The URL can be used to link to this page

01/13/03 SP City Council MinutesA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE KALISPELL CITY COUNCIL WAS HELD AT 7:00 P.M. MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 2003, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL IN KALISPELL, MONTANA. MAYOR PAMELA B. KENNEDY PRESIDED. COUNCIL MEMBERS JIM ATKINSON, DON COUNSELL, BOB HAFFERMAN, RANDY KENYON, DUANE LARSON, FRED LEISTIKO, HANK OLSON AND JAYSON PETERS WERE PRESENT. Also present: City Manager Chris A. Kukulski, City Attorney Charles Harball, City Clerk Theresa White and Tri-City Senior Planner Narda Wilson. Mayor Kennedy called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA APPROVAL Leistiko moved approval of the Agenda. The motion was seconded. There was no discussion. The motion carried unanimously upon vote. PUBLIC HEARING — DRAFT KALISPELL GROWTH POLICY 2020 Mayor Kennedy opened the public hearing and asked for comments. C.M. Clark, president of Flathead Alliance for Sensible Growth, read portions of a letter from Attorney David Wilson, Jr. stating the growth policy is inconsistent with the growth policy map. He read: "In summary, the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020 Future Land Use Map should be made consistent with the text, including removing from the future land use map changes to the designation of commercial land at the Reserve and US 2 intersection". (Letter is attached and by this reference is made a part of the official record) Clark asked that all public comments and documents submitted during the Glacier Mall hearings be made part of the official record. Linda Blaine Reynolds, 2310 Highway 2 East, said she has the Shipping Station and Evergreen Post Office and talks with Evergreen residents everyday. She stated Evergreen residents do not want any part of Kalispell's growth policy and would like to be left out of it. Gerald Friesen, 1005 2nd Avenue East, said he owns a business south of Kalispell and he keeps hearing that the mall will "cannibalize the downtown". He said it's not the Council's job to protect one area business over another and the downtown businesses need to protect themselves. Friesen said he would like to see a vibrant downtown too, but it's not the Council's job to protect it by keeping other business from moving into the valley. Darlene Jump Rauthe, 657 Scenic Drive, read a letter stating the property owned by her family along Reserve and Highway 2 should be zoned commercial along with other land in that area. (Letter is attached and by this reference is made a part of the official record) Bill Goodman, 60 2nd Street East, said he thinks the growth policy is great, except for the area at Reserve and Highway 2 where Wolford plans to build a mall. He gave each member of the Council copies of the petitions signed by 1250 registered Kalispell voters asking that the Wolford Amendment be repealed. Goodman asked the Council not to make a decision without listening to Kalispell City Council Special Meeting Minutes January 13, 2003 Page I these people that went out of their way to sign a petition stating they don't want a mall in that location. Goodman also presented an alternate map for Council consideration called Plan B, showing the "mega mall" site as blue (industrial) instead of red (commercial). He said the mall development is not the vision of Kalispell, but instead the vision of a particular developer and there are other, more appropriate locations. Goodman urged the Council to make an inventory of available commercial, industrial and residential lands before approving the policy. Richard Mohrenweiser, 611 Lower Valley Road, commented people have lost the view of why we're here with discussion on the mall. He urged the Council to accept the growth policy as it came out of committee. He said it's a well planned and well thought out policy. Sharon DeMeester, 415 Chestnut Drive, said the City needs to consider annexation only when it applies to adjacent land; it needs to look at property already available for development, especially on the west side; it needs to start grouping homes in cluster developments and needs to look at what's appropriate development in connection with water tables. Bob Harris, newly elected President of the Evergreen Business and Property Owners Association, said the association was formed because of the threat it sees coming from the proposed Kalispell Growth Policy. He said the policy would adversely affect the property rights of the people of Evergreen. Harris read the association's mission statement: "Our mission is to inform, poll and motivate the Evergreen community on matters of local concern including taxation, realistic growth management, accountable County representation and protection of our property rights." Harris said in short, Evergreen wishes to control its own destiny. Maurice Eddy, 2652 Highway 