11. Resolution 4324 - Adopt, Revise, Reject Master Plan Amendment - Pack & CoAgenda -April 14, 1997
AGENDA ITEM 11 - RESOLUTION 4324-ADOPT, REVISE OR REJECT MASTER
PLAN AMENDMENT -INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL -PACK AND COMPANY REQUEST
BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATION: This item is the continuation of
previous processing of this request for a Master Plan amendment.
You already have reports from the staff and my recommendation. The
City Attorney is continuing to determine a "Findings of Facts" for
this request as directed by the Council at the last Council
Meeting.
ACTION REQUIRED: Final approval/disapproval of this issue will be
needed to complete this project.
RESOLUTION NO. _4.324A__
A RESOLUTION REJECTING 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, NWI/4 of the
NWY4, Section 31, Township 29 North, Range 21 West,
P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, and
WHEREAS, on February 11th, 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 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.
WHEREAS, the requested Master Plan amendment is outside the area
where the community might expect commercial 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, NW'/ of the NW1/,, Section
31, Township 29 North, Range 21 West,
P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana from
Industrial to Commercial.
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. _A32A_.
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, NW1/, 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\nupac.wpd 1
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 7tI, 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 purpose of Master Plans under § 76-1-102, MCA is to:
1) encourage local governments to improve the health,
safety, convenience, and welfare of its citizens, 2) plan
for future development of communities so that highway
systems are carefully planned, 3) assure community
centers grow only with adequate highway, utility, health,
educational and recreational facilities, 4) observe needs
of agriculture, industry, and business in providing for
future growth; 5) provide for healthy surroundings for
family life in residential areas, 6)promote the efficient
and economical use of public funds in growth, and
WHEREAS, the 1986 Master Plan recognizes that Kalispell will
experience significant growth, especially in the northern
reaches of the City and planning area, and
WHEREAS, despite being the trade and commercial center of Flathead
County, the City contains very little land that is
readily subject to development for any type of activity,
which has a negative impact on the City's ability to
grow, and
WHEREAS, development of commercial property near the exterior
boundaries of the planning area may be categorized as in -
fill by providing for the extension of public facilities
and services into areas of maximum growth, and
WHEREAS, the Master Plan Goals and Objectives portend the planned
annexation of property and orderly extension of public
services into areas of maximum growth, and
WHEREAS, a plan amendment for the subject parcel will result in
the extension of City utility and safety services to the
area enhancing health, safety, convenience and welfare of
the citizens, and
is\wp\nupac.wpd 2
WHEREAS, the site of the proposed plan amendment adjoins U.S.
Highway #93 on the West and West Reserve Drive on the
North and possess adequate access points to provide
service from future highway systems, and
WHEREAS, the delivery of City water and utility and safety
services to the site as a result of the proposed plan
amendment, and the improved highway and proposed by-pass
plan will compliment educational opportunities available
at Flathead Valley Community College and recreational
opportunities at the proposed athletic complex West of
the site, and
WHEREAS, because of .the unsuitability of the site for agricultural
or residential development, and the blight created as a
result of the industrial development on the site,
commercial designation of the property will properly
serve the various land use demands of the area, and
WHEREAS, designation of site as commercial under the Master Plan
will compliment continued residential development within
and without of the planning jurisdiction, and
WHEREAS, extension of City utility services to the site will
provide an expansion of the City's service area and
provide an additional area of potential City influence
thereby promoting the efficient use of public funds.
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 finding of facts contained herein and
grants 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,
NW1/ of the NW1/., Section 31, Township 29 North,
Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County,
Montana from Industrial to Commercial.
is\wp\nupac.wpd 3
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\nupac.wpd 4
Comments and petition in Opposition to pack Zone Change
The need to preserve the scenic quality of the valley is cited frequently as an important
factor which attracts residents, visitors and potential future businesses. Rural landscapes
are endangered, as open land is across the nation by strip shopping centers. The proposed
change to commercial zoning along the Hwy 91 North corridor, specifically the Pack and
Company request at this time, will cause a dramatic change in the mostly rural setting in
that area. First, a more intensive use than the surrounding residential properties will be a
cause of the commercial change. Secondly, the proposed by-pass should be taken
literally... a by-pass through the congestion. It is intended to skirt the growth, not be
directed back into it as would happen here. A commercial change of the size requested
would mock the by-pass route causing further congestion.
