intended to be expanded to serve a broader
area, as proposed.
The master plan policies for the light industrial districts are found on page
47 of the master plan and are described as being "planned for (the area)
adjacent to the municipal airport, adjacent to the Burlington Northern tracks
in uptown Kalispell and on the northern fringes of the Kalispell planning
jurisdiction at the Highway 93 and Reserve Drive intersection and the
Highway 2 and Reserve Drive intersection." The proposed amendment
contradicts the master plan because this area is specifically identified in the
plan as an area for light industrial development
Goal 5, Economy, of the master plan strives for "A healthy diversified
economy promoted by careful planning of type, location and design of
industrial sites, shopping areas and tourist facilities." Goal 5(e) states
"Undertake activities to ensure that the Central Business District remains
strong and viable". The proposed amendment undermines this goal by
taking potential commercial development from the core commercial areas
and relocating outside of the established commercial districts.
Goal 6, Land Use, of the master plan strives for "the orderly developpment of
the planning jurisdiction' with ample space for future growth awhile at the
same time, ensuring compatibility of adjacent land uses." Goal 6(b) states
"set standards for the designation or expansion of commercial areas based
on compact development patterns designed to meet the needs of the intended
service area and not the desires of speculation or strip developer." The
proposed amendment is in conflict with this master plan goal because the
} area proposed for commercial development is not based on compact pattern
n
development. Moreover, it would appear that this request is based upon a
speculative development proposal which is intended to benefit the property
owner and developer rather than the needs of the community. Additionally,
it would promote strip development by creating an island of general
commercial which has the potential to expand along the highway and the
other corners at the intersection of Highway 93 and Reserve Drive.
Goal 8, Public Facilities, strives for "An economical, balanced distribution of
public facilities and services throughout the planning jurisdiction for present
and anticipated future residents." Goal 8(a) states "designate areas of future
development which are already serviced or are in areas which can be
economically serviced by water and sewer systems, police and fire protection,
etc." This proposed amendment is in conflict with this goal because the
water and sewer lines would need to be extended approximately one mile to
the site with no obvious need to serve other properties between Grandview
and Reserve Drive. At this time, it would not appear that this would be
economically prudent of either the City or the property owner to do so.
Goal 11 states "Encourage infilling to take advantage of existing streets and
services." The area proposed for commercial development is on the fringe
areas of the planning jurisdiction and does not constitute infill. The proposal
is in conflict with the master plan goal.
Commercial development is further addressed in the master plan on page 45
which states that "Excluding several planned or new neighborhood
commercial sites, all commercial activity should be directed toward existing
commercial areas either as expansion or infill."
In reviewing the above evaluation, it is clear that the proposed master plan
amendment would not fulfill the overall goals and objectives of the master
plan, and in fact, is in direct conflict with several specific objectives which
are listed above.
c) Whether the amendment is consistent with the purpose of the zoning
regulations.
1. Does the requested zone comply with the Master Plan?
The property proposed for commercial development is inconsistent
with the goals and policies of the master plan as they relate to the
location of commercial highway development, neighborhood
commercial development and industrial development. It is in conflict
with the goals of the master plan as they relate to the efficient use of
services and utilities, compact commercial development based upon
infill and expansion and maintaining adequate land for industrial
development.
{
2. Is the requested zone designed to lessen congestion in the streets?
Rezoning the proposed property for a commercial designation would
not lessen congestion in the street, but would rather dramatically
increase traffic on the West Reserve and Highway, 93 intersection with
61
3.
the advent of a large commercial development.
The proposed amendment appears to be premature considering that
the necessary infrastructure required to respond adequately in the
case of a fire or other emergency is not in place. Rezoning this
property to` a commercial designation may increase the need for
emergency services to the area.
4. Will the requested zone promote the health and general welfare?
The requested zoning classification would not promote the general
health and welfare of the community, but rather tend to benefit the
individual property owner who may be able to sell the property for
commercial development. The zone change would not benefit the
community because commercial development on this site has the
potential to undermine the economic viability of the established
commercial areas, it does not promote efficient use of existing
infrastructure and it would require residents to travel outside of the
core commercial area to obtain good and services.
5. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air?
Setback, height, and coverage standards for development occurring on
this site are established in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to insure
adequate light and air is provided.
6. Will the requested zone prevent the overcrowding of land?
Currently this area of the county is relatively undeveloped. The
proposed rezoning would encourage premature development on the
fringes of the urban area resulting the potential proliferation of urban
sprawl and strip development. The zone change would not prevent the
overcrowding of land.