2 East, agreed with the comments from Harris and Goodman. Greg Stevens, 31 Lower Valley Road, stated he's the former President of the City -County Planning Board and a current member of the County Planning Board. He said he's had considerable experience writing growth policies and is currently working on a growth plan for the County. Stevens said it's ironic that the County Planning Board is working on a plan for the exact same area the City is and "we have the legal authority to do it". He said the City has no legal authority to plan anything outside Kalispell. Stevens said there's always a statement in master plans that they're not law, only general and only advisory guidelines, but that isn't true. He said they call for zoning and subdivision regulations and development standards that are law and must be adhered to. He commented that the way the text of this plan is written, "it will enable Citizens For a Better Flathead to stop any development they don't like simply by hiring a lawyer to sue or demanding standards a developer can't meet", adding that this plan will seriously hamper economic improvement in this jurisdiction. Stevens said the County Planning Board held a community meeting in Evergreen and ninety percent of the people attending commented they are not interested in having their property controlled by Bill Goodman, Citizens For a Better Flathead or the Kalispell City Council. He said page 67 of the proposed growth policy calls for the annexation of Evergreen and he doubts the commissioners will sign off on any plan that calls for the annexation of Evergreen. Stevens suggested sending the policy back to the City Planning Board and having it rewritten for the City's legal jurisdiction. Richard Doran, President of the Northwest Montana Association of Realtors, submitted a letter to the County with the association's concerns and suggestions, along with a copy of the proposed growth policy with those suggestions incorporated. He said the association is concerned that there hasn't Kalispell City Council Special Meeting Minutes January 13, 2003 Page 2 been adequate opportunity to comment on the proposed document since it didn't become available to the public for review until December 31 st, and it's concerned that there are statutory deficiencies. He also expressed concern that housing issues weren't adequately addressed and offered access to the association's housing database. Doran concluded by stating the growth policy should be sent back to the Planning Board for further review. (Letter is attached and by this reference is made a part of the official record. (Growth policy with suggested revisions is on record and on file in the office of the City Clerk) Kathleen Schulte, 117 Fairway Blvd, said she's also a member of the Northwest Montana Association of Realtors and real estate interest, property rights and affordable housing are of great concern and after reviewing the document, the association sees an insufficient foundation for the goals, policies and recommended action presented in the policy. She said there has not been adequate time to meet the constitutional procedural due process standards for public review and comment. Schulte said the letter submitted to the Council outlines a general analysis and ten issues plus a concluding statement and request. She also urged the Council to refer the policy back to the Planning Board. Michael Blend, 1069 North Meridian, expressed concern about the City's ability to handle sewer treatment and expansion and stated he would like to see the City encourage cluster developments to prevent the valley from getting cut up into large lots. Bill Breen, 335 Mountain Meadow Road, read a letter to the Council outlining changes he would like to see in reference to neighborhood plans. (Letter is attached and by this reference is made a part of the official record) Susie Burch, 835 1st Avenue East, said she's the current President of the Chamber of Commerce and she's pleased that comments made to the Planning Board have been incorporated in the current draft policy. She said the Chamber is following this process closely because it believes a clear planning document is essential to good business. Joe Brenneman, 800 Steel Bridge Road, commented he's disappointed that the map in Chapter 5 of the proposed growth policy appears to ignore the NRCS valuable soils map. He said the community should only cover up "our best soils with great trepidation" because that's what we live off of. He also commented that the number one goal in Chapter 5 is confusing as it reads: "Maintain a sustainable agricultural industry based primarily on small specialty crops intended for a local market". Brenneman asked if that means chick peas are okay but large cabbage isn't. He recommended the sentence simply read: "Maintain a sustainable agricultural industry". He said there's a mythical belief that