07/06/98 City Council Minutes1274
1274
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE KALISPELL CITY COUNCIL WAS HELD AT 7:00
P.M. MONDAY, JULY 6, 1998, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL IN
KALISPELL, MONTANA. MAYOR WILLIAM E. BOHARSKI PRESIDED. COUNCIL
MEMBERS JIM ATKINSON, NORBERT DONAHUE, JOHN GRAVES, DALE HAARR,
DUANE LARSON, GARY NYSTUL, DOUG SCARF°F°, RON VAN NATTA AND ASSISTANT
CITY ATTORNEY RICHARD NICKEL WERE PRESENT.
Mayor Boharski called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
AGENDA APPROVAL
Nystul moved approval of the Agenda as presented, except upon the
advice of legal counsel, to move Item #3 to follow Item #12. The
motion was seconded by Haarr.
There was no discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon vote.
CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL
A. Council Minutes -Regular Meeting June 15, 1998
B. Approval of Claims per Payables Register-$582,056.81
Haarr moved approval of the Consent Agenda as presented with a
correction to the June 15 minutes on page 9, eight percent should
be eighty percent. The motion was seconded by Scarff.
There was discussion.
Boharski questioned a claim for legal fees on the Kalispell Center
Mall in the amount of $7,599.95.
Hickel answered those fees were incurred during negotiations with
Goodale & Barbieri concerning the purchase of the Equity Supply
property and the subsequent Development Agreement. He said in this
case, City Staff agreed that outside legal counsel should be
utilized.
Boharski asked Parks Director Mike Baker to explain a claim for the
Youth Athletic Complex involving $660.00 for regrading the soccer
fields.
Baker explained all the dirt has been moved in the area and the
rough grading is part of the project.
Boharski said it was his understanding the City agreed to pay money
toward the baseball fields only, and now money is being spent on the
soccer fields.
Baker said he had money in the budget and he felt the rough grading
was needed since people are waiting to start work on the soccer
fields.
Larson asked whether a bill has ever been received from Mae Nan
Ellingson concerning her consultation with valleyDome LLC.
Finance Director Amy Robertson said she thought that was going to
be paid by the engineers.
Scarff inquired as to tree work at the Central School in the amount
of $2,500.00 and whether that is included in the project cost.
Robertson answered the funds came out of the tax increment fund and
were listed as contract services.
Donahue questioned two separate claims from the Parks Department;
one for a Senior trip to Libby and one for backpacking supplies.
He said he doesn't think it's the City's responsibility to provide
trips outside the City.
1275
1
J
1275
Baker said the Parks Department has found that other entities are
not providing this service and he feels the City has a duty to the
Seniors as well as the younger people. He said a majority of the
Senior Programs are sponsored by different companies in the
community and do not cost the City anything.
Donahue said the cost is not the problem. He said he is not
speaking against Seniors, but is opposed to traveling outside the
City. Donahue said he feels other organizations should be taking
over these trips.
Atkinson commented that the Agency on Aging supports this program
and by utilizing an existing system already in place, the City is
getting the most for its money.
Boharski pointed out the Parks Department returns seventy one cents
on the dollar and is working toward seventy five cents by the end
of the fiscal year.
The motion carried unanimously upon vote.
HEAR THE PUBLIC
Randy Beaver, Columbine Glassworks, asked the Council to commit
$25,000.00 annually toward the Kalispell Business Improvement
District.
Dave Thornquist, 141 Riverview Drive, stated he represents the
Regency Corporation, a past bidder on the Haven Field property, and
he is upset with Dick Dasen wanting to subdivide the property.
Thornquist said as far as Daley Field, everyone understood that the
remaining two lots were to be sold to help with the airport and
ballfields, but now the Council is electing to lease the property.
Boharski explained the Developers Agreement between Dasen and the
City of Kalispell does not prohibit subdividing that property. He
said concerning the remaining two lots on Daley Field, the Council
has not yet reached an agreement on whether to sell or lease.
Atkinson said his understanding is that the Developers Agreement was
for Dasen to develop the property, not subdivide it. He said if the
Agreement was changed, than it was changed without consent of the
former Council. Atkinson added as for Daley Field, his recollection
is that a vote was made to lease the property.
Haarr responded the motion was that the Council wouldn't lease or
sell Daley Field pending the Master Plan for the airport.
Larson said he agrees with Atkinson that the intent of motion was
to lease the land.
Nystul stated a point of order that Council members shouldn't be
discussing this during Hear the Public.
Council concurred.
RESOLUTION 4412 - AUTHORITY TO ISELL 3 LOTS IN TETON TERRACE
Hickel explained that on June 17, 1996, the City Council declared
an intent to sell 26 lots located in Teton Terrace for the benefit
of first time home buyers. He said H & H Enterprises recently
submitted the most appropriate proposal for Lots 24, 25, and 26,
and in order to properly transfer the property, the law requires
that the Council pass a resolution authorizing the sale.
Van Natta moved Resolution 4412, a resolution authorizing the Mayor,
Finance Director and Clerk of Council to execute the documents
necessary to transfer Lots 24, 25 and 26, Teton Terrace, a
subdivision of Porta Villa #2, Records of Flathead County, located
in the NEIA, of Section 12, T28N, R22W, P.M.M., Flathead County,
Montana to H & H Enterprises. The motion was seconded by Graves.
There was discussion.
1276
1276
Atkinson commented that normally the City Manager is authorized to
execute the documents as opposed to the Mayor, Finance Director and
Clerk of Council.
Donahue moved an amendment to the motion by substituting the Acting
City Manager for the Mayor in the execution process. The motion was
seconded by Nystul.
The amendment carried unanimously upon vote.
The main motion carried upon roll call vote with Atkinson, Donahue,
Graves, Haarr, Larson, Nystul, Scarff, Van Natta and Boharski voting
in favor.
RESOLUTION 4413 - AUTHORIZATION TO SELL 2 LOTS IN WOODLAND COURT
Hickel explained that woodland Court involves the City -sponsored
building of single family residences under the same program as Teton
Terrace. He said in the latest round of proposals, Pacific Homes
and hand Inc. submitted the most appropriate proposal with
Resolution No. 4413 authorizing the sale of Lots 4 & 5.
Atkinson moved Resolution 4413, a resolution authorizing the Acting
City Manager, Finance Director and Clerk of Council to execute the
documents necessary to transfer Lots 4 and 5, plat of Woodland
Court, located in the SE1/4 of SE'/4, Section 17, T28N, R21W, P.M.M. ,
Flathead County, Montana to Pacific Homes and Land, Inc. The motion
was seconded by Graves.
There was discussion.
Boharski questioned the selling prices of eight and fourteen
thousand dollars, stating he feels the numbers are low.
Finance Director Amy Robertson answered the price varies depending
on the people that qualify. She said if you are at poverty level
the price is less.
The motion carried upon roll call vote with Donahue, Graves, Haarr,
Larson, Nystul, Scarff, Van Natta and Boharski voting in favor.
ORDINANCE 1289 - ORDINANCE 1166 AMENDMENT - 1st READING
Hickel said Ordinance No. 1166 provides that the Manager represents
the City in administration of local government service agreements
and intergovernmental administrative agencies. He explained the
ordinance specifically mentions the County Administrative Board,
City -County Health Board and City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission. Hickel said it has been suggested that the City Manager
should not be designated by Ordinance as the City's representative
and Ordinance 1289 would give the Mayor authority to designate
representatives.
Donahue moved Ordinance 1289, an ordinance amending Chapter 2,
Administration, Kalispell Municipal Code by amending Ordinance 1166,
§§ 2-3, 2-28, 2-53 and 2-54, authorizing the City Attorney to
recodify said sections in accordance with this ordinance and
declaring an effective date. The motion was seconded by Nystul.
There was discussion.
Van Natta said he feels this is an erosion of the City Manager form
of government. He said he feels the bulk of the work the Boards
handle is administrative in character and it is better to have a
representative for the Council on those Boards than a Council
member.
Atkinson agreed, stating he also feels it's a further degradation of
the Manager form of government.
Donahue stated that having proposed the ordinance, he fully agrees
with it. He said the problems voiced by Atkinson and Van Natta are
not valid because the Boards are dealing with policy matters that
should be in the hands of elected officials. Donahue added if the
1
Fj
1
1277
1277
Council decides somebody else should be a representative on the
Boards, this ordinance allows that.
Larson disagreed, saying this ordinance is just another step in the
wrong direction. He said he feels the Mayor just wants more power
and he doesn't see any reason to pass this ordinance. In addition,
Larson said he doesn't understand why a substitute should be
appointed for a Board meeting if the member can't attend. He said
it would take too long to bring the person "up to speed" on what the
Board's been doing.
Boharski answered the ordinance provides that the Mayor "may"
appoint a substitute, not "shall."
Larson said in that case, it shouldn't even be in the ordinance.
Atkinson moved to table the ordinance until City Attorney Glen Neier
can answer some of the Council's questions. The motion was seconded
by Larson.
The motion carried upon roll call vote with Atkinson, Graves,
Larson, Nystul, Van Natta and Boharski voting in favor, and Donahue,
Haarr and Scarff voting against.
AUTHORITY TO BTD - SAMARITAN HOUSE PHASES TTI & TV
Hickel explained Phases III and IV of Samaritan House involve
exterior renovation of the existing structure and the four plexes
across the street. He said a motion authorizing the call for bids
needs to be made by the Council.
Van Natta moved the City proceed with the advertisement for bids for
Samaritan House, Phases III & IV. The motion was seconded by
Atkinson.
There was no discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon vote.
EDGERTON TRAIT. PROTECT - PROPERTY DONATION REQUEST
Hickel told Council members that Steve Lorch from the Flathead
Regional Development Office is requesting the donation of a tract
of land adjacent to whitefish Stage for use as a bicycle/pedestrian
path. He said the property, which is approximately ten feet wide
at the northerly terminus and two hundred and fifty feet long, is
currently occupied by the Kalispell Golf Association pursuant to a
lease with the City. Neier stated the Golf Association has agreed
to assist with the project, however, the City, as owner, must donate
the property to Flathead County for the use proposed.
Graves moved approval of the donation of the land. The motion was
seconded by Nystul.
There was discussion.
Nystul stated because of the odd shape of the property, an adequate
description needs to be done before anything is signed.
Lorch said a location map detailing the property will be included
with the paperwork.
Boharski asked who is going to pay for the fence relocation.
Lorch answered the project is eighty-seven percent federally funded
with Edgerton School picking up the remaining thirteen percent. He
said the City will not be involved.
Donahue said he wanted to point out that by involving FRDO in
something that is strictly a County project, the administrative
costs are being assessed to the three Cities as well as the County.
Haarr asked what plans are made for the children from Hillcrest
Estates to cross Whitefish Stage. He said the original plan was for
1278
1278
the path to be on the east side of the road, but now it's been
changed to the west side.
Larch said the plan includes three or four designated crossings with
yellow flashing lights. He added the path was changed to the west
side because the cost of power pole relocation was prohibitive.
The motion carried unanimously upon vote.