7. Will the requested zone avoid undue concentration of people?
91
If this site were to be developed commercially, it is predictable that
there would be a substantial increase in traffic, parking needs and
potentially other development creating an undesirable concentration of
people and traffic.
Currently, public water and sewer are approximately one mile from the
site which is proposed for rezoning. Extension of services to this area
appears to be premature and would not promote the efficient use of
infrastructure or the delivery of City services. Additionally, it would
0
increase traffic in an area of the county which is not intended to serve
a commercial area.
9. Does the requested zone Five consideration to the particular suitability
This rezoning does not give consideration to the suitability of this
property for commercial development. The property has a power
transmission easement through it which contain large overhead towers
and transmission lines. In addition, to the south is the batch plant
which operates with a great deal of highly visible heavy equipment.
Additionally, the site has been used as a gravel pit in the past which
would require excessive filling and landscaping beyond what would
normally be anticipated under a standard reclamation program.
Resource based industries have typically enjoyed a favored status
within the state and community as is evidenced by existing regulations
governing these uses. Extractive industries such as these gravel pits
can be found in many of the rural and agricultural areas of the county.
However, it is unreasonable to assume that once these gravel pits
have outlived their usefulness that they would be converted to a
commercial use. Gravel pits, by their very nature have a finite life
span, therefore the State Department of Natural Resources requires
that a reclamation plan be implemented once the gravel has been
exhausted. The plan would typically include filling and revegetation.
It is a reasonable expectation on the part of the public that these areas
will be reclaimed and not converted to a commercial use.
10. Does the re
The general character of the area is industrial in the immediate area
because of the gravel pit and batch plant. Directly to the west is the
State School Section land which as been under active agricultural. To
the east, the area can be described as rural residential as well as to the
north. There is some higher density residential developments to the
northwest. The rezoning does not give reasonable consideration to the
character of the area, but rather creates the potential for the
establishment of a large commercial development where currently
there is none, increased strip development and urban sprawl.
11. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings?
Value of the buildings in the area may or may not be effected by the
proposed rezoning. The rezoning has the potential to spawn additional
commercial expansion which may displace other non-commercial
buildings in the area.
7
12.
The zone change request does not encourage the most appropriate use
of land throughout the jurisdiction, but rather undermines the
economic viability of other established commercial areas. Additionally,
it creates the potential for further strip development and urban sprawl
in the area. The proposal is not based upon compact, urban
development standards; but rather is based upon speculative
commercial development in fringe urban areas which is premature and
an inefficient use of community resources.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon the above evaluation, the staff would recommend that the Kalispell
City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report KMPA-97-
1 as findings of fact and forward a recommendation to the City Council and County
Commissioner to deny the proposed master plan amendment from industrial to
commercial because it does not comply with the goals and objective of the master
plan
H: \... \KMPA97-1
1.1
I
m
CAP FOR /
25
FOU D BRASS
Ct*R AS AEA $D2.15 51JY
'3701SFCrCW
CCRW RECORDA MY 5.59'
•z RESERVE
36
31
`§
, , _ '. ^ _ _ / 9.J722-E 371_3%
i
• 107.4J'
S '54'08'E /
PARCEL 1
m
/ 20.657 ACRES
a
y/
-
y
0
S00.50'40'W /
®RIVE
a �
M ft
588.59'57'E 484.36' 03.48' --.�
444.3ir cc%
I yw Z
I o
r
DESCH 111 ION - PARClil. i
A 'rilACr OF I,AND I.00A'1.11D iN '1'Illi 11. S. .(:UVERNMENT LUT i OF SECTION JJ, TOWNSIIIP 29
Nollr11, RANGE 21 WESl', 1'RLN;:iI`A1. MI:KtD1AN, MONTANA. FI.AT)114AD CININTY, MONTANA AMU
MORE PAirrICUi.ARLY DESCRlIIED AS FOLLOWS!