This plan amendment does not improve for the health, safety nor convenience of the
majority living in the area. To the contrary, it can be seen as a hazard and "hang out". As
a spokesperson for the .Edgerton School PTSA, a real safety issue is of concern A "mall"
or shopping center is a real magnet for children and West Reserve with speeds of 30 mph
and .Hwy 93 in excess of that, is not conducive to the safety of neighborhood children. It
was stated, "It will give kids something to do."'I am certain most parents would rather
have their children elsewhere. This plan amendment, therefore, does not provide the
residential areas, nor Edgerton School with a healthy and peaceful surrounding.
Thirdly, the fact that the existing convenience store on the comer provides "limited
services" is really a boon to most locals. We can go in and out for bread and milk ( the
staples, if you will I) with no parking problems, lines or traffic. Most of the residents
chose to live these few miles out of town for a reason. It is not a hardship.
It is a reflection on our community as a whole to keep the sprawl to a minimum.
Urban service boundaries should remain status quo. Modifications should only be in
response to the desires of the local neighborhoods. Someone else is trying to tell us what
we need.
Attached to this is a petition with signatures from a varied segment ofvalley
residents... Ponderosa subdivision, the Principal and teachers from Edgerton school,
business owners on Main Street downtown and Gateway West Mall. Does this change to
commercial really support a healthy environment? Shopping is secondary to quality oaf
life for residents as well as visitors. People come here for the unspoiled beauty... don't
spoil it. Successful long range planning depends on cooperation... cooperation from local
government, industry, schools, homeowners, landowners and the business community.
Sheed
PETITION
We, the undersigned, are in opposition to the change
in the Hwy. 93 zoning district to commercial of 22 Acres
on the southeast corner of Hwy. 93 and Reserve
2q
Page 1
r. .
Sheet.
r.
PETITION
We, the undersigned., are in opposition to the change
in the Hwy. 93 zoning district to commercial of 22 Acres
on the southeast corner of Hwy. 93 and Reserve
1,50
�11P'1111I
MG
', - ---
.ii��,
Pap
I
Page 1
sheet
5
PETITIt��I
We, the undersigned, are in opposition to the change
in the Hwy. 93 zoning district to commercial of 22 Acres
on the southeast corner of Hwy. 93 and Reserve
...- M.
Page 1
CITIZENS FOR A BETTER FLATHEAD
P.O. BOX 771
KALISPELL, MT 59903-0771
406-756-8993
Dear City of Kalispell Council Members:
Our organization has received numerous inquiries about the Pack and Company proposed Master Plan
amendment, annexation and zoning change at the southeast corner of Reserve and Highway 93. As an
organization, we have not taken a stance on this issue. Instead, we prepared an information sheet which
provides background information and questions asked. We distributed this sheet to our members so that
interested parties could get better informed about the issues and get involved in the decision making process if
they chose to. Since we understand that the City Council will be voting on this proposal at their upcoming
meeting, we wanted to provide you with a list of the questions we have been urging people to consider.
• What positive or negative impacts will a shopping center at this location have on the immediate
neighborhood area?
• What are the positive and negative impacts of having Kalispell sewer and water extended to this
location and potentially beyond?
• Is the proposed use for this site consistent with the Kalispell City/County Master Plan as well as
the County Master Plan covering the area to the north along US 93?
• Should the Kalispell City/County Master Plan be amended at this time? (this Master Plan is
currently in the process of being updated)
• How will a shopping center at this location impact downtown Kalispell businesses and the city
efforts to redevelop business properties in the center of Kalispell?
• Should the City of Kalispell, whose downtown core is smaller than the proposed 20-acre
development, annex this isolated parcel leaving county lands between this site and the northern
boundary of the city?
• Would a business zone at this location set a precedent for the remainder of US 93 between
Reserve and the Buffalo Hill area as well as north of Reserve along US 93 and east along
Reserve?
• Is this zoning `spot zoning' as defined by the Montana courts?
• How does this project relate to Pack and Company's plans for their adjacent property?
• How might this change affect Flathead Valley Community College?
• Should this decision be influenced by the newly adopted West Valley Neighborhood Plan
agricultural land designation directly to the west of this site across US 93?
• Should only a portion of the industrial area be changed?