SETTING PRELIMINARY BUDGET HEARING FOR J[JLY 20, 1998
Hickel explained Montana law requires municipalities to hold a
public hearing on the Preliminary Budget prior to adopting the Final
Budget.
Nystul moved the Preliminary Budget Public Hearing be set for July
20, 1998. The motion was seconded by Haarr.
There was no discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon vote.
FJUF=TER APPOINTMENTS - CLIF"F°ORD WILLIS AND JOHN STURZEN
Hickel said Clifford Willis has completed the probationary period
required to qualify for confirmation as a Captain with the Kalispell
Fire Department, and John Sturzen has completed the probationary
period for appointment as a Lieutenant.
Assistant Fire Chief Orland Leland explained that Willis has worked
for the Fire Department for twenty-three years, Sturzen for thirteen
years, and this is simply a promotion.
Donahue said he sees nothing in the Statutes that the Council has
to approve a promotion. He said the men were already appointed when
they started as firefighters and this is unnecessary.
Hickel agreed.
Larson stated the Council has always confirmed promotions. He
suggested confirming the two promotions and then giving the Fire
Chief and City Manager future control.
Donahue countered it isn't necessary and if there's concern for the
City Manager form of government, than this should be seen as an
invasion of that form of government.
Boharski said he also feels it's not the Council's place to confirm
promotions.
Donahue moved that congratulations be made to Clifford Willis and
John Sturzen on their new promotions of Captain and Lieutenant. The
motion was seconded by Van Natta.
There was no discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon vote.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPOINTMENT
Boharski explained that when the City solicited applications for an
opening on the Board of Adjustment, the only letter received was
from incumbent member Jean Johnson. He said he would like to
recommend the reappointment of Johnson to the Board.
Scarff moved to accept the Mayor's recommendation and reappoint Jean
Johnson to the Kalispell Board of Adjustment. The motion was
seconded by Haarr.
There was no discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon vote.
COUNCIL COMMENTS/INFORMATION.IQUESTIONS
Larson said after Larry Gallagher (Director of Planning, Economic
1279
1279
and Community Development) resigned, a newspaper article quoted
Boharski as stating the previous two City Managers and the majority
of the previous City Council had wanted to get rid of Gallagher
anyway. Larson said that just isn't true and asked Boharski where
he got this information.
Boharski answered that the former City Manager, Clarence Krepps,
told him he was approached by five members of the previous City
Council about terminating Gallagher's employment. He added that it
is also his understanding that the former Interim City Manager, Al
Thelen, suggested that Gallagher should look elsewhere for
employment.
Larson said he still thinks Gallagher did a "great deal of good" for
the City.
Atkinson thanked Larry Gallagher and Ross Plambeck for their years
of experience and dedication to the City. He said he has heard that
Boharski is planning on eliminating the PECDD and wants everyone to
understand exactly what that department means to Kalispell. Atkinson
said because of the Planning, Economic and Community Development
Department, over fifty-two million dollars have been invested in the
City without any additional taxes or assessments. He asked the
Citizens to support the PECDD and speak to the Council.
Boharski responded to Atkinson's accusation of wanting to eliminate
PECDD by stating the Mayor does not have the power to make any
decision unilaterally. In addition, Boharski said he has spoken
with Glen Neier concerning a replacement for Gallagher and was told
it would be better to leave that position open until a City Manager
is hired.
Nystul thanked Public works Director Jim Hansz and his staff for the
long hours everyone worked to get the City's water problem solved.
Boharski commented he has noticed grass growing on a couple of pods
in the new ballfield complex and asked Mike Baker to update the
Council on the progress.
Baker said the vegetation growing on the pods is volunteer and the
area will be re -seeded once the grading of the entire project is
complete. He said initial weed control measures have been initiated
in the barrow pit and along the run-off pond and the irrigation
system is being installed.
Boharski asked if there would be a possibility of under grounding
the utilities in that area while it's dug up.
Hansz said under grounding the utilities is a costly undertaking and
as far as he knows, it was never discussed.
Donahue asked Baker if anything has been done concerning barricades
at the City Airport. He said he heard that an elderly lady got
confused going west on 18th Street and started driving down the
runway.
Baker replied that the possibilities of placing barricades were
examined, but there are so many entrances the entire area needs to
be fenced.
Donahue said he doesn't know what the other Council members want,
but he wants some sort of barricade erected off 18th Street.
Atkinson inquired about the advertisement for a City Manager and the
salary range.
City Clerk white responded that ads were sent out last week with a
salary range of fifty to sixty-two thousand dollars.
Atkinson said he feels the salary range should be higher.
1280
1280
Nystul suggested the salary be discussed at the Work Session
Wednesday evening following Neier's return.
PUBLIC HEARING - MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
Due to the number of people expected at the public hearing, the
hearing has been re -scheduled for July 13th in the Stagecoach Room
of the Outlaw Inn.
Boharski opened the public hearing and asked for a motion to recess
until July 13, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. at the Outlaw Inn.
Atkinson moved the meeting be recessed until 7:00 p.m. on July 13,
1998 at the Outlaw Inn. The motion was seconded by Nystul.
There was no discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon vote.
Atkinson commented the hearing will not be televised and said if the
public is really interested, they should attend.
The meeting was recessed at 9:20 p.m.
THE MEETING OF THE KALISPELL CITY COUNCIL WAS RECONVENED AT 7:00
P.M. MONDAY, JULY 13, 1998, IN THE STAGECOACH ROOM AT THE OUTLAW INN
IN KALISPELL, MONTANA. MAYOR WILLIAM E. BOHARSKI PRESIDED. COUNCIL
MEMBERS JIM ATKINSON, JOHN GRAVES, DALE HAARR, DUANE LARSON, GARY
NYSTUL, DOUG SCARFF, RON TAN NATTA AND CITY ATTORNEY/ACTING CITY
MANAGER GLEN NEIER WERE PRESENT ALONG WITH FLATHEAD COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS HOWARD GIPS, ROBERT WATNE AND DALE WILLIAMS. NORBERT
DONAHUE WAS ABSENT.
Boharski reconvened the meeting and re -opened the public hearing by
asking the petitioners of the Master Plan Amendment to give their
presentation.
Bob Dagenais, representing Temcor of Carson, California, gave a
slide show of several aluminum domes across the country that his
company has designed.
Max Battle, Attorney for valleyDome LLC, in answer to several
questions by Citizens for a Better Flathead, stated that despite
suggestions of the Flathead Fairgrounds and Airport, developers feel
the NuPac property is the best location for the Dome. He said he
can assure everyone that no request for taxpayer dollars will be
made and because of that, no public vote is needed. Battle added
that tax increment funding would be considered if available, but
they don't need it. He said several concerns have been expressed
that the commercial development will adversely affect the downtown
business district, but his clients feel it will actually enhance the
City's ability to redevelop the downtown area. More importantly,
Battle said he doesn't think it's the government's job to decide who
gets to compete with who. As far as guaranteeing the Dome, he said
he can't do that, however, everyone involved has spent "one whale of
a lot of time, effort and money" to push forward with the project.
Battle said three lenders are interested in the Dome, but before
anything further can be done, his clients need authority to build
on the site. In conclusion, he feels the proposal is a less
intensive use of the land and a more "community -friendly" use.
Jim Lynch, President of NuPac, said he can offer three guarantees:
1) NuPac can continue to operate the property as an industrial site;
2) NuPac can sell it to another industrial company or; 3) you can
allow the City Council to change the Master Plan to allow something
other than industrial. He said he had an offer to sell the property
for a hazardous waste dump site, but the family felt the community
deserved something better. Lynch said the City has an opportunity
to allow Kalispell to grow and to create a tax base that will help
pay for water and sewer. He said the million and a half tax base
created from the development will "dump a heck of a lot of tax
revenue into this community" and he can't think of a better way to
1281
1281
improve the north of Kalispell and the economics of the area. Lynch
stressed this isn't about money and the developers trying to pull a
"sham" over the community, it's about changing the focus of the
Flathead Valley.
Narda Wilson, Flathead Regional Development Office, said the
proposal went before the Planning Board on June 9, 1998, and after
some lengthy discussion and a five to four vote, the Board
recommended that the City Council and the County Commissioners
approve the Master Plan Amendment. She said despite the Planning
Board's recommendation, she still has problems with a strictly
commercial designation and feels the amendment does not meet the
goals and policies of the Master Plan. Wilson said her office
recommends that if the amendment is approved, some reasonable
guidelines be made as part of that approval to give the public some
assurances as to what the project would actually look like.
Proponents
Bob Hafferman, 1337 3r° Street W. , said it's refreshing to hear an
entity come forward that intends to use its own money for a
development and the NuPac property seems like an ideal site. He
said he was concerned about the City paying for the water and sewer
lines, but Battle has convinced him the taxpayer will not have to
pick up those costs.
Scott Cloninger, 4010 US Highway 93 So., President of Cycle Riders
Inc., stated he is in favor of the ValleyDome for flat track races.
He said he is also a member of the weapon's Collectors Society of
Montana and the ValleyDome would be a great place for gun shows.
Dave Meredith, 280 Summit Ridge Drive, said he is a member of the
Board of Directors of the Flathead Business and Industry Association
which represents over thirty five businesses in the Valley.
Meredith said they are in support of any growth to Kalispell and
believe the City's Main Street should run from West Reserve to Four
Corners.
Gilbert Bissell, 76 Stafford Street, Owner of the Aero Inn, said
efforts have been made to build a civic center in the past, but this
is the best opportunity that's ever been presented.
Laurie Smith, West Glacier, stated the project will change the scope
of the Flathead Valley by giving it the opportunity to stop relying
on natural resources for the tourism trade.
Joseph Unterreiner, 633 lst Avenue E., said he represents the
Kalispell Chamber of Commerce and recited from a written statement
from President Kim Moss, that eighty-six percent of the membership
supports the facility. He said the Dome would enable the City to
attract a whole new category of conventions and trade shows and
would provide a significant addition to the tax base. (written
statement is attached and incorporated herein as if set forth in
full at this place)
Steve Staneart, 471 Cougar Trail, Whitefish, Center Director for
Salvation Army, stated a large part of his job is dealing with
disadvantaged youth in the community and the Dome will give him a
tool like no other tool in this area for youth activities.
Clarice Ryan, 253 Pine Needle Lane, Bigfork, said she originally had
some reservations about the project but one of the things that made
her reconsider is the convention center aspect of the project
because without it, there would have been no way to fill the Dome.
Craig Scott, Whitefish, member of Citizens for a Better Flathead,
said the key question is whether Flathead valley residents are
better served with the existing I-1 Industrial zone or the proposed
B-2 Commercial. He said Flathead Valley Community College, Ole's
and the Athletic Club have already set the tone for transition in
this zone away from agricultural and industrial uses and he supports
the plan amendment which will positively affect everyone.
1282
1282
Jason Martell, 250 Shawnee Drive, Bigfork, representing Martell
Construction, The Gallatin County Ice Garden and The Bozeman Ice
'Dogs Junior Hockey Franchise, said a privately funded, multi -use
facility and hockey franchise can be an overwhelming success. He
said in its first year, the Bozeman Ice Dogs drew more fans than
Bobcat football and basketball combined, and Kalispell, not having
the same competition, can be even more successful.