COMMENCING AT TIIL•' NORTItIiAS9' (:DltNi'ai OF PARCEL OF CliIiTIFICATF OF SURVEY NUMOFR
12230, RF,COW)$ OF FLATHEAD COUNTY; THENCE NU9' .17'211"14, ON AND ALONG TIN: NORTif
BOUNDARY OF SAID PARCHI. I AND ON AND AI.ON4 'I'llli SOU-1.11 RIGHT-OF-WAY iOUNDARY OF
WEST RESFRVE DlitVr, A DISTANCii OF 60.00 FEET To A SET 5/a- RF:-BAR AND WHICII 1'Ultrr
1S THE TRUE POINT OF IIEGiNNING;
Till NCI: WIiS'1'RRLY, NOW1'111:I(1.Y AND SOUT11MULY, ON ANI) ALONG ;:All) NORTH 1101INDARY 01"
PARCEL J AND T1111 300111 RIGII'r-OV-WAY ItOONDAIIY OF WI-::rr Itl•«:F VI{ UIIIVF, '1'I18 FULLOWiNO
FIVE COI1RSr1;:
CONTINUING N09°37'20"W, A D15TANCH OF 3113.6-J r1:FT TO A ro1Mr.- N00°511'40'E, A
DISTANCE OF J9.95 FEUT 1" A I'OIWr; NI19'J7'27.."W, A DiSTAtiCr OF 375.37 VKHT 7D A
POINT; N07.°15'51"R, A i,t:.•r::::.:. ...• 5.59 FEET TO A 1-6I14T; U1.19"W10'1.1. A Ill STYU.CF.
OF 107.43 PE.FT TO A POINT WH ICli POINT IS '111H NUIt'rl1FA.;T CORN!:!! .. ' MAT TRACT
INDICATED ON CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY NUMIIF:it 71100, RK.CORDS (JF FI.ATIIF:AD COUNTY;
T'!lENCE SW14'01-W, ON AND ALONG. TIIF FAST BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT. A DISTANCE OF
252.46 FEET TO A POINT;
TIIENCL" NU9"54•UU'W, ON AND ALON(;•-TIIF: SOII•i'll IIOIiNDAItY Or GIi)•TttACi', A i)JSTANCF, of !
233.25 FRET TO A POINT WIiICII POINT L11;.S ON '1111; 1.4A::r 111GUT-OF-HAY BOUNDARY OF U.
S. IiiGIiWAY 9J;
THENCE' S0.0'06'49"W, ON AND ALONG SAiD BAST HIGiT-OF-WAY BOUNDARY, A UJS'rANCF OF
640.64 FFI?r TO A POINT WII;C'll 1'UINT IS 'rill•: NO1011WP.ST COUNIll OF PARCEL 7. OF SAID
(TitTIFICATr OF SURVEY )3t3FUNR
T111INCH SUU*59'57-K, ON AND ALONG Tilli NilWrll BOUNDARY AND AN EXTENSION T111i1ti:UF,-A
UtSTANCi► OF 1097.04 FEET TD A POINT;
o
TnRNCr•. NUB 07'02-P, A DIS'rANCR. OF 1169.12 rxi:r To T11F. TRUF. I't)lwr of DIiGINN1NG.
THIS PARCEL CONTAIN:; 2U.617 ACIIHS AND !:1T16tlie,r ro AND T(X:t:TliFI4 WTTII A 7.50-FOOT 1IPA
TRANSM18SIUN F.A;H'liEN'r AND SUB.INUT 'I'll AND 'I.OUrrlll•34 WITII AI.i. AI`I'11lt'rENANT EASI•]4EN'r5
of, HECUND.
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fs GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
OINEY " "I.
WHIrEFISH /I Mi. 3180 1 v
4. L 5! 1 6960wm.E. 1697 R. 22 W. 20!698 R. 21 W. 1699 (ROSE ORC
jql
33
26
�70w--N. 03
0
27 1 Glade
e rdens
em
.*3
3036
0545 OJ9 0,
53
46
AL I Pit
t
134
T. 29 N. 35::
X,
5345 0
Sch
z
Z
Spri kCr k
r
t;. 3034 305
3
051"
Spn gCr k ,
h
111 J •�: i
5344
T. 28 N. F &-1
thri tri
3
G
pqjPE
Gr vel Pits `
o 0
e oir If C4urse 1.
I ank.
go
5343
30,18
;7
12'30'
•
12- pm
LA
low
UbG
4-
2958
0.
7-
ell
4(A
40
23 yt :96" 1 114A 4G4
mcm
A.