Because of the significance of this proposed project, we strongly urge you to carefully consider these
questions. We are supportive of the public participation process and wanted to make sure that you were aware
of some of the questions being asked about the proposal.
Thank you for your careful consideration.
Sincerely,
Richard Cohen
Every Voice is Important!
April 16, 1997
Kalispell City Council
Kalispell City Hall
315 lst Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Dear Council and Commissioners:
Flathead County Commissioners
800 South Main Street
Kalispell, MT 59901
I would like to go on record as favoring the development of a
retail center, east of Highway 93, south of Reserve and north of
NUPAC.
I am a local businessman, and I support the logical expansion of
the City and County to provide appropriate services for our
rapidly expanding population. The aforementioned area meets the
natural growth of Kalispell to the north of the City. In fact,
my support of this project encompasses what I believe will be a
tremendous improvement to an area that might be "blighted" if the
City/County foregoes this opportunity.
Sincerely,
4Dani4Eige=man,
e CPA
111 N. Haven Drive
Kalispell, MT 59901
i
�4
April 16, 1997
Dear Mayor Rauthe and Kalispell City Council Members:
We have attended most of the City and County meetings over the last
few months about the proposed Kalispell city/county master plan
amendment by Pack and Company to rezone the northeast corner of
Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive from light industrial to
commercial.
The proposed change for this 20 acres from light industrial, which
the city/county plan says there is a great lack of, to commercial,
while the City of Kalispell is also trying to promote commercial
development at Gateway West Mall, Kalispell Center Mall, the old
Flathead Community College site downtown, the National Flood
Service Building, and Daley Field seems to be in conflict. So why
would the city want to approve a major commercial center 3 mile
north of the center of town?
The Flathead Regional Development Staff Report on this project did
not have anything positive to say about this proposal when they
evaluated it against the goals and objectives of the master plan.
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission held
a public hearing on this proposal on February 11 and voted 5-2 to
adopt the Staff Reports findings of fact and forward a
recommendation of denial to the City Council and the County
Commissioners. What do you pay a planning staff for and have an
impartial zoning commission review projects and make
recommendations i,f you do not follow their advice? This proposal
is obviously not in conformance with the current city master plan.
As a council on April 7 you then directed the city attorney to come
up with "new" findings of fact to support approval of this
proposal. You don't like the facts as presented by your Staff, so
you want to invent "new" facts to support the final answer that you
want so the City won't be litigated. as being arbitrary in making
this decision?
The "new" findings of fact that were handed out to you on April 14
for You to review prior to your vote on April 21 were provided by
the project proponent as we understand it. This one page of "new"
findings seems weak in comparison to the 8 page KMPA-97-1 Staff
Report that was submitted originally as findings of fact. These
"new" findings of fact say that there is a definite shortage of
readily developable land for any type of activity, which the Staff
Report says is not the case because of many opportunities for
infilling with businesses in the area. The "new" findings of fact
state that this proposed project delivers city services to an area
without such services presently. The Staff Report says that it
does not appear that other development in the area would require
these basic services in the near future. Finally the "new"
findings speak to designating adequate areas for highway -commercial
oriented activities and general commercial uses. It goes on to
state that Highway 93 was recently widened to 5 lanes and the
proposed Kalispell Bypass would intersect at West Reserve Drive.
These roads would be sufficient to handle commercial development
at the site. At the City Council Meeting on April 7, the Staff
stated that the increase of traffic at this site could increase
from 1,000 to 8,000 vehicles per day if the site changed from light
industrial to commercial designation. It is debateable if the
Highway 93 widening would effectively handle this increase, the
proposed Bypass is many years off, and West Reserve Drive is very
congested NOW, much less with an 8-fold increase in traffic that
this proposal could bring?
This one page of "new" findings of fact does not effectively
replace the well thought out Staff Report, and Staff and public
comments made in recent meetings and in letters to the editor in
The Daily Inter Lake.