Bill Lincoln, 203 Lakeshore Drive, Lakeside, commented that the
movement from a more restrictive industrial to a less restrictive
commercial zone would be automatic in every community in the State
of Montana except for one. He said here we're fighting about it,
even though the decision should be an easy one.
Wayne Powell, 420 2nd Avenue E., Wayne Powell Architectonics, stated
the downtown area will not suffer from the Dome because downtown is
already suffering and needs a new renaissance.
Greg Stevens, 31 Lower Valley Road, Member of Kalispell City -County
Planning Board, said the FRDO staff recommended a PUD but his first
reaction was it would kill the project. He said he feels it's an
appropriate change to the Master Plan and as Kalispell grows, change
is inevitable.
Carol Bremer, Lakeside, remarked she wants the Dome for selfish
reasons because the next time Garth Brooks comes to Montana she'd
like to see him in Kalispell.
Russell Crowder, 2868 Lower Lost Prairie Road., Marion, representing
Montanans for Property Rights, said the rights of the property owner
hasn't been mentioned and it's the right of the owner to use their
property as he or she sees fit. He added the only exceptions to
that rule is if it would serve the public interest to deny that
right or it would create a public harm. Crowder said when you look
at this project neither of those conditions apply and his
organization very enthusiastically supports the amendment.
Les Harrington, 266 Buffalo Hills Drive, said he is in favor of the
Dome but asked the developers whether they were involved with any
domes which, were not in the end, or along the way, supported by the
taxpayers.
Boharski suggested the question be answered during the developers'
closing.
Russ Linnell, 1943 Bluestone, President of PROMO, a local sports
promotion company, said he helped pass out twenty five hundred
brochures and only ten of the people spoken to voiced opposition.
He added during a recent conversation with the owner of the Utah
Jazz, Larry Miller, he was told by Miller that the Jazz wants to be
the first team to play in the Dome.
Jerry Begg, 220 Woodland Avenue, remarked the timber and forest
products industry has been devastated over the past ten years,
mining is no longer around in the Valley and agriculture is
declining. He said about the only thing we have left is the tourism
industry and the ValleyDome can add more growth and more jobs.
Trent Massie, 437 2" Avenue E., said the Council and Commissioners
have the opportunity to give the young people a lot of great things
to do and it would be a shame if the amendment wasn't passed.
Bob Gertz, 2041 Mission Trail Road., commented that in 1983 he was
involved in the Junior Hockey Memorial Cup in Portland and from
experience he can say the Dome will be a real asset to the area.
Kevin Dunnigan, 250 Arbour Drive, said he wants to clarify that he
and approximately twenty others in Country Estates that he knows of
are in favor of the project, and he feels the Homeowners Association
is acting on its own behalf when opposing the project.
Dunnigan said the Valley needs economic development and this is the
opportunity.
1283
1283
Pam Kennedy, 1036 6th Avenue W., said the property is ideal for a
commercial development and the community should do all it can to
clean up the north entrance. She said the current Master Plan was
adopted in 1986 and since then, this area has seen an influx of
residential property, a church, a convenience store, a business
office, FVCC and the Athletic Complex. Kennedy said the precedent
has been set for this area and adopting the amendment would coincide
with the Master Plan's growth management guidelines. She said
whether the Dome is built or not, commercial development will be a
better use of this property and annexation to the City will
significantly increase the tax base.
Mike Larkin, 125 Hemlar Creek Drive, said he moved back to Montana
a year ago and unless the government allows for growth in Kalispell,
he is going to put a "for sale" sign on his house. He said without
the Dome, people will not come to the area and people that live here
will leave.
Ray Brown, 275 North Fork Road, a member of Whitefish Hockey
Association, said the facility will keep the interest in hockey
growing.
Mike Collins, Whitefish, President of Big Mountain, remarked
economic growth boils down to in -flows and out -flows of dollars.
He said as long as the in -flows are greater then the out -flows, you
have a healthy community. Collins said the Dome will help tap into
the tourism market in a number of ways.
Paul Weiner, Director of Marketing and Public Relations for
Cavanaugh's Hotels, stated Cavanaugh's Hotels believe the addition
of the Dome will bring conventions, trade shows and added tourism
which would benefit the whole valley.
Jim Pierce, 180 Kelly Road, encouraged support for the Dome so that
in five years the City doesn't look back and say it blew it.
Bill Campbell, Columbia Falls, a member of the Board of Directors
of the Flathead Equestrian Foundation and President of Montana
Reigning Horse Association, said Kalispell needs a big facility to
put on large horse shows. He said Billings is the only place in
Montana that can handle four hundred horses.
Fred Kluesner, 1418 Woodland Avenue, quoted Ronald Reagan who said
"progress is our most important product."
David Riddle, 2209 West Reserve Drive, said "ditto" to all the
previous statements and submitted a written letter in support of the
amendment from Rebekah King.
Opponents
Martha Savedale, 370 Spring Prairie Road, stated she is concerned
that the commercial zoning will mean that all entrances to Kalispell
will be developed. She said the three existing malls still have
vacancies.
Tom Tornow, 100 2"d Street E., Attorney for Citizens for a Better
Flathead, said the Board supports the concept of the Dome, however
based upon the information available at this time, the organization
is forced to oppose the request of the applicant without a Planned
Unit Development. He said a PUD enables a municipality to negotiate
with developers and recognizes the importance of encouraging and
making it financially worthwhile for developers and investors to
undertake PUD projects by permitting a more intensified utilization
of vacant land. Tornow said by implementing the PUD, the applicant
wouldn't lose any of the proposed uses, however, it would allow the
community to put a time frame on the project. He said if the
project is abandoned or isn't completed within that time frame, then
the zoning would revert back to the original classification. Tornow
said the PUD is basically a contract between the community and the
developer to ensure that both get what they bargained for. He said
after attending the hearing before the Planning Board, he could not
identify a single negative comment that could not be remedied by a
•
1284
PUD. Tornow added a PUD would alleviate the concerns of the
community that we could end up with sixty acres of commercial
property without a Dome.
Melissa Case, 506 3rd Street w., representing Hotel and Restaurant
Employees Local 427, said in the early stages of the project the
Union realized the developers were seeking to use Union Pension
Trust Fund money. She said conversations were pursued with the
developers about signing a Labor Peace Agreement or Neutrality
Agreement because it is becoming the union's standard practice to
better control where the members' money is invested, and to avoid an
investment in property where there could potentially be labor
disputes. Case said the Labor Peace Agreements are legally binding
and help to avoid costly disputes which are very destructive to a
community. She said several months ago conversations with the
developers ceased, and she has had no response since, despite
several attempts to resume communication. At this time, Case said
it's the Union's opinion that the proposal lacks fiscal viability and
leaves her in the position of telling members they should not invest
in the project.
Don Spivey, 2231 Cedar Lane, whitefish, (written statement is
attached and incorporated herein as if set forth in full at this
place)
Don Bauder, 538 5th Avenue E., said he is most concerned with the
financial viability of the project. Bauder related he was involved
in two campaigns to build arenas in Colorado Springs, the first was
to be publicly funded, but was defeated by a vote of the citizens.
He said the second arena, privately funded, was completed this year
and seats eighty-five hundred people for non -ice events and seventy-
five hundred people for hockey games. Bauder said the arena cost
approximately fifty million dollars and because of large
contributions from the City, companies and private citizens, it is
ninety-nine percent debt free. He said what makes that arena
financially viable is the low debt load and the size of the
surrounding population. Bauder said unless the principles commit
a huge sum of the profits from the sale and development of the
thirty-five acres to keep the debt load low, how can the ValleyDome
support itself and provide a return.
Bill Breen, 335 Mountain Meadow Road, said his primary objections
to the Master Plan Amendment are the extension of commercial zoning
for a limited number of landowners at the expense of surrounding
landowners, traffic congestion and the potential cost to taxpayers
for the extension of sewer and water with no assurance the Dome will
ever be built. He also encouraged official to attach a PUD to the
Amendment.
Colleen Semple, 1413 6th Avenue E., commented that she would like
some clarity to the project and supports a PUD. She said she
doesn't understand the opposition to a PUD because the developers
have indicated they would like the Dome ready for the 2000 Hockey
Season. Semple said last year the amendment wasn't passed and this
year it shouldn't be passed based on pictures of a Dome.
John de Neeve, willow Glen Drive, said Honolulu, where he moved
from, went through a fifteen year unplanned boom for tourism and he
sees the same pattern in Kalispell. He said he doesn't see a future
vision here for the next twenty years, and until we have a plan,
officials shouldn't be changing the land designation just because
one party wants it.
Richard Bedrin, 2135 Highway 2 W., agreed the gravel pit is ugly and
the property would be enhanced by a dome, but what he's concerned
with is where the gravel pit will be relocated. He said he'd like
to know the answer as to where the pit is going before approval is
granted.
Eugene Graf, 900 west Reserve, said he is worried about the traffic
that will be generated from the commercial development. He said in
addition, he's also worried about urban sprawl and the effect the
development will have on the beauty of the Valley.
1285
1285
Lex Blood, 844 3Id Avenue E., said it's important to understand that
the request being considered is the irrevocable dedication of sixty
acres adjacent to the only significantly undeveloped access to
Kalispell. . He added despite the name of the proposal, the
ValleyDome, the only thing we can be certain of is sixty acres of
unneeded commercial sprawl. Blood said everyone agrees the Valley
needs a large public facility, however, this is the least assured
piece of the proposal. He said we should move forward on a
carefully defined and open process to select a site which would best
utilize the existing infrastructure, determine the appropriate
design of the facility and the necessary funding and related
financial arrangements.
Jenny Dennison, 1571 Conrad Drive, said she grew up in Great Falls
and the Four Seasons Arena there has been plagued with problems.
She added she doesn't think the ValleyDome will secure the financial
future of the Valley.
Rita Kline, 372 Ponderosa Street, read a letter earlier submitted
to the Council and Commissioners. (letter is attached and is
incorporated herein as if set forth in full at this place)
Art Schwager, 150 Tronstadt Road, stated he's not against progress
but he doesn't want the Valley to grow in leaps and bounds. He said
he doesn't want to be like Missoula or Spokane and he feels we're
sacrificing value and quality of life for the "almighty buck."
Dale Luhman, 169 Trail Ridge Rd., Country Estates Homeowners
Association, said he's concerned that the Planning Board deleted
FRDO's recommendations without any basis of fact and because of
that, he contends the approval of the Planning Board is void. He
criticized Dale Williams for speaking in favor of the amendment at
the Planning Board hearing, stating that tainted the process. Luhman
said because of the lack of Findings of Fact, he feels it would be
illegal for the Council to vote on the issue at this time. Instead,
he suggested a Neighborhood Plan be developed to determine if this
area is the best location for this Dome.
Woody Nedom, 326 Whitecap Lane, Bigfork, said Kalispell is slowly
becoming indistinguishable from other places like Spokane in the
sense that it's sprawling. He asked if growth is so wonderful, why
isn't Kalispell twice as well off as it was when it was half the
size? Nedom said if the amendment is approved, a PUD should be put
in place.