land can be chopped up into five acre lots and still call it agricultural, but the truth is that for agricultural land to provide the benefits everyone needs it has to be in "big chunks". Ken Kalvig, 126 Lambert Court, submitted a letter to the Council, stating he is the attorney for Wolford Development, but is also a resident of Kalispell. He said he's reviewed the policy on behalf of his client, and also as a member of the community. Kalvig said the growth policy is too restrictive and does not adequately provide for future commercial property. He said the only choices given in the proposed policy is to build or protect the environment, and there are other choices that can be contemplated. Kalvig alleged the Council isn't doing its job if it allows this policy to move forward without designating more area for commercial on the land use map. He also asked the Kalispell City Council Special Meeting Minutes January 13, 2003 Page Council to take a look at the statutes regarding neighborhood plans and how they're being used in this growth policy. (Letter is attached and by this reference is made a part of the official record) Matt Brake, 1121 1/2 1st Avenue West, stated he feels this is the time to be very conservative and not the time to take risks and make changes with the growth policy that will have long term implications. He suggested that the "Ten Steps to Excellence for our City" that will be submitted to the Council be incorporated and Brake encouraged the Council not to allow the mega mall to be developed on the site proposed. Sammy Horowitz, 660 Boot Jack Lake Road, Whitefish, said the foremost issue surrounding the development of the proposed mega mall is protecting our water. He said he's sure you can pay scientists stating there is technology that can guarantee the safety of Flathead Lake, but that's not true. Horowitz stated the University of Montana has produced massive amounts of information stating the area proposed for the mall is not a responsible area for development. He said the bottom line is he doesn't think the Council wants to leave a legacy that will create a disaster. Jana Goodman, 200 1 st Avenue East, spoke in support of Plan `B" which would designate the area of Highway 2 and Reserve as industrial, not commercial. She said even though the area is small, it has a significant influence on the planning jurisdiction that the City does "have legal control" over. Goodman stated it's imperative that Council address concerns with water quality and commercial density before making any decisions. Dennis Brieske, Brieske's Collision Repair Center LTD, Evergreen, stated he's against the growth policy as it stands now and asked Bill Goodman if he would "be as interested in stopping the mall if he owned that piece of property instead of downtown Kalispell". Paula Alley, 810 3rd Avenue East, said she heard tonight that the Council shouldn't be in the business of protecting the downtown businesses, but it should be in the business of maintaining a viable downtown and those businesses within the City limits. She said she's concerned about pollution and water quality with increased traffic. Alley said someone has recently expressed interest in purchasing the Kalispell Center Mall and if the proposed mall at Highway 2 and Reserve is allowed, the City will be negating any future for the downtown mall. Christian Easter, 1410 Western Drive, said he feels the downtown isn't viable because it doesn't have any living space on Main Street. He commented that Whitefish has apartments above the downtown buildings which create foot traffic. Easter said maybe the City should adjust the zoning for downtown Kalispell to encourage more people to live there. Reed Gregerson, 680 Vonderheide Lane, says he owns a small business in town and he moved here because of the quality of life. He said Kalispell has the economic base that it does because of the quality of life and he asked the Council to preserve open spaces and encourage cluster development. Diane Conradi, Citizens For a Better Flathead, displayed fourmaps depicting the history of planning in the Kalispell area; the 1986 master plan map which is currently in effect and shows we didn't grow the way we thought we would; the 1998 map which was worked on for two years; the 1999 map that was presented from the City -County Planning Board but wasn't adopted; and the current proposed land -use map. She said you can see quite a difference between the way we thought we were going to grow and the way we actually have grown. Conradi commented that the mall is not Kalispell City Council Special Meeting Minutes January 13, 2003 Page 4 the problem; it's a symptom of the problem with project -by -project planning. Conradi said in order to have sound planning, you first need to get an inventory of what you have and then figure out as close as possible what you need, then adopt a map