If this 20 acres is spot zoned to commercial, the precedent will
be set for the one mile portion of Highway 93 from West Reserve to
Grandview Drive and also for West Reserve Drive on either side of
Highway 93. The owners of the land to the northeast of this
intersection, the half mile of state land on the west side of
Highway 93 north of the proposed ballfields, and the land between_
the community college and Nupac on the east side of Highway 93 will
come to the city council to request changes in zoning from
agricultural to commercial. and You would really have no basis to
deny their requested rezoning. A strip development and sprawl on
the north entrance to Kalispell would be set in motion. This would
also affect the 107 homeowners of Country View Estates as the State
land manager pushes for commercial zoning for some or all of their
640 acre section of land adjacent to our subdivision and much more
out -of -area traffic comes into this area for shopping.
Currently the west entrance to town has two miles of commercial
businesses before a visitor gets to downtown. The east entrance
has three miles of Kmart, Shopko, Walmart and other businesses.
The south entrance to town has three miles of commercial and light
industrial ranch supply stores, canopy sales, boats, farming
supplies, etc. The existing north entrance to Kalispell is
relatively rural from Whitefish south down Highway 93 to West
Reserve Drive as required by zoning of this area. From here,
Highway 93 continues south through this rural character with the
Community College on one side and the agricultural state section
and proposed ballfields on the other side. The existing Nupac
gravel pit is not perfect, but not a major distraction. Highway
93 continues through residential areas, the medical center on
Buffalo Hills, through small businesses down to the city core at
the Highway 2 intersection. A much different feeling than the
other three entrances to the city. Is there any kind of value to
continue this type of approach to town? Is this the experience we
want for visitors to our area, much less for ourselves? Do we want
or need all four approaches to Kalispell to have regional shopping
opportunities along the highways? Should we really stop and wait
for the next year as the City Master Plan is updated and look at
z
the entire city and see what has changed since 1986, and
conscious)v look at the big picture to see what we want to do
where, or do it in a piecemeal approach as the proponent is asking
you to approve now?
We are also concerned about the credibility of. the City Council in
dealing with this issue. One aspect. is City Council member, Pam
Kennedy's assertion that legally she has nothing to gain from the
outcome from voting on this proposal, so she has thought long and
hard and believes she can be unbiased in its consideration, even
though her employer of 14 years is the proponent, bark and Company.
At the City -County Planning Board (of which she is a member too)
Meeting on February 11, she was very obviously biased and not
objective to us as observers, and this was pointed out by two of
the Board members at the end of that meeting and in the newspaper.
At the April 7 City Council Meeting, these same concerns were
brought up by your own members. Some of you said that legally that
Ms. Kennedy might be able say she was impartial, but morally she
should take herself out of the discussion and out of the vote.
However, as a council, you felt that you could not force her to not
take part on this issue unless she chose herself not to be part of
it. She has the perceived conflict of interest by many, and the
obvious conflict of interest to those who attended• the 2/11
meeting. She had less apparent conflict of interest at the 4/7 and
4/14 City Council meetings. Obviously she has chosen to not be as
vocal in support of this proposal so she can retain her right to
vote on this proposal. If she does not remove herself from the
discussion and debate on the April 21 vote on this issue, we would
urge the council_ to take a vote on whether you think she is
impartial and doesn't have a conflict of interest, or has the
appearance of being impartial and having a conflict of interest,
and make your vote binding relative to her participation on this
issue. If this obvious conflict of interest is recognized with no
action taken by the City Council to prevent it, what does this say
about the rest of the council and less obvious past, present and
future conflict of interests? Are you a credible, reliable
governing, body?
The bottom line. The Country Estates Homeowners Board unanimously
opposes this proposed master plan amendment and zoning change.
After soliciting comments from our 107 homeowners, only two
homeowners disagreed with the Country Estates Homeowners Board's
position. We have not done all of the politicking that Mr. Lynch
has done. Many of his supporters are area property owners who
likely will come before you soon if you pass this zoning change,
to rezone their land to commercial land too. Many of his
supporters are such because of the good things that Mr. Lynch has
done for the community. We too respect the community involvement
that he has had. But we do not think friendships and being an
upstanding member of the community_ should be the basis to do spot
zoning that will affect the whole north entrance to Kalispell.
We would ask that you deny this spot zoning proposal based on the
planning staff's finding of facts. Let Mr. Lynch, the 107
3
homeowners in Country Estates, and the entire City of Kalispell
planning area have a say in what has changed, where and what kind
of growth we want in our city so we don't end up with random
development. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact CEHA Board Member Dale Luhman at 756-6544 or me at 756-
1050.