Susan Schwager, 150 Tronstadt Road, Bigfork, said she's not
convinced the City limits need to be moved that far north of town
and if it is, there won't be any control on what fills in the area.
She added she's not convinced this is the best spot for the Dome and
asked if commercial is the best option for this gateway to our
visitors.
B.J. Carlson, 375 Grandview Drive, Citizens for a Better Flathead,
said a Planned Unit Development is absolutely necessary to give this
community some assurance the Dome will be built. She said this is
a monumental decision and additional information needs to be
gathered before making a change.
Herb Koenig, 430 Church Drive, agreed that a PUD is a "must" and
along with that, the increase in traffic needs to be adequately
addressed.
Marye Flowers, 2770 Upper Lost Creek Road, Whitefish, stressed that
the issue is not the Dome, but the Master Plan amendment, and
without some kind of assurance that the Dome will be built the
amendment should not be granted. She said the Council has made
commitments that depend on selling property at the south end of
Kalispell and she questioned whether commercial development at the
north end wouldn't deem those areas unsalable. In addition, Flowers
said she wonders whether proposals to revitalize Gateway West Mall
will be viable if a new commercial area is approved. She told
Council members they can't do it all and priorities have to be made.
1286
1286
Pauline Sjordal, 234 3rd Avenue W., said she is not speaking for or
against the amendment, but expressed concern that many of the
Council members made up their minds prior to this hearing. She said
she hopes that testimony presented is considered carefully and the
Council keeps an open mind. Sjordal said her main concern with the
Dome is its size and if the average citizen can afford a seat.
Richard Kirchhoffer, 306 Lupfer Avenue, Whitefish, said he was
impressed with the proponents but he's concerned about the planning.
process.
REBU TAL
Battle stated a Montana Supreme Court decision in Ashgrove Cement
vs. Jefferson County ruled it is illegal to attach conditions to a
Master Plan amendment change. He said you have to go through the
Master Plan process and then the zoning. Battle said he told the
Planning Board that over a month ago.
Larson remarked he doesn't think it's appropriate to have the
developer's attorney debate everything said by the opponents.
Boharski said he announced the procedure for the hearing would allow
the proponents to close on their proposal and no one opposed.
Battle said the project will benefit all the property in the Valley.
He said it adds a tax base that pays for schools, police and fire
and emphasized the developers are not asking taxpayers for any
money. Battle stated Lynch is not a principle in the ValleyDome, he
simply owns the land. He said he gets the impression that FRDO would
like to provide a development plan as to exactly what everything
will look like, but the developers investing the money should have
that decision. Battle commented as far as selecting the site, if the
public wants to build the project, then the public can select the
site, but if private money is going to build it, then private money
has to put it where they think it will succeed. He said change is
coming and the alternative is Virginia City and Nevada City, both
of which died.
QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL AND COMMISSIONERS
Williamson said Luhman indicated he was representing the Board of
the Homeowners Association for Country Estates and asked if he
polled the residents.
Luhman answered he is a member of the Board and was elected to
represent the homeowners. He added however, the residents were not
actually polled.
Williams then asked if Turnow or Carlson could answer whether
members of Citizens for a Better Flathead had been polled.
Turnow said the Board held a meeting to discuss the proposal and the
majority decision was to oppose the project.
Carlson answered the members were not polled.
Atkinson asked Battle if the thirty five acre commercial area, once
purchased from Lynch, will be sold to another developer.
Battle said there are several possibilities. He said if a primary
developer wants to develop the parcel and it can be sold at an
acceptable price, then the money can be put into the Dome project.
Battle added an institutional lender is interested in financing the
entire project, all sixty acres, and if that lender comes through,
then the ValleyDome group would go on and develop the entire site.
He said if that happens, but he won't guarantee it, then the Dome
and the commercial development will proceed simultaneously.
Atkinson asked if ValleyDome LLC will have any say on the look of
the commercial development if it is sold.
Battle answered they won't sell it otherwise. He said the Dome and
the commercial development will share access, drainage, sewer,
water, snow removal, etc. and for that to happen, ValleyDome LLC has
to have a say over what occurs.
1287
1287
Larson asked Battle why the developers are so opposed to a PUD.
Battle said in his experience, PUD's have killed more projects then
they've made possible. He said after seeing FRDO's report, he has
extreme doubts this project can proceed with a PUD.
Boharski commented that even though several people mentioned a study
hasn't been conducted, in fact a study was done in 1991 that
determined that approximately two hundred and ten events would be
anticipated per year and would be necessary to support a facility
of this size.
Scarff asked if the entire site was developed, how many Conditional
Use Permits would be required in contrast to the area being
developed piece meal.
Battle answered if the whole parcel is developed at once then all
the CUP'S can be addressed at one time, if separate parcels were
sold, then the Council would have a say everytime.
Nystul questioned Neier as to whether the Master Plan Amendment
could legally include a PUD.
Neier said the decision in Ashgrove Cement vs. Jefferson County
prohibits the placement of conditions upon the granting of a Master
Plan Amendment.
Nystul asked if the resolutions before the Council at this time
contain sufficient Findings of Fact to proceed.
Neier answered the resolutions were not prepared with established
Findings of Fact because you have to wait until the public hearing
to determine those.
Van Natta asked if the developers would have to come back before the
City if they stayed within the County's jurisdiction.
Neier answered no.
Battle responded the developers want to come into the City and
obtain City services. He said without the City, they don't know
what they would do with the sewage.
Williams commented he would place a dim view on this caliber of.
construction and usage without City services.
Gipe closed the public hearing on behalf of the County
Commissioners.
Boharski closed the public hearing on behalf of the City Council.
Haarr moved a recommendation to amend the City -County Master Plan
from Industrial to Commercial for the area in question and direct
the City Attorney to prepare the necessary documents for final
approval. The motion was seconded by Scarff.
There was discussion.
Larson asked the Council to separate the ValleyDome issue from the
Master Plan Amendment to allow commercial in that area. He said the
land will not remain an open pit forever, it will be reclaimed some
day, and there will be other uses for it. Larson said the decision
is irreversible, and he hopes the Council will concentrate on the
question of whether we want sixty acres of commercial in that area.
Haarr commented the issue is one of land use and he can't see why we
continue to accept Industrial, which is at the bottom of the totem
pole as to the use of land. He said in 1950 there were ten thousand
people living in Kalispell and in 1990 there were barely eleven
thousand, nine hundred which means in forty years the City grew by
only twenty nine hundred people. Haarr said years ago the Council
should have placed a four and a half mile line around the City and
1299
planned to annex that area by the year 2000. As it is, he said the
way Evergreen is going, it's going to be able to buy and sell
Kalispell. Haarr said Kalispell has to "come out or we're doomed."
He said if you don't want commercial in that area, then all you want
is higher taxes.
Atkinson asked why Kalispell doesn't annex Evergreen.
Haarr answered the City can't afford the improvements it would take,
the sidewalks, streets, etc.
Atkinson said he feels we're headed down the same road as LaSalle by
spot zoning and encouraging commercial development in this area.
He said possibly it's the objective of many people to create
commercial property from Reserve to Four Corners, but he added
that's not the objective of the people he's spoken with who want to
live here.
Boharski said people in Kalispell are almost "tapped out", which was
confirmed during the last election when voters denied a mill
increase to buy a fire engine. He said we can't continue to support
services without having an economic benefit, and this is the first
time he can remember that developers of a project of this magnitude
have asked to come into the City. He said several projects have been
postponed because the City just doesn't have the money. Boharski
stated this project would not only increase the tax base, but would
give additional activities for citizens to participate in. He
assured people if he is the deciding vote, there is no way strip
development will be created along Highway 93 North.
Van Natta said he has reservations about the change. He said he
likes the idea of a sports arena but he has doubts it can pay for
itself. Van Natta commented he's disappointed that conditions can
not be placed on the amendment because he feels the City is a lot
better planned than areas like Evergreen.
Larson said a lot of discussion has centered around the increase in
the tax base, but the suggestion was made that the tax base could
actually be reversed by allowing this additional commercial to be
built. He said it could have a detrimental effect on the malls
already in Kalispell. Larson remarked as far as the bond issue for
the fire engine, the reason it failed was because Boharski, and
other members of the Council, actively campaigned against it.
The motion carried upon roll call vote with Graves, Haarr, Nystul,
Scarff, Van Natta and Boharski voting in favor, and Atkinson and
Larson voting against.
Atkinson moved to adjourn.
The motion carried unanimously.
ADMITRN
The meeting was adjourned at 12:44 a.m.
Gitrt.� �t�hnr�ki
Wm. E. Boharski, Mayor
ATTEST:
T eresa White
Clerk of Council
(Letters submitted prior and up to the public hearing are attached
hereto and by this reference are made a part of the official record)
approved July 20, 1998
1289
Arena Position Statement
Area Chamber of Commerce
April 21, 1998
The Honorable Commissioners of Flathead County
Flathead County Courthouse
900 S. Main Street
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: Support For Arena Project and Zone Change
Southeast Corner of Reserve and U.S. 93
Dear Gentlemen:
On behalf of the 550 members of the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce, I would like to express our strong,
enthusiastic support for the proposed development of a multi -purpose arena facility and zone change for the
site at the southeast comer of Reserve and U.S. 93. .
In a May 1997 survey of our membership, 86% supported such a facility and identified "the construction of
an arena for large athletic events, concerts, and conventions" as the top local business priority. In addition,
an April 1998 "Which Way Downtown?" session listed the arena as the #3 priority issue. We think the
proposed project would have several beneficial impacts on our community.
A convention facility, like the one proposed, would enable this area to attract a whole new category of
convention and trade show customers. This would enable this area to grow as a tourism, recreation, and
convention destination. This facility could also accommodate athletic events, musical and theatrical
programs, and equestrian events that would benefit the entire Flathead Valley community.
As you know, we supported a similar request for a master plan text amendment and zone change from
industrial to commercial (B-2) in March 1997. We view commercial usage as a higher, better, and more
desirable use of the land at this intersection that forms the northern gateway to the City of Kalispell. The
proposed commercial development will be a significant addition to the tax base. If requested and
permitted, the extension of sewer and water service would benefit the commercial and residential
neighbors.
I appreciate the opportunity to express our support for this development and zone change. If you should
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
KALISPELL AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
O'er
-
Kim oss
President
IS Depot Park - Kalispell, MT 59901 - (406) 758-2800
I
July 13. 199,S
1290 Memo to: Kalispell City Council
Flathead County Board of Commissioners
Subject: Valley Dome Master Plan Amendment Application
From: Don Spivey
2231 Cedar Lane
Whitefish_ Montana
Honorable Council Members and Commissioners.
You have before you this evening a land -use decision of major proportions --one that has the potential to
reshape the character of Kalispell forever. This application is the trigger to a chain reaction of essential)
irreversible land -use decisions resulting in the annexation of 60 or more acres into Kalispell and the
conversion of that area to a B2 Business Zone. Those changes are at conflict with the current Master Plan
as well as the update under development.
The incentive for making those changes is the twscr'bility of a privately. funded and operated multi-
function dome and the eventual removal of an unsightly gravel pit in that area.