0 701 1
I "y
In
INK
1HC
It"
Sol 'I 'At so
131 .1 Its
jj 41
ISM
4f
lei to 30, 21" n. 4H
421,41 'Mi WEST RESERVE Ulu
i
♦
SA
u
r
30 j]SUBJECT PROPERTY
3 r
'AG40
VICINITY MAP
PACK AND COMPANY
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT----.--
20.657 ACRES
SE y. 21., 7-29NR21W
FILE # KMPA-97-1 / # KA-97-1
SCALE 1" 600'
10
41,
March 17, 1997
Members of the Kalispell Council
Clerk of the Council
Kalispell City Hall
312 1" Ave. East
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: The NuPack Map Amendment and Zone Change Request
Dear County Commissions:
We have been following the NuPack request for a Map amendment and Zone change from I-1 to B-2. It is
a totally appropriate request to allow this area to go to B-2 Zoning. There should be comfort to all parties
concerned that the NuPack proposal yields a more desirable end use to this property.
As County/City residents, landowners and businessmen we feel it is essential that the Master Plan remain
fluid to the needs of businesses, landowners and the community. Governments role as mediator in the
planning process is to insure that no unjustified suppression or restriction occurs at the expense of the
community, landowner, or commerce.
Business and community members seek locations based on customer convenience and economic viability.
To impose or restrict without reasoned joint assessment will spell doom to the business community and
commercial activity.
This proposal is reasonable and prudent, we give it our full support. We request that the map amendment
and zone change be approved.
Sincerely,
David R. Waatti
President
DRW:bg
P.O. Box 1 9 1645 Hwy. 93 South 9 Kalispell, Montana 59903-0001 9 (406) 755-4321 9 800-343-3835 • FAX (406) 756-8591
FLATHEAD BUSINESS & INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 8635
Kalispell, MT 59904
March 13, 1997
City Council & Mayor
Kali -spell, MT
The Flathead Business & Industry Association, representing
over 100 local businessmen, objects to the funding of 2.5 million
dollars for the renovation of Central School. As major
contributors to the arts and cultural activities throughout the
valley, we cannot support this Central School Renovation Project
because it does not incorporate a financial plan for continuing
operations and maintenance, nor is there any tax base revenue to be
gained to repay these tax -increment funds. We ask the City Council
to make public the operations and maintenance business plan. If we
taxpayers are being asked to support a city museum, the taxpayers
of the city of Kalispell must know all the facts. Please do not
add to our tax burden by renovating Central School without
developing a sound financial plan to operate the facility.
Owl
Flathead Business & Industry Association
David P. Meredith, Chairman
March 18, 1997
Mayor Doug R.authe
City of Kalispell
Kalispell, Mt. 59901
RE: Change in Master Plan for Nupac
Dear Mayor Rauthe and Esteemed Council Members:
Mr. Lynch should be commended on his willingness to enhance the City of Kalispell, and the
community, with his proposed zone change so that the people coming in from the north have a
more pleasant view than a garbage dump, toxic land fill, or gravel pit, to look at. However, why
not take that vision even farther? Instead of zoning this piece of property commercial, why not
rezone it for residential? Would that not be even more pleasing to the eye? Instead of twenty
acres of concrete to look at, why not have nice landscaping, modem homes, and green grass?
Would that not also be more conducive to the use of the proposed sports complex across the
highway? Parents of this housing development would be delighted to not have to travel great
distances for their children to enjoy soccer, softball, football, etc. It just seems to make more sense
that if this property is to be rezoned, that it been done in such a way that it truly becomes pleasing
to the eye, and benefits the community as a whole.
We already have two (2) malls that are. not at full capacity at this time. Does it make sense to build
another? Have you consulted K-Mart, Costco, Shopco, or any of the other big stores as to how
their retail sales have been the past few years? What will this do to the stores and malls already
established? Will we end up with more vacant retail space going unfilled?
If you do allow this zone change, what is going to prevent other land owners along Highway 93
from approaching you for a commercial designation for their property? What will be your defense
for saying "No"?" Will you be opening the city to lawsuits because of this? Is it worth the risk?
Page Two
Much time and effort was put into the corridor zoning a few years back. Not everyone got what
they wanted. But it appeared to be the best for the community as a whole. We have commercial
development south of town, as you approach the city. We have commercial development on
LaSalle and Highway 35 as you approach the city from those directions. Can we not have at least
one approach to our great city without eye sore commercial development? Is this too much to ask?
I am not willing to have Highway 93 North made into a commercial corridor. Are you?
If a zone change is needed, then why not make it residential? Would not the city receive more tax
dollars from sixty (60) to eighty (80) homes, or more, on this twenty (20) acre parcel than they
would from a mall?
The proposed zone change for Nupac goes against the Master Plan, as I understand it. I am
against the zone change for the reasons and concerns stated above.
Respectfully,
A�
Mark J. Schwager
150 Tronstad Road
Kalispell, Mt. 59901