�Ic
rel ,
ry Ivie
President, Country Estates Homeowners Association Board
P.O. Box 753
Kalispell, MT 59903
CC: Mayor Doug Rauthe
City Council Members
.aim Atkinson
Cliff Collins
Norbert Donahue
Lauren Granmo
Dale Haarr
Pam Kennedy
Duane Larson
Gary Nystul
County Commissioners
Howard. Gipe
Bob Watne
Dal - w; 1 'iams
Citizen's For a Better Flathead
Country View Estates Homeowner's Association_ Board
The Daily Inter Lake, Rick Hull
Flathead Regional Development Office, Narda Wilson
TA
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
May 28, 1996
Jeanne Fairbanks, West Side Supervisor
Special Uses Management Bureau
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
2705 Spurgin Road
Missoula, MT 59801
Re: State Lands School Section Property
Dear Jeanne:
Phone: (406) 758-5980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
This letter is a follow-up to our recent conversation regarding potential future uses for the State
Lands school section property north of Kalispell. With the proposed ballfield lease currently
under negotiation, the future use of the remaining acreage surfaces as an issue which warrants
discussion.
In your letter dated May 2, 1996 to Larry Gallagher, you suggested that a more attractive lease
could be offered to the City for the ballfield complex acreage in exchange for rezoning 160 acres
in the northeast comer of the property along Highway 93 to a commercial designation. You
appear to infer that the City has the ability to grant such a change. This is not the case. Any
zone change proposal would be reviewed under evaluation criteria which has been established
by State statute. Any rezoning must be done in substantial compliance with the local master
plan.
You should be aware that the Kalispell City -County Master Plan area includes this property and
designates it as Agricultural. This Plan has been jointly adopted by the Kalispell City Council
and the Flathead County Board of Commissioners. The State Lands school section property lies
outside of the city limits, but is within the City's planning jurisdiction. Any proposed changes
would first go to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board for a public hearing with a staff
recommendation. Then, the Planning Board's recommendation would be forwarded to both the
City Council and the County Commissioners for final consideration and action.
In gaining a policy perspective, our office would refer to the Master Plan for land use decision
guidance. This property is designated as Agricultural on the Master Plan Map except for the
southeast comer, where the ballfield complex is proposed, which is designated as "Public." The
entire section of property is zoned AG-80, an Agricultural designation with an 80 acre minimum
lot size requirement.
A change to a commercial designation would be in direct conflict with several goals contained
in the Master Plan as well as the Master Plan Map. Chapter 1 of the Master Plan, "Goals and
Objectives" identified under Subsection 6 of the Master Plan, "Land Use," (b) includes "Set
standards for the designation or expansion of commercial areas based on a compact development
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• Flathead County - City of Columbia Falls - City of Kalispell - City of Whitefish •
I
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
May 28, 1996
Page 2
pattern designed to meet the needs of the intended service area and not the desires of speculation
or strip developers."
Chapter 5 of the Master Plan, the "Land Use Element," contains a subsection which addresses
future commercial development. It is projected that commercial land use needs between 1986
and 2010 are approximately 400 additional acres of commercial property. Much of this need
for commercial property has been filled since this estimate was done in 1986. The 160 acres
which are proposed to be designated as commercial would be in excess of one third of all
required commercial land in the Kalispell area for 25 years. This subsection further states that,
"Excluding several planned or new neighborhood commercial sites, all commercial activity
should be directed toward existing commercial areas either as expansion or as infill. "
The 160 acres proposed for rezoning could not be described as a "neighborhood commercial
site" nor is it located in an existing commercial area which could be considered "infill" or
"expansion." An overall development plan may provide an avenue to consider mix uses on this
property which may include non-agricultural uses.
There is an additional subsection of Chapter 5, which specifically deals with "Highway
Commercial" development. This section states that "Highway commercial districts within the r'
Planning Jurisdiction area are perceived to occur as compact expansion and infill of existing strip
commercial developments occurring on Highway 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 existing City -County Master Plan policies concerning commercial expansion historically
have been strongly supported by the governing body. Two recent examples in the immediate
vicinity of the State Lands school section property illustrate this commitment. Approximately
five years ago zoning was extended between Kalispell and Whitefish with the creation of the
Highway 93 North Zoning District specifically to stop further strip commercial development.