However, the price for that possibility is very high indeed. The creation of a totally new business area
outside the core of Kalispell with the clear potential to negatively impact the current downtown business
owners and the communities efforts to rejuvenate the core of the city. In addition. State Lands has
indicated their active interest in converting a large piece of their land across US 93 from this application
to commercial if this application is approved —further intensifying the problems mentioned above. It is
unclear to me that large additions of commercial space are needed when we have lots of vacant space
already available today for any businesses interested in doing business here.
There is a very- real possibility of life style changes and economic disruption to the current home owners
in this area —most (all?) of whom purchased their homes with the expectation of predictability given the
zoning already in place. Clearly there will be additional traffic, the potential for casinos and similar
business that will change the area and possibly lower their propert} values as well.
Against this backdrop the applicant has come to the table with:
& No economic impact study
b. No traffic study
C. No guarantee that a dome will ever be built
d. No willingness to develop under a PUD—the only means the public has of protecting their
interests.
e. No detailed financial plan for this very large project Rather they want all the irreversible
approvals before doing that fundamental piece of work.
f No bond up front to cover infrastructure costs to support the project.
As time has permitted some citizens and the Daily Interlake have undertaken an investigation of the costs
and feasibility of privately funded arenas of this type in other communities in Montana and elsewhere.
Nowhere has anyone been able to find a successful example in any community anywhere close to the small
population base of our area. In fact public funding for the construction and public subsidy for the
operation are the general rule_ The typical costs of providing a facility with the proposed capabilities have
been very much larger than the proposed amount
The Urban Land Institute. a respected non profit development organization. in their publication entitled
SpL)rts, Cormenrion. and Entertainment Facilities, studied mam such facilities across the country and
developed a series of criteria associated with successful ventures. Our area meets not one of their criteria.
It is certainly possible that the applicants can make this happen, but one is left wondering how. As
responsible legislators you might introspectively ask yourself the question. "Would I approve this
application if it did not include the Dome".
Clearly most everyone in the area would enjoy having such a facility that is privately funded and operated
available and I am no exception. However. in this case it seems entirely reasonable to expect the
applicants to provide a lot of missing information and financial assurance that the Dome as proposed will
actually be built So far they have been unwilling or unable to do that. Therefore I feel the risks are far too
great at this juncture and I am opposed to the application before you this evening and urge you to deny it
until enough information to make an informed decision is before you.
If by chance you are inclined to approve the application, then at least protect your constituents as much as
possible by conditioning your approval with the requirement that the development proceed through the
PUD process. as recommended by the Flathead Regional Development Office (FRDO) in their staff report
to the Planning Board.
Respectfully submitted_
Don Spivey, f
1292 June 29. 1998
To: The Kalispell City Council
From: R. Kline. One of the Concerned Citizens of Kalispell
Subject: The Valley Dome
I'm alarmed that the majority of the City Council members seem to approve of the plan proposed by the
developers for the Valley Dome and do so without any serious reservations. And. so far. I've seen no mention of
whether the City will have control over what is to be built around the Dome site and by whom. Nor has the City
been given a definite construction date for the Dome. These are some of the things which give me pause.
Initially, the developers had all the money needed to build the "self-supporting" Valley Dome. Have you seen
that money? Why did the developers come to the Council for help in raising another 3 milliorrif they had all the
money they needed? And does the Council have it in writing from the developers that the Dome will be self-
supporting?
So far, the City has been asked to annex the acreage and change the zoning to commercial. Then it appears that
the developers will build commercial enterprises to finance their Dome. What kind? We don't know. They will
also lease part of the land to other developers. Who? We don't know. What will they build? We don't know.
Who will finance the additional roads? We don't know. Who will pay for police and fire protection? We don't
know. Who will pay for additional traffic control? We don't know. And. when will the Dome be built? We
don't know.
And therein lies the truth of this project. WE DONT KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS. Do
YOU?
Please read the enclosed "Letter to the Editor" which appeared in the DAILY INTER LAKE on June 23. J. B.
Stone has done a fine job of expressing the concerns of many of us who have seen what happens when greed
steps in and common sense walks out. For all our sakes, take control of what will be built on the land.
One other item that was proposed at the same time as the building of the Dome: The extending of Grandview
Avenue behind the College. That street serves as a quiet back exit or front entrance to the developments in its
path. Ask the people who live in that area what they think of extending Grandview, and you'll hear a loud, "No!"
June 28, 1998
City Council
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Dear People:
Before you make a decision on the Valley Dome I would like to tell you about Earl McPeek, the
contractor who wants to build the Valley Dome.
Earl is currently building MT Villa Condo's on Kelly Road in Kafispcll. In October 1996 I bought
one of these Condo's.
I would hike you to know that Earl does not finish what he stags, makes promises that he doesn't
keep, fies, and generally puts things off.
A few weeks ago the Home Owners Association had a meeting to discuss all the unfinished work
in each of our tondo's. Earl did not show up, so our president made a general list from all our
lists and the following week it was presented to EarL Again, he said he would someday get around
to fixing things and finishing things an the list We set a date of July 31st to complete everything
or we would start looking in to legally doing something about it
These aro not just little items to be completed, but big things that will effect the future of our
Condo's. For ixample, on my building there were pieces of siding that were never put on. It sat
lace this for over a year!! The water was doing a lot of damage. And also an my balcony, he has
never put the screws in to hold it down. When confronted with this he just says, "Yep, yeP, yep,
I'D do it." Things have broken or were just not right to start with in my place and I always get the
same answer from him
Ears is a sly character. I can only speak for myself about what hasn't been done, but if you were
to come visit us and speak with each homeowner, I'm sort you would really start to understand
things about the person who wants to build the Valley Dome.
Like you, I want the best for the future of the Flathead Valley. If building the Valley Dome is the
right thing to do, maybe another contractor should be considered.
Thank you,
Julie Talarico
311 A-3 Kelly Road
Kalispell, MT 59901
Citizens for a Better Flathead
P.O. Box 771 . Kalispell, MT . 59903-0771
(406) 756-8993 . FAX (406) 756-8991 . e-mail: citizensCdigisys.net
12
June 1, 1999
Kalispell City/County Planning Board
C/o Flathead Regional Development Office
723 S* Ave Fasl
Kalispell, Nil' 59901
Subject Valley Dome 1. I. C request for a Master Plan Amendment
June 9, 1999 public hearing
Dear Board Members,
This significant public hearing before you on June 9"' has the potential to fixever reshape
the character of Kalispell in both positive and negative ways Cifizerrr for a Peffer
[Infhead are taking the position that the information currently available to the public, on
all aspects of this proposal, is insufricient to take an informed position on Ibis application
In such situations it is our practice to try and inform the public on the issues and
encourage public participation in the decision process. The enclosed Ar'tion Aler7 is one of
The mechanisms we use to achieve that objective. We hope you have an opp,,.rtunity to
read it as Citizen.% believes the questions raised are relevant to your decision process as
well
This request differs from the 1997 Pack & Co. request in two significant ways The size of
the area involved is much larger and of course it now includes a Dome, a feature with
significant community support in most other ways the issues involved are the same Of
paramount importance in this hearing are the many significant changes and conflicts this
application represents to both your current Master Plan and your draft version(s) of the in
process update.
Cifizerr i for a Reffer Flnfhead has always believed that the Master Plan is the single most
important land use document in this jurisdiction. The questions and issues involved with
this requested amendment are many and complex, thus we urge yntt to takr whatever time
is necessary to fully cnneide► all of them, including, if needed, extending the deliberation
and decision process over multiple meetings
Your responsibilities are great as your planning recommendations have a piormind impact
on the future of our community Citizens wishes all of you well in this important decision
process
Respectfully,
DAile
ori Spivey, o r hair Ann
Citizens for eifer�lathead
250 Sunday Lane
Kalispell. MT 59901
June 21, 1998
Kalispell City Council
City Hall
Kalispell, MT 59901
Dear Sirs:
We wish to express to you our grave reservations about the proposed project, the 'Valley
Dome', which you are currently considering. Our concern comes is based on several things.
a. Furthering of strip development along Highway 93 north of town. This seems such a
mistake in view of what it will do to the downtown area. Surely as representatives of the City of
Kalispell you are concerned about drawing more commercial customers out of downtown. What
possible justification can you make for this move? It hurts downtown, the Center Mall, and Gateway
West Mall!
b. What is to guarantee us that once the commercial businesses are in place. we will ever get
the dome? It is very possible all we will have is additional commercial development and the dome
never materializes.
c. Many people believe this development will give the valley a place for all kinds of
functions, many of which will not occur unless further funds are spent . Will this be tax dollars? If
so, I think tax payers need to know this now, not later.
Clear answers to what will and will not happen at this location are needed. The taxpayers of
Flathead County need time to have all their questions adequately answered. What is the rush? This is
a huge commitment that will have a profound effect on our valley, we need time to learn all we can
before going forward.
I hope you will take these concerns into account, and not approve this project until all the
questions raised here have been adequately addressed.
S, e ly,�
Jb 14 Btu a
Kr►�tin R. Bru `� rungs ` t
I
1
1
Somers, �i7' 59932
_me moon Road 1295
July 1, 1998
Flathead County Commis-ioners
800 South Muir Street
Kalispell, MT 59901
Derr Commissioners: Valley Dome, etc. NO
Reasons to oppose subject development:
1) Additional com!:ercial space including shops, motels, etc.
is not needed.. SurpluF exists now. Look at some vacancy r.;tes:
Gateway West, Ramada Inn, Downtown Kalispell. Three o1 lour
r:..-t; approaches to Kalispell are eye sores. Only the north approach
still retains some semblance of non-commercialness.
2) Booster who said "we" need something more than Glacier Park,
Big Nountain, and Flathead Lake to attract visitors owns a motel.
Nuff said.
3) Arena for a semi -pro ice hockey team? Erect bleachers in
Woodland Park if you really think people would watch such a
spectacle. Ice shows? TV is full of them. Or the "real thing"
can be seen in Spokane..
4) Venue for the Glacier Orchestra K Chorale? FITS auditorium
is perfectly ade(tuate and fee for use would probably be much
less than for a 5,000 or 10,000 seat arena. Also I would bet
--
that the acoustics are better in the auditorium than with 500
or 19000 music lovers rattling around in the Dome.
= 4a) Venue for rock, country, etc. concerts. I suppose some of
the starry eyed Chamber of Commerce types would like to trans -form
Kalispell into another Brandon. God help us.
5) Convention center.. Even though they are now under the same
_=
ownership, two centers still exist in Kalispell. Also, they are
in town not out on the fringe (Nest Riaserve).
6) Developers unwilling to commit to building Dome but want to
build some revenue generators first. Conclusion: Reasonable
possibility that the Dome will fail financially and you
= Commissioners or your replacements will join with the halisnell
City Council to bail the whole thing out (a cooperative endeavor
for the common good, of course) with tax dollars. I realize
this is not your current intent, but stranger things have happened.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Yours verN truly,
Franklin E Schroeter
cc: Kalispell City Council
City Councilmen
P. 0. Box 1997
Kalispell, Mt. 59903
Dear Sirs,
I am writing regarding the proposed ValleyDome project. After giving this project much thought, 1 am
convinced that it would be very detrimental to our downtown business area. I have been a small business
owner on Main Street for the past 14 years and have weathered some seriously lean times. Without
any binding contract that the Dome would be built, I believe that commercial development of the type
proposed would turn into a strip type development along our beautifW highway corridor- If the Dome
were not built, then the remaining acreage would surely be developed, possibly even by some commercial
venture similar to the WalMarts of the world.
