03-14-16 Council Work Session Agenda with materialsA I I
Monday, March 14,2016, at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers, 201 First Avenue East
0 M EMIJ 40-A 0101 119
1
1. Courthouse Coup-
2. Discussion whether City Council support joining with the City of Whitefish in
requesting the Montana League of Cities and Towns, file an Amicus brief concerning a
law suit barring Flathead County from instituting the B-2HG zoning classification
C. PUBLIC COMMENT
Persons wishing to address the council are as: to do so at this time. Those addressing
the council are requested to give their name and address for the record. Please limit
comments to three minutes.
I ��KAI 01110 130041 mob I
LIJ 01111,11il''111''! 01111i!!Ii I, i ii III 119111i� i Ir i�111� I �I � 11111M
Next Growth Policy Council Sub -Committee Meeting — March 15, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. — First Floor
Conference Room
Next Regular Meeting — March 21, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. — Council Chambers
Next Work Session — March 28, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. — Council Chambers
Next Ward IV Town Hall Meeting ® March 30, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. — Council Chambers
Next Ward III Town Hall Meeting — April 6, 2016, at 700 p.m. — Council Chambers
Reasonable accommodations will be made to enable individuals with disabilities to attend this meeting.
Please notify the City Clerk at 758-7756.
Page 1 of 1
City of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1,99�7 - Kallspell, Montana 59i9O3
Telephone: (406) 758-7701 Fax- (406) 758-7758
10 1110 to] ltlfftl -12 1 -bill 011
To .- Mayor Johnson and City Council
From: Doug Russell, City Manager
Re: County Courthouse Traffic Design
Meeting Date: March 1, 41 2016
BACKGROUND: In 2014, the Department of Transportation began reviewing the traffic and
design on, Hig hway 9,3 at the County Courthouse. The City Council held a workshop in August
of 2014 to provide general comment on the potential impact that changes along this stretch
would have on downtown traffic.
Since that time, the Montana Department of Transportation "s contract engineer, RPA, has been
working on traffic counts and traffic modeling for Kalispell. Specifically, they have looked at
potential traffic numbers that would be expected downtown with the buildout of the bypass and
several diff�rent options related to traffic around the courthouse couplet.
At the meeting on Monday night, RPA will present the results of the modeling to the Council in
order to begin the dialogue of long term planning for traffic needs in the downtown area.
Attached to this memo is a pdf of the presentation that RPA is planning to present.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review and discuss the
Kalispell traffic design projections on Highway 93.
,� �, . ///� � %, / , , / � ill � ;,,
US High, way 93, a Somers to Wliliterisll)FVest
FINAL
Envirown,ental Impact Statement
and FINAL
Section 4(f)'Staternerd
U's Depailnwnt ofTmaspariallon
Federal llighmay Adivinistratit"M
Planning Department
201, I't Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940
Fax: (406) 758-7739
www.kalispell.gom/plannin
0
REPORT TO. Doug Russell, Cit-XJ11=
0
FROM* Tom Jeintz, Director
SUBJECT: Council support for joining with the City of Whitefish in requesting the Montana
League of Cities and Towns file an Amicus brief concerning a law suit barring
Flathead County from instituting the B-2HG, zoning classification
BACKGROUND: The Flathead County Commissioners adopted the B-2HG zone in 2011, which allowed
for multiple commercial, uses (retail, hotel, offices, etc., as permitted uses; and bars, casinos, etc., by
conditional use). The zone had several "performance standards", such as increased setbacks offthe highway.
However, it also allowed uses such as parking and roads to consume one-half of the setback, thus negating the
mitigating standards.
The creation of the zoning classification was in response to property owners between Whitefish and Kalispell,
that had requested Highway Commercial Zoning immediately adjacent to the City of Kalispell along US
Highway 93. In 2012, the County approved the rezoning of these properties to B-2HG. However, the zone
went on to state that the application of such a zoning classification was, on its face, found to be in compliance
with the Flathead County Growth Policy. This would then allow it to be placed, adjacent to any state or
federal highway in any zoned area of Flathead County, regardless of what the Flathead County Growth Policy
may indicate.
In 2013, Citizens for a Better Flathead brought suit against Flathead County to stop the implementation of this
zoning classification, pointing out that this new zoning was in effect legitimatizing a strip commercial zoning
pattern, along every county zoned state or federal highway. It further pointed out that this zoning action was
in direct conflict with MCA 76-2-203 which requires: a) county zoning to take into consideration compatible
urban growth in the vicinity of cities and towns, that at a minimum must include the areas around
municipalities, and b) county zoning regulations must, as nearly as possible, be made compatible with the
zoning ordinances of nearby municipalities.
Citizens for a Better Flathead was successful at the district court level. The county has appealed this caseto
the State Supreme Court. The purpose of the council work session is to, gauge support as to whether the City
of Kalispell should join with the City of Whitefish in requesting that the Montana League of Cities and Towns
submit an Amicus brief to the Montana Supreme Court concerning Flathead County'creation of the new
County B-2HG Zoning (Highway Business Zone) classification.
ATTACHMENT: Letter from City of Whitefish dated February 10, 2016
c: Aimee Brunckhorst., Kalispell, City Clerk
V.0. Box 1,58 Whitefish, M'I" 59937 (406�) 863:--2444 liame (406) A 419
ii 1 1 a [Pint M—I -
Tim Burton
Executive Director
Montana League of Cities and'Twns
700 West Custer Avenue
Helena, MT 59602
tiiii.bL,irton(d'�int'lea,�,lue.,net,
RE: Cit * ens 1Z for a Better Flathead v. Board of County Commissioners
Montana Supreme Court DA 15-0582
I
On behalf of the City of Whitefish, I'd like to request and urge the Montana League of
Cities and Towns to file an arnicus brief in the above -referenced case. As, you are likely aware,
the case involves a, lawsuit by Citizens for a Better Flathead against Flathead County alleging,
inter alia, that the County failed to comply with §§ 76-1-605 and 76-2-203, MCA, in adopting
new zoning. The City of Whitefish has filed a similar lawsuit against Flathead County and believes
that compliance with §§ 76-1-605 and 76-2-203, MCA, is a matter of statewide importance to
c *ties towns. i
I
I understand that counsel for Citizens for a Better Flathead has, already contacted you, or
will contact you, with a similar request. Thank you for your consideration and if you have any
questions please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
ov
An ela oacobs
City Attorney
cc,* Roger Sullivan