The driving force behind this grassroots zoning effort was the desire to stem the tide of strip
commercial development along Highway 93.
This commitment was reaffirmed approximately three years ago when several property owners
along Highway 93 requested rezoning on approximately one half mile of property along Highway
93 north of the Stillwater River. This request was resoundingly denied by the County
Commissioners.
In addition to conflicts with the Master Plan, other problems exist. Practical consideration must
be given to the current lack of infrastructure including community water and sewer facilities as
K well as an adequate roadway system to serve an intensive commercial development. Even more
importantly, a 160 acre glut of commercial property outside of the commercial core area of
i
Kalispell would be detrimental to the overall economic well-being of the community. Businesses
and members of the Kalispell community currently work through the Chamber of Commerce and
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation .
May 28, 1996
Page 3
other groups which are actively involved in finding ways to stimulate economic development in
the central business district and in keeping existing downtown businesses vital. Designating
large tracts of property for commercial development which are not part of or near core x
commercial areas result in a fragmentation of the business district, a surfeit of commercial space
and a downtown that gasps for life.
In addition to the current City -County Master Plan, you should be aware that the West Valley
area is currently involved in putting together a neighborhood plan which includes the school
section property. Because it is within the West Valley School District this has been used to
define the neighborhood boundaries. Traditionally, the West Valley area has been primarily
agricultural and it appears that this trend will continue. I am enclosing a map of the West
Valley Neighborhood Plan Area. The West Valley community has been meeting approximately
once a month usually at the West Valley School. Regular notifications have been sent to all
property owners within the Plan area, and State Lands has been notified that this process is
currently underway.
A._ David Greer, Montana Planning Consultants, has been hired under a contract with the Board of
County Commissioners to complete two neighborhood plans in Flathead County. One plan is
for the West Valley. You may contact Mr. Greer for further information on how you may
become more actively involved in this planning process if you wish to do so. His phone number
is (406)756-1236.
From a land use planning perspective, the school section property is well -suited to be maintained
in agriculture. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service
September 1980 Map of Important Farmlands in the Upper Flathead Valley, most of the soils
in this section are classified as "prime farmland." Other soils, primarily in the southeast comer
of the property, are classified as "farmland of local importance. " The continued use of this
property for agricultural purposes would further several goals in the Master Plan. A primary
goal includes the preservation and continuation of agricultural practices in the Valley. These
familands also provide a buffer between the urban fringes of Kalispell and more rural areas of
the county.
Other potentially appropriate uses for this property besides agriculture might be oriented toward
a public facilities and open space plan. As your department is likely aware, members of the
community, the City of Kalispell and the Board of County Commissioners have sought to
relocate the existing County Fairgrounds currently on the northeast corner of Idaho and Meridian
to another site which would offer room for expansion while leaving the former site available for
commercial development.
Should you wish to convert all or a portion of the State Lands school section property to a use
other than agriculture, it would be most beneficial to present a proposal in the context of a
detailed overall development plan. This development plan should attempt to integrate the goals
of the Kalispell City -County Master Plan and community land use goals.
I
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
May 28, 1996
Page 4
We would be willing to assist you in identifying a plan our office could support though the
review process, and which meets the goals and expectations State Lands has for this property.
It appears that any proposal involving a change in the land use designation of such a large
amount of land would have to be reviewed in the context of an overall development plan or a
"planned unit development" which would show the intended land uses, proposed roadways,
parking and other infrastructure.
In closing, it must be clearly stated that it would not be realistic to expect or anticipate that the
property which you have identified on your Exhibit A could simply be rezoned to a commercial
designation. This type of a decision by the governing bodies could have lasting detrimental
effects not only for the Kalispell area, but to economic health of the surrounding communities
as well. Any proposal of this magnitude would require careful consideration by the Kalispell
City -County Planning Board, the Kalispell City Council, the Board of County Commissioners
and the public.
Please allow me to assist you in anyway possible to bring about a solution to these land use
questions which can satisfy all of the concerned parties. My phone number is (406)758-5980.
