Loading...
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