that depicts where the growth should go. She agreed with Greg Stevens that the legal effect of the map as it is right now is going to dictate the way the City grows because when annexation requests are considered, that map is the law. Conradi suggested the Council make very clear that the area outside Kalispell is non -binding and advisory. She said Citizens For a Better Flathead has other suggestions for changes to the growth policy and presented the Council with a letter. (Letter is attached and by this reference is made a part of the official record) Dale Pierce,1015 Ashley Drive, said he opposes the plan as it is and the urban boundary. He said the City should maintain its jurisdiction within the City limits and the County should deal with the area outside the City limits. Pierce added he doesn't agree with a joint planning board; new commercial development should occur where sewer and water is already available and new urban and suburban development should grow where public sewer and water is available. He agreed we need a vibrant downtown, but feels downtown businesses aren't people friendly because there's no parking. Pierce commented he would support a mall because we do need more business and development. Stan Clothier, 1985 Highway 35, President of Evergreen Sewer and Water District, said people are going to move to Kalispell because it's the last best place in the last best state and how we deal with people moving here is a major decision. He said he didn't vote for any of the Council members because he couldn't, he lives in Evergreen, and if the Council adopts a plan that involves him then he wants to have a say. Jeff Dutton, 251 East Reserve Drive, said he's opposed to the megamall because of the groundwater problems. He said if the mall is developed it's going to ruin Flathead River and Flathead Lake. Marti Kurth, 4878 Whitefish Stage Road, said she works for Citizens For a Better Flathead and has an interesting perspective on the plan because she spends half her life in Kalispell, but sleeps in Whitefish. She submitted 53 signed comment cards entitled "Ten Steps to Excellence for our City": 1) Get The Facts; 2) Fix The Map; 3) Set Priorities To Achieve Goals; 4) Keep The "Neighborhood" In Neighborhood Plans; 5) Change It Only Once A Year; 6) Establish An Annual Report Card; 7) Show What It Will Cost and Who Will Pay; 8) Keep Our Downtown Vibrant; 9) Protect Our Clean Water; and 10) Strengthen Public Participation. Kurth said people not only signed the comment sheets, but many added suggestions of their own and asked the Council to review them. (Comment sheets are on record and on file in the office of the City Clerk) Kurth said as far as strengthening public participation, she suggests the Council require a thirty day notice be posted on the street in front of any property being considered for a land -use change. Charles Lapp, 3230 Columbia Falls Stage Road, said he likes the idea of extraterritorial jurisdiction because it's nice to know what the City has planned for that property if he decides to annex. He commented that analyzing everything can go on forever and supply and demand is going to dictate where growth is going to go. Lapp said it will soon be four years since we knew we needed a new growth policy, and two years past the deadline for adoption. He encouraged the Council get something adopted because right now people are working with nothing. Kalispell City Council Special Meeting Minutes January 13, 2003 Page 5 Milt Carlson, 375 Grandview Drive, explained the City -County Planning Board began discussing master plan updates in 1996 and every meeting has been open to the public. He said the 1998 draft gave the best from two years of public input, but wasn't accepted. Carlson said he's been involved with the City Planning Board for the past three months and has watched as members went through the plan word byword and sentence by sentence. He feels the planning board did a magnificent job and asked the Council to have the courage to do its job by adopting what has been presented to them. Mayor Kennedy closed the public hearing. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. ATTEST: Theresa White City Clerk Approved January 21, 2003 Kalispell City Council Special Meeting Minutes January 13, 2003 Page 6 Attorneys at Late Reynolds, Mod and Sherwood A Professional Limited Liability Partnership Linda M Deola 401 North Last Chance Gulch Brenda Lindlief Hall Helena, Montana 59601 Jonathan R. Mod (406) 442-3261 James P. Reynolds Fax (406) 443-7294 Frederick F. Sherwood Deborah S. Smith Daaid KW. Wilson, Jr. January 9, 2003 The Honorable Pam Kennedy and the Kalispell City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Kalispell Draft Growth Policy Dear Mayor Kennedy and Council Members: I am writing you on behalf of Flathead Alliance for Sensible Growth concerning the draft Kalispell Growth