Our valley is already over -retailed to a very serious degree considering the relatively small resident
popuatioo that exists here. As a long-term downtown business owner, I am extremely concerned and
adarnantly agaitut the development of the Dome project in any way. h seems to me that to do this would
be simply opening the door to more and more unneeded and tmwanted development, not to mention an
mcmase in taxation for services that will only benefit the developers in the long nm
I know that I am only one voice, but I wanted to be heard on this important issue- There are other areas
that could be developed for a sports complex. What about the old fairgrounds'' WE DO NOT NEED
MORE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
Sincerely,
Kam Beav , owner
Col Giassworlcs
140 Main Street
Kalispell, Montana 59901
(406)752-7174
July 1. 1998
Dear Commissioners and
City Council Members
Re: Valley Dome Proposal
Dear Sirs:
__.I have reviewed some of the material related to the valley dome project and raise the
following questions.
1. Is this the best location for the dome?
Is there a hidden agenda to sell Nupac land and rezone to commercial and disregard the
master plan.
Why not use land near the airport or fairgrounds.
Traffic studies are needed. 34 of Kalispell's nicest neighborhoods will be seriously
impacted (noise, light, traffic) (Country Estates, across from Semi Tool, Ponderosa
Estates and the area near Christian Center).
The highway gravel pit would be moved to near the Armory. This is close to two
residential areas. Why not keep industrial areas together.
2. Will the dome actually be built?
This project needs to be approached as a P.U.D. to be sure the dome will be built and
protect against a ploy to sway the public by the recreational benefit just to get commercial
zoning and even sell off land to associated businesses, then cancel the dome. The
businesses both new at the planned dome would be negatively impacted plus downtown
merchants would be negatively impacted.
I smell a skunk here just to get commercial zoning and have the city pay for some
infra -structure improvements then cancel the dome.
Preliminary information says the dome is not financially viable, the developers need to
present more information. I hate to think of another struggling facility like Mountain Mall
and Gateway or even the empty Crop Hall building. More studies need to be done in both
traffic and financial viability.
As our Valley planners and councilman, you have an obligation to thoroughly review the
facts and protect the interests of the people.
Master plans need to be adhered to
Impact on competing retail space (downtown)
Financial viability of the project
Who benefits, who loses
What about the 11/97 survey by FRDO which indicated that 67% of people want
commercial development to stay in existing business districts
You have a tremendous responsibility on a very critical project to our community. Let's
do some solid research on the questions above, lets use the P.U.D. This is not something
to "slam/dunk".
I hope you seriously consider my points above. I recommend you disapprove or hold up
the project until independent studies are completed.
Sincerely,
Bill Phillips
Marie Phillips
140 Ponderosa Ln.
►r 1;c ,on Vrr coons
July 6,1998
1297
Sue Cummings
Kalispell City Council Members
As a Flathead County resident for over 25 years
and I live on the boundary of the Kalispell city
limits, I vould like to express my strong opposition
to the Sports Arena Dome project proposal planned
for the Hest;! side of Reserve. This project, if approved,
vill be a major precedent for the continued strip -
development betveen here and Whitefish. Please do
not approve this project.
RespectfullQ,�, 'i, y,
/
i V
ohn de Neeve
JOHN B. deNEEVE r, P M.
CONCORD LANE KALISPELL, MT 59901 4d 8 JUL*
/?g8 �-
W)"u 6410 (L,44,11 r-
� 0 It--10vr,4
86 Sussex Drive
Kalispell, MT 59901
June 24, 1998
75"022 (home)
secsoc@ptinetnet
Kalispell City Council
300 1 st Ave. Fast
Kalispell, MT 59901
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to express my disapproval of the Valleydome project. I feel that the whole
project including zone changes would have a great negative impact on the environment, the scale
and type of development in the area and on the economy of the area. On the surface, it looks
great but I don't think this valley is prepared to handle such a huge change and the long-range
effects of such a move.
Very truly yours,
Sue Cummings
�n
FAMMR,
:p T.
y7y
y `
July 2, 1998
The City Council
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: Valley Dome
To Whom It May Concern
As the owner of an employment placement service in Kalispell, I write this letter in support of
the development of a multi -purpose, enclosed arena, such as the Valley Dome project, for the
City of Kalispell and surrounding communities,
'The availability of an arena such as this would generate unprecedented economic relief to
Northwest Montana, as well as the entire state. The growth potential to the Valley from an arena
of this caliber is almost unimaginable. Every-arbaUsiness would be directly or indirectly
impacted in a positive manner.
Our area has two primary economic strengths: tourism and forestry. Statistics show the tourist
industry for Montana is on the decline. No one can predict the events that will eventually force
negative economic changes to Montana's forest industry. We need to look seriously at attracting
other types of revenue to the Kalispell area The Valley Dome would be an excellent alternative
to our sagging tourist and forestry dollars.
Plmsc unde.''St;_nd the impact a proJc.,:'.:ke this would have Or. :his ;wonderful a;mn;unity, one
that is in due need of an economic "boost in the arm". - I ask you to back the support for this
arena.
Best 09ZmardV2 i
Shelley Lout_herback
President, WORKPLACE. INC.
7/2/98
To: City Council Members
Re: Valley Dome Proposal
I have the following concerns about this proposal;
L I fear that a zoning change to commercial will be made and the dome will new be built This will
allow an inappropriate zone change that would not stand by twE I believe this would make our
elected officials look incompetent or appear to be in the pockets of the special interest group who
would stand to profit from the change.
2. I believe approval of the present proposal would create a new commercial district that a
unnecessary, in the wrong location, and would be detrimental to other commercial areas presently
struggling to survive.
I If a dome is really desirable for the community, the decision should be made with adequate public
input, financed with public or all private funds and, if built in the proposed location it should
im olve no other commercial activities than concession stands inside the dome structure.
In summary, I do not believe a dome should be built in the proposed location if addition commercial
zoning is needed to support it
Sincere ,
Jo Lowell
208 Ponderosa Lane
Kalispell, MT 59901
1
1
To: Flathead County Commiss;onen 1299
Kalispell City Council members
Re: valley Dome
From: Richard D. 101et
.fury 8. 1998
There Is no question that the allure of a sports areno complex within Flathead
County has a very seducing effect on the Ioco1 population base. This Is
especidky hue when the pot is sweetened by the concept that private
enterprise wAl foot the to t without benefit of public subsidy. This presupposes
that the venture will be financially successU. Recently, I osked the limited
partners if they would post bond /or the completion of the infrastructure
requirements of water and waste disposal. Thew answer was. 'We'll do whatever
is required of us. However, why would we have to post bond when Tidymons.
CovenoWhis and others were not required to do 1010'
IS THE PROPOSED VALLEY DOME FACT OR FICTION?
Fact: The simliortties oniong sports arenas. amphitheaters and concert halls are
subtle. h terms of financial operations, rnost convention centers and spectator
footles are subsidized. Most inaw oporaMon kssses and few contribute any
Operating surplus to debt service or depreciation costs. Accordingly. nearly all
are owned by public agencies. VAthin a comrnxtity. they are one of o Idnd.
Fact: Arenas. stodkzm and amphitheaters are developed in major rnetropoHlon
areas to occommodoile football, baseball. hockey and basketball games and
Popular music concerts.
Foot: Within the Fatheod Volley. there is no t►oolfiOn of piofesgonol sports team
activity or following.
t'o=. The onlicJpatod spir-rolfs of economic bonettt to the rocar economy Ore
over -rated and seldorn achieved. At a recent meering of the Urban Land
011'09 9$ 09: JJ Fes THaM CITI1ES-CnF [0:
Institute' in Denver, coiorado. a panel of experts alscuued the roll of sports
lociatles in revitouing sales'. It mi, st be noted that Mesa ctR6110 are for location
within a major nWrket%ng ttahstiCal 0100 — NIMSA . Our valley is not such an
area but even when you scale the crlfero way back. w1vCh +s GPP10PWe, the
location of the valley Dome does not in any way tit the mode!. The two aspects
that were cited a< critical were design and location. Design is to inane that the
focilky fits into the tobric of the Como
nuMh'. fix vy1N assure a linkage between
the population base, the employ"ni base and Wait sales. WItNn a 1 mile
radius of ttne facility In a MMSA. 'here should De a community of 20.000
residents (visito(s »eluded). There should be 1,000,000 square teelt of ooCUP".
class A office Woce and S200AO DW of retail sales. A9aln the RCIMOOO Valley.
a not a MMSA. A general rule of thumb to moan o 9pofis corny+ex work as
proposeo requires 200 event days booked every year. Mglor league hockey
might provide 60.
Foct: The Saddle Dome is in CotgarY. Alberta. n is the home of the Flames. a
professiond hockey team. and the Internationally known Calgary Slompede. It
was bu6t of public expense for the 1980 Winter Oympics. funding was as
follows. o thud from Me federal government, o third horn provincial government
and a third from the city. The Saddle Dome was recently renovated to satisfy
ptofesaional athletes' demands for on mproved foc7tty. It Is now known as the
Canadian Airlines Saddle Dome. The Improved seating and prestige boxes
hove been absorbed by the corporate heodouariers of companies moving Into
1lte sea. The population base in Caigary is Wo= and expected to hit
1.=QW by the turn or the cenlsuy.
'tr.e Urban Land em*ute o a nonproH mserach and edveo%on analllute **or Is supported and
drecred by as monloOr:. ea n+"s 0r. ;s to ptovlde remonrtble leode+ddp in the yse of hand r
order to OMC nCu t o toted enudorMnent.
In the obsence of evidence of event 00Y usage Co the Volley Uorne. R seems
T6VCenC6 GAii d e itwir Gy otters of infant
rx�rfrlutlui to ChtvVu li rib zcThis WV.
or in depth surveys of onficipated users. it would be prudettt to collect all the
relevant information confimvng the commercial viability of the venture
_
corripiete with bonding requimn-iemsto assure comWetion of on intiastruMrs
r uird (rents "nNiti'CAtl rebore on putrr.- s;:.s�:;. SI-.en Con c ve:.uion to
ct"x"3e fhc zorting be mode intwiroc.MN Thar" is eBnAc-ant dor gef in this rush
to change the zonarlg 10 OCCOMMOdOte rOMGfhing which presently 00000rs to
be on exciting but poory Concetveo pion. Uniess the prvntolera of the Valley
Dome hove veri deep pockets ana nc concern over a fincncict ret_m cn their
investment. the Valley Dome oppoca to be rat fad, but fiction.
1800 July 9, 1998
Dear Kalispell City Council:
Please do not allow the Valley Dome and its related commercial development.
The Flathead Valley is too precious for this kind of land speculation. Orderly
and thoughtful planning for growth is what is needed, not strip malls and the
dangling of a dome "carrot" that will probably not ever come to fruition ---or if
It does manifest, will probably become an empty Ernst building, though even bigger.