Sincerely,
Narda Wilson
Planner II
NW/dh
Enc: West Valley Base Map
c: Larry Gallagher
Mayor Rauthe
Clive Rooney
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AND CONSERVATION
2705 Spurgin Road, Missoula, MT 59801
(406) 542-4300
MARC RACICOT
GOVERNOR
STATE OF MONTANA
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE (406) 444-2074
TELEFAX (406) 444-2694
May 2, 1996
Lawrence Gallagher, Director
Planning, Economic & Economic Community Development
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903-1997
Dear Larry:
,,,AY 3
581.94
Enclosed is a copy of the letter from Clive Rooney to Mayor Rauthe. This Ietter again outlines the process
and tasks to be accomplished by the state and city for the proposed lease.
I would like to coordinate a time to schedule a public meeting for the proposed project. Please let me know
which of the following dates meet with your schedule: June 3, 4 or 5, 1996.
At this time I would like to address lease rates and fees. Market value for residential uses, when
competitively bid for state leases, generate a I0% rate of return to the trust. Commercial leases typically
exceed 10%. The city has requested the Department consider alternatives to offering the 160 acres of state
property for bid that would generate a fair market return to the trust. To justify offering the 160 acres of
state property for bid, by limiting the scope of the request for proposals for a baseball complex at a 5% rate
of return, the Department will consider this proposal in exchange for zoning changes on the north portion of
the state section as shown on Exhibit A. Additionally, the State will consider further reducing the rate of
return proportionately to the added value the zoning changes will increase the market value of the property.
The appraisal assignment would include this analysis. The results of the analysis in the appraisal will be
used to determine values gained in consideration of alternative lease rates.
Timing of the zoning changes and the completion of the appraisal are critical to processing the lease
proposal. I would be available May 6 or May 10 to meet with you to discuss the process and timetable.
Please let me know if these dates agree with your schedule. I can be reached in Missoula at
(406) 542-4346.
I look forward to working with you on this project.
Sincerely,
JELw FAIRBANKS
West Side Supervisor
Special uses Management Bureau
Trust Land Management Division
JF:kmk
Enclosure
cc:. Mayor Rauthe
Clive Rooney
Jeff Hagener
Bill O'Brien
Bill Wright
I
m
70RESTRY
TEL: 1-406-542-4207
J6
May 9.96 8:03 No.002 P.02
T. J9AI Am
-
m
F�
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AND CONSERVATION
MARC RACICOT GOVERNOR 1625 ELEVENTH AVENUE
STATE OF MONTANA
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE (406) 444-2074 PO BOX 201601
TELEFAX NUMBER (406) 444-2684 HELENA, MONTANA 59620-1601
April 29, 1996
Douglas Rauthe, Mayor
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, Mt. 59903
Dear Mayor Rauthe:
Thank you for the opportunity to address the City Council
March 26th, regarding the nronosal of a ballfield complex on the
state section located north of Kalispell. The following day,
Larry and Ross presented the City's proposal in more detail to
myself and Jeanne Fairbanks.
To reiterate some of the points made in my previous letter, I
have identified the necessary steps to process your lease
application.
Initial Steps
Steps accomplished by the State
- To meet your time frames the State must contract an appraisal.
As the proponent of this project we request.you compensate the
state for the cost of the appraisal. Please submit a list of
three qualified appraisers acceptable to the city. From this
list the department will select an appraiser.
- Advertise for and hold a public meeting for the proposal. The
purpose of this meeting is to scope for issues and public.'
involvement in the proposed action.
- State initiate environmental assessment.
- Solicit comments from County Commissioners
Steps to be accomplished by the City
- City initiate settlement with state lessee Clinton Grossweiler
- City survey state property to be leased
- City submit engineering plans to the state
- Application and application fee ( application enclosed)
Intermediate and Final Steps
- Negotiate lease terms, set minimum bid at 5% of appraised
valued or negotiate permissive commercial zoning on portions
of the remainder of the state section for a reduced lease rate
accordingly.
- Submit agreement and verification of lessee settlement.
- Develop a lease proposal for competitive bid.
- Finalize environmental assessment.
- Competitively bid lease in August.
- Issue lease in September.
I have appointed Jeanne Fairbanks, Missoula Section Supervisor
as DNRC's project leader. Jeanne can be reached at 406-542-4346.
Jeanne will be in contact with Larry Gallagher to begin the pro-
cess described above. If I can provide any further information,
please feel free to contact me at 444-3844.
Sincerely,
Clive Roone , Chief
Special Use Bureau
c: Larry Gallagher
Jeff Hagener
Bill O'Brien
Bill Wright