When other proposals for development on highway 93 new Reserve have been looked
at, a resounding NO was heard. Let's focus on making the businesses we already have
thrive, particularly in downtown Kalispell. Please remember that NO makes sense.
This Valley has the potential to be a jewel for years to come. The potential is also there
to make one large strip from Somers to Whitefish and a parallel one to Columbia Falls.
Please know that the dome and its concomn itant development are the first steps toward
such strips and away from taking care of the jewel Kalispell and this county can be.
I appreciate the work you do and hope that common sense will prevail over greed on this
issue.
Thank you
Sincerely,
e Coo -
536 ' ve. E.
Kalispell, MT 59901
JUL I p 19%
To: City and County Officials
From: Mike and Diane Conner
364 Ponderosa Street
Kalispell, Montana
752-3113
Re: Rezoning for recreational dome, commercial area
Date: July 8, 1998
We would like to express our concerns over the proposed change in zoning for the area north of
Kalispell on Highway 93 to accommodate the proposed dome and business area.
Our first reaction to the proposal was positive - a domed recreational area to be built as a private
enterprise without taxpayer dollars sounded like a positive venture for the community. We pictured
an area with a well -designed main structure, surrounded by small shops, open space, walking
paths, and attractive landscaping. We were envisioning the dome as a place, not only to provide
major musical and sports entertainment, but as a place where community events such as high
school and community college graduations could be held.
However, the more that time has gone on, we are finding that we have more concerns.
1. We wonder if local community groups would be unable to afford to use the
main facility because the enterprise is a private, for profit venture.
2. We are concerned about the impact on area residents because of increased
traffic and noise.
3. We object to increased taxes in order to provide roads and utilities to the
area.
4. We worry about the potential for strip development since we could end up
with bars and casinos in addition to OR instead of the dome project.
5. We do not want to see more of our beautiful view of the valley and mountains
cluttered with crowded commercial development.
We encourage you to postpone a decision on this matter for further study, public comment, and the
development of a thorough neighborhood land -use -plan.
The State of Montana has contracted with a local planner to facilitate plans for future growth on its
- - - - - - - - . - - land to the west of the proposed commercial development area for the dome. The state's effort sets
a precedent in planning for the future use of school trust lands, with a concern that future options
ry ,, be explored for the benefit of the valley, as well as the state.
We would suggest that the city/county/public cooperate with the state in a comprehensive
neighborhood plan, with "neighborhood" boundaries to include (at a minimum): south - 4 Mile
Drive/ Grandview Drive; north - where the Stillwater River crosses Highway 93; east - the
Stillwater River, west - Stillwater Road.
Thank you for offering us an opportunity to voice comments and concerns. We will appreciate
your consideration of pu o ' n in making your decision.
1
LJ
Mayor Boharski
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59901
130
RE: Valley Dome
Dear Mayor Boharski:
As the owner of an employment placement service in Kalispell, I write this letter in support of
the development of a multi -purpose, enclosed arena, such as the Valley Dome project, for the
City of Kalispell and surrounding communities.
The availability of an arena such as this would generate unprecedented economic relief to
Northwest Montana, as well as the entire state. The growth potential to the Valley from an arena
of this caliber is almost unimaginable. Every area business would be directly or indirectly
impacted in a positive manner.
Our area has two primary economic strengths: tourism and forestry. Statistics show the tourist
industry for Montana is on the decline. No one can predict the events that will eventually force
negative economic changes to Montana's forest industry. We need to look seriously at attracting
other types of revenue to the Kalispell area. The Valley Dome would be an excellent alternative
to our sagging tourist and forestry dollars_
Please understand the iipaet a prefect like :his would have on this wonderful community, one
that is in dire need of an economic "boost in the arm". A ask you: to back the support for this
arena
A�yBnal regar
"•Presidem-WORKPLACE.ING Lw
{ F10f:862-9asz
PO box 2396 FAX:
Ax:
whitefieh.lrram email:
Monday, July 6, 1998
Kalispell City Council
PO Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Dear County Commissioners, W4 L� Vxma f /lftki s,
I am writing this letter concerning the proposed Valley Dome project. As an avid
sports enthusiast, the idea of an arena for sports and concerts appeals to me greatly.
However, this proposed project seems to have several flaws which our community and
valley need to address, such as the zoning change, the sale of 35 acres to finance the
project, no guarantee that the dome will be built after the proposed retail development is
completed, and whether this additional retail development is feasible for a valley of our
size, and the impact upon existing businesses it will have.
These issues can not be swept aside to be dealt with later, they are integral to the
decision of this development's eventuality. Zoning changes are a delicate subject these
days in our valley, and rezoning an area surrounded by rural agricultural land is subject
to much debate. If we could somehow guarantee that the surrounding farm lands would
not also be swallowed up by commercial development it may be a little more palatable.
There is also the issue of 35 acres to be sold off. After having been zoned commercial,
what will be built on this land? We will have no control over development of this acreage
once it has been sold. The eventual result of this project will be strip development from
Kalispell all the way to Reserve Dr., which would do nothing to enhance our valley or
make it more appealing to visitors. With retail space readily available in Kalispell how
can we justify another huge retail development, and reassure existing retail businesses
that it will not negatively affect their business? These are extremely sensitive issues that
must be addressed adequately before any building or zoning change can occur. The fact
that there is no assurance, other than verbal, the dome itself will be built makes this
proposal unacceptable. The risks are too great and the potential payback too uncertain.
For these reasons I must urge you to vote against the Valley Dome project until such
time that the above issues have been resolved to the beneflt of our entire valley.
Thank you for hearing my comments and concerns. Sincerely,
Laura Strong
1302
J-14� f I �
6t,
PL, �- wsvi
sq/-V-- �, I
944—. " -1 k— L7,I
.--- - --- -- - _ _--- -- ----- --- ---- --- - �/off yy
..:y� �,y�,C,�, /�'(..���i 'v Lc•�-�•c-s�., Liu. �c...�
17r. 1 - 7� <
n
1
JU6-13-98 MQr+ 09;58 AM THE+KEITH+MOUSE 406 752 7933 '1 3
1
—_ --- The Keith House Atled d Braak'2- J13 Fe.31K--.524LiftKcfapta.'N!599Q1
Phone 4?b•�52-7913 9 Raen.: 1-dOJ•9:2-191J tea' a:5•��:•:4]: a E•Ryil- kaithl•t!9lipiaY�.xt
TO Kalispell City Council Members
FROM: Don Bauder
DATE July 12, 1998
RE Proposed Valley Dome Project
Although I have many concerns with the Valley Dome PmjecL at this time I would like to
address just one issue; the financial viability of the project.
I was involved in two campaigns to build a new arena in my former community, Colorado
Springs, Colorado. The first was a publicly funded arena which went before the citizens in
a vote and was defeated. The successful second campaign was privately funded and was
completed in January of this year.
The World Arena, as it is called, seats 8,500 people for non ice events and approximately
7,500 people for a hockey game. The hockey surface is Olympic size, 100 fL x 200 ft..
There is also a practice arena next to it which botises two more ice sheets, one Olympic
size.
The World arena cost approximately 55 million dollars and is 99% debt free. The
contributors were: E Pomar Foundation-S30 trillion; City of Colorado Springs-$6
million, El Paso County-S3 million; Gates Land Co.-S3 trillion in land: Gazette Telegraph
News•S125 million; and the balance of the donations were from private individuals.
What makes this 8,500 seat areas financially viable is the low debt load and the size of the
surrounding population. The city ofColorado Springs has a population of 328,300 people
with a total of 472.000 in EI Paso County. Within 50 miles, 750,000 people reside and
2.5 million people live within a 75 mile radius of the City. The 1997 median household
income of Colorado Springs was S45,300.00.
Add to this mix of demographics, a long sporting history in the area The first eight NCAA
Hockey championships were held in Colorado Springs and The Colorado College's
Division 1 hockey team has played in the Springs for over 40 years. The United States
Olympic Committee, The United States Figure Skating Association, and USA Hockey are
all headquartered in Colorado Springs. With this history, you begin to understand why
this arena is self supporting and financially viable.
The town of Lethbridge is, perhaps, a better comparison with the Flathead Valley.
Population is 70,000 people with 175,000 folks living within 75 miles --about the same as
the Flathead Valley, yet their needs are meet with an arena half the size proposed for
Kalispell.
Now lets look at the demoVWhics of the Valley Dome. Seating for 10,000 people.
Population of Flathead Valley--72,690 Mople. 1997 median household income.
S31,791.00. Number of events claimed to be held each year: 200.
WHEN I COMPARE THESE NUMBERS. LOTS OF QUESTIONS COME TO MIND:
What will the debt load be on the Valley Dome? Yes, I knmv it is none of my
business but, unless the principals commit a buge sure of the profits from the development
and sale of the 35 acres to keep the debt load low, bow can the Dome support itself and
Provide a return on the backers' investment?
Why Isn't Valley Dome LLC providing a proforma for this project? Again,
I'm trot one of the investors and it is really none of my business, but, I would think, given
the division in the community over this issue, that they would be ad to show the citizens
Of Flathead County bow this project will make money for tbem. Glad if they really intend
to build the dome, that is.
Will the citizens of Flathead Valley and it's neighboring communities
support 200 events per year? That's a lot of hockey games, concerts, rodeos, tractor
pulls and conventions. It works out to one event every 1.76 days. What are they tailing
an event, public Ice skatin87
Will the citizens of the Valley pay the ticket prices for these events? See the
first question.
How far will the customers come to attend the events at the dome? Will they
come from Idaho and Washington, from Missoula, Helena and Great Falls, from Canada?
Surely some wound, but many? Wbat are the numbers?
I've heard Mr. Battle two dr$erent times state that there is no guarantee the Valley Dome
will be built and that Valley Dome L•LC is taking all the risk. Would the principals take the
risk to invest 80 90% of the proposed $l8 million price tag? I don't think they would. I
suspect astute business people would prefer to iastst the profits from the sale of the 35
acres of tomtnercial property into investments with higher rehuns.
1 don't think the numbers add up. I don't think leveraged arenas are financially viable and
there is a host of readily available data nation-wide to support this fact I don't think The
Valley Dome will be bt'basis
o I don't think it's responsible city management to amend the
Master Plan on the basis of these facts.
Thank you,
i2�/12
1304
Kalispell City Council
City Hall
Kalispell, MT 59901
Flathead County Board of Commissioners
900 South Main
Kalispell, MT 59901
Dear City Council and Board Members;
Please consider this letter as input to the proposed amendment to the Kalispell
City -County Master Plan by Pack and Company and ValleyDome L.L.C. to change the
zoning at the comer of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive from "industrial" to
"commercial" for the July 13, 1998 hearing.
We live in the Country Estates neighborhood that has 107 homes. The subdivision is
within 700 feet of West Reserve Drive and Highway 93, the comer of this proposed 60
acre project. We would be greatly affected by this proposed project and want to register
our opposition to the proposal as it now stands.
I attended the 6/9/98 public hearing before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board
regarding the ValleyDome project proposal. As a motion, the Planning Board took the
Flathead Regional Development Office Staff Report #KMPA-98-1, June 1, 1998, and
deleted the Summary and Recommendations sections and adopted this revised report as
their findings of fact. The Board then voted to approve a recommendation for a master
plan amendment to change these 60 acres from light industrial to commercial zoning. As
a result of this vote, they are recommending to the Kalispell City Council and the
Flathead County Board of Commissioners that they approve this rezoning to commercial
use without any restrictions.
I contend that the Planning Board, City Council and County Commissioners need a basis
of fact in which to amend the master plan to this proposed use, and as voted on, there is
no basis to approve this project The following references in the Staff Report
KMPA-98-1 completely contradict the Planning Board's approval vote:
"Commercial development of the 35 acres which adjoins the site proposed for the
ValleyDome, however, raises serious concerns regarding the approval of additional
general commercial development in the planning jurisdiction and the effects it could
have on the other properties within the immediate area and the planning jurisdiction.
There is undeveloped or underdeveloped commercial land currently existing in the
planning jurisdiction which depends on a "regional" market base. Irthe commercial
element of this proposal were developed to serve a regional market base rather than
a neighborhood or community market base, there could be serious economic and
land use consequences."
"It does not appear that there is a need within the planning jurisdiction for additional
commercial land for a regional market.... Assuming there are approximately 20,250
people in the planning jurisdiction which may double to 40,500 by the year 2020, this
translates into a need for 186 acres of commercial land. Currently the planning
jurisdiction has 1,151 acres of commercially zoned property and 1,647 acres of
industrially zoned property. If the commercial element of the proposal were limited
to uses which would complement the ValleyDome and provide needed support
services, rather than relying on a regional market base, a commercial land use
designation based on specialty uses may be justifiable as part of the master plan
amendment."
"A planned unit development or "PUD" is the appropriate mechanism to address the
overa0 development for both the 25 acres associated with the Va1leyDome complex
and the 35 acres proposed for commercial development -.....The PUD would eliminate
the need for a variance to the height limit and the conditional use permit process.
Additionally, specific types of appropriate uses can be identified which serve to
create the recreational theme underlying the ValleyDome concept which do not
unduly compete with the regional market on which the core commercial area of
Kalispell depends in order to keep it economically viable."
"Growth management includes consideration of the impacts of new commercial
developments on surrounding lands and the interconnectedness of these land use
decisions. The Montana Department of State Lands who owns the 640 acres to the west
have stated in a letter included with this report, that they are also interested in doing a
development plan for the "school section" which lies directly to the west They indicate
that they would be interested in a broad mix of uses that would not necessarily be on a
"neighborhood" level. Careful consideration of the types and intensity of uses
associated with the ValleyDome project must be weighed so that it would not create
a domino effect for commercial development which would lead to increased urban
sprawl and the disinvestment of the economic core of KalispeiL"
"Sprawl is defined as haphazard growth, usually of low -density nature, in previously rural
area and some distance from existing development and infrastructure. Sprawl can have
unintended detrimental effects to the social, economic and financial status of a
community. Economically, sprawl can devalue commercial property in the core area by
providing large tracts of once rural property for cheap commercial development.
Socially, sprawl breaks down the social core of neighborhoods and community centered
economy while decreasing activity in a pedestrian -oriented commercial core.
Additionally, these large tracts of once rural property can be developed inexpensively by
large box retail stores or strip malls which further undermine the economic viability of
downtown areas and malls. Financially, it costs more for a local government to service
1
1
1
fringe areas in the way of infrastructure maintenance, fire and police protection and a
decreasing tax base in the core area." 1 13
"the commercial element of this proposal should occur in such a way as not to
undermine or compete, but complement, the established core of Kalispell. Limited
commercial uses which are complementary to the recreational theme of the
ValleyDome need to be identified as part of the overall development plan and an
integrated PUD."
"A critical element of this plan would be that the PUD outline those uses which are
intended to serve the ValleyDome development, and do not create a regional
commercial hub that would provide stand alone services to a broad market base."
"Page 11, Goal 11 (c) encourages infill and expansion in existing commercial areas and
development of areas with existing services and facilities to take advantage of existing
streets and services. Page 46 addressing general commercial uses envisions compact
retail sales, services and offices associated with the central business district. General
commercial in this area would be inconsistent with that goal and objective. Page 46
of the master plan dealing with highway commercial development states that these
districts "are perceived to occur as compact expansion and infill of existing strip
commercial developments occurring on Highway 93 south of 13th Street and on Highway
2 between Meridian Road and Evergreen..." The creation of new highway commercial
areas leads to additional strip development and urban sprawl and is inconsistent not
only with the Kalispell City -County Master Plan, but with land use goals and
objectives in general. It should be noted that the Kalispell Center Mail is located on
approximately 20 acres, Gateway West Mall on approximately 13 acres and that the
entire downtown core of Kalispell contains approximately 40 acres."
"Additional traffic generation as a result of this type of intensive development will
result in significant impacts to Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. The updated
transportation element of the master plan calls for a Highway 93 Bypass which ends at
West Reserve and Highway 93 to the west of this site. The bypass is intended to remove
heavy truck traffic from the core area of Kalispell. It is critical to the viability of the
economic core of Kalispell that the uses associated with this site do not displace
business in the core areas. Otherwise, the bypass will not only be used to reroute heavy
truck traffic, but it will be used to reroute the traffic and potential customers / consumers
of the downtown area."
At the June 9th hearing, Narda Wilson, senior planner for FRDO, said a year ago the
FRDO staff recommended against a proposed 20 acre master plan amendment change at
this same location for a change from light industrial to commercial because it was spot
zoning and it was strip commercial development. Now her staff could not support just
commercial development at this location for the same reasons. 60 acres of commercial
development at this location defines urban sprawl.
County Commissioner Dale Williams spoke at the June 9th hearing in support of this
proposal. He said the prerogative in how to develop this proposal should be left to the
developers, and a PUD was not needed. June 9th was the first public hearing for this
project and a County Commissioner speaks out totally in favor of this project and that it
should be approved without tying the developers hands with the constraints of a PUDI
How is Mr. Williams then supposed to make an unbiased vote on the July 13 hearing?
He has stated his position on the issue before comments were made on June 9 and July
13. The impartial public hearing process has been compromised.
Reading in the attachments to the FRDO Staff Report #KMPA-98-1, "Excerpts from
Montana Planning and Zoning Law Digest- April 1996", there are several points that
would seem to negate potential approval for this proposal-
1) County zoning regulations adopted by the county commissioners without first
obtaining the recommendations of the city -county planning board, are void.
• 1 contend that the city -county planning board vote on this proposal to recommend 60
acres of commercial land be amended to the master plan is not valid because there is
no reasonable findings of fact on which to base their vote as outlined above.
2) All of the following elements are usually present when impermissible spot zoning
occurs: (1) the zoning allows a use which differs significantly from the prevailing use in
the area, (2) the zoning applies to a small area or benefits a small number of separate
landowners, and (3) the zoning is designed to benefit only one or a few landowners at the
expense of the surrounding landowners or the general public, and thus, is in the nature of
special legislation. It is possible for illegal spot zoning to occur in the absence of one of
the elements of the three-part test described in Little v. Board of County Commissioners.
• 1 contend that the current rural and residential nature and zoning of this general area,
even with the light industrial gravel pit presently here, would differ significantly with
a 10,000 seat ValleyDome bringing 450,000 people to events annually, and likely
bringing many times more than that number to a regional shopping center as part of
this project The zoning applies to a small 60 acre area and would benefit one
landowner Nupac. It would benefit this one landowner at the expense of surrounding
residential landowners with increased traffic, noise, air pollution, extra police,
medical, fire services needed, greatly expanded drinking and driving with alcohol
available at ValleyDome events, and the commercialization of a current Waal area,
etc..
The proponents state that they need to have complete freedom to sell the 35 commercial
acres to the highest bidder and to build the ValleyDome the way they see fit. If the
ValleyDome is a great, solid idea, why can't it be built in the existing commercially
zoned land? If the proponent wants to change the gravel pit zoning to accommodate the
ValleyDome and a commercial shopping center when there is such an excess of
commercially zoned land already available, why shouldn't they be subject to doing an
1306
analysis of where the best location in the valley is, with its associated impacts, and not
just putting it where the proponent happens to own land that is not zoned correctly to suit
him? The Master Plan submitted by the proponent includes just 4-1/2 pages of written
text with a few conceptual sketches of the proposed $18 million ValleyDome, and no real
hint as to what the 35 acres of commercial development would look like. This is not a
simple proposal, they did not show potential impacts or mitigation, or how it would
comply with the master plan.
I feel this proposal is being rushed and is not well thought out. It seems that many
members of the City Council and the County Commissioners feel that this project should
draw in additional visitors to the valley for various events, so this is a good economic
move. It may be. But changing the master plan to put all of this development into a rural
setting without any change in conditions that would warrant such a change in the master
plan, without knowing or evaluating the impacts of such a large project, and then not
giving the proponent any sideboards as to what the project should end up looking like,
seems irresponsible. The proponent has said that there is no guarantee that the
ValleyDome will ever be built. All we may end up with at this location is a 60 acre
regional shopping center and no ValleyDome. And then the state land managers west of
the shopping center will have a very good case to ask for commercial zoning for their
section of land. No guarantee of the project or understanding of the impacts, but once the
zoning is changed, it is changed forever and there really is no control of what will go on
at this site.
If indeed the ValleyDome is financially sound and a good idea for the Flathead Valley,
it should be able to sustain a wait of 6-12 months while a neighborhood plan is developed -
for this north end of Kalispell along Highway 93 to see if a regional ValleyDome and
regional shopping center really fits into this neighborhood or if other land activities are
more appropriate for the short and long term. During this time the public can also be
made better aware of how this project will be financed, if any public financial obligations
will be necessary for roads or sewers or operational costs, etc.
Is the half mile of land on either Highway 93 north of the Community College and north
of the new Ball Fields Complex where Kalispell really wants or needs intense, congested,
commercial land use development? Do all entrances to Kalispell need to have strip
commercial development? The land along Highway 93 between Whitefish and West
Reserve Drive has been zoned to retain its present rural and open character. After the
drive down from Whitefish, what better entrance to Kalispell than a rehabilitated gravel
pit made into residential homes or an aesthetically planned light industrial park like
Semi -tool on the._east, and a few State Offices on the west side of Highway 93? Nicely
landscaped and set back from the Highway, reasonable traffic volumes, and an inviting,
non-commercial, low key approach. The other three entrances to Kalispell have lost this
opportunity for this scenic, and inviting approach to the City possibility. Lets think for
the long term development and approaches for the city, not just going along with the first
proposal to come along to change to character of an existing neighborhood for the current
residents to another commercial strip.
I don't think there is a legal, defensible basis to vote for an amendment to the master plan
for this proposal.
Sincerely,
Dale Luhman, Country Estates Homeowner's Board
169 Trail Ridge Road
Kalispell, MT 59901
cc: Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission
c/o Flathead Regional Development Office
723 Sth Avenue East, Room 414
Kalispell, MT 59901
J