Policy currently before the City Council. My clients have asked me to write you to express a number of concerns with the policy as drafted, and its inconsistency with the growth policy map. Specifically, my clients are concerned with the treatment given to the area northeast of the intersection of Highway 2 and Reserve, the area of the proposed Glacier Mall, the focal point of two different lawsuits filed by my clients. The draft growth policy map identified as the "Kalispell Growth Policy 2020 Future Land Use Map" has the northeast corner of Highway 2 and Reserve shaded red, for `commercial" (retail, offices, services, nixed use, residential.) The amount of area shaded red in the proposed growth policy map is significantly larger than the amount of area identified as commercial in the current Kalispell City -County Master Plan map. This expansion of commercial use over existing allowed uses at this site is not supported by the text of the draft Growth Policy. Nor is the presence of commercial use in this area consistent with the environmental carrying capacity of the land as documented in the lawsuits filed by my clients'. Of particular relevance are the documents submitted to the City by Jay Billmayer and Dr. Jack Stanford. Copies of documents attached to the City and County complaints as exhibits, and which were provided to the City staff and Council before its 2002 decision approving the Master Plan Amendment, have been provided to the Planning Board and City Council during the evaluation of this Growth Policy. Dr. Stanford's reports to the City in 2002 clearly document the interconnectivity between surface disturbances and uses on the Evergreen alluvial aquifer, which includes the area proposed for the Glacier Mall development, and impacts to the water quality of Flathead River and Flathead Lake: Our research clearly shows that the shallow alluvial aquifer of the Flathead River circulates water back to the river in the Evergreen area and, hence, to Flathead Lake.... This aquifer has to be protected if the high water quality in Flathead Lake is to be maintained. Water quality problems associated with urban development, like the proposed mall and the collateral urbanization that will come with it, in this sensitive area cannot be held anywhere near zero by any treatment systems that might (or might not) be installed. We have clearly demonstrated water quality in Flathead Lake has deteriorated by one third since 1977 due to incremental increases in pollution within the Kalispell Valley and the airshed of the lake. The mall and its collateral development represent another and potentially huge increment. (Id., Dr. Stanford's June 26, 2002, letter, emphasis added.) Likewise, in 2002, Billmayer Engineering submitted to the City Council "A Report of Engineering Insight and Opinions Relating to Glacier Mall Master Plan amendment." Billmayer analyzed the nature of the alluvial aquifer, site soils, problems with storm water management, waste water treatment and disposal, impacts on private water wells in the area, and the extensive floodplain. According to Mr. Billmayer: The proposed master plan amendment will allow intense development on a site that is comprised of course gravel soils that support a rapidly moving shallow aquifer. There is no known precedent in our caznmunity for such an expansive and intense development within a comparable environmentally sensitive area.... [T]he site selected does not appear to be capable of supporting a development plan of this intensity. (Emphasis added.) Moreover, in addition to the record reflecting that this is a bad location for commercial development, the draft Growth Policy makes it clear that the extent, and location, of any expansion of commercial zoning is unknown at this time anyway. For instance, on page 14, under land use issues, the draft states: 7. There has been a question about the need and amount of commercial and light industrial property that is needed for future growth, but no quantifiable information is available to assess market absorption and vacancy rates. (Emphasis added.) Likewise, on page 23, the draft states: 6. No comprehensive economic study has been completed to quantify the amount of commercial, industrial and residential land that will be needed to accommodate future growth on a regional level leading to unresolved debate about the need for additional or less land anticipated for commercial and/or industrial development. (Emphasis added.) On page 25, the draft recommends that funding be sought for a study "to assist in assessing the long term needs for additional land to accommodate future growth ... of commercial ... uses." Despite this clear uncertainty over the extent and location of commercial space in Kalispell in the next 20 years, the draft Growth Policy appears to defer to the map as the basis for future zoning. In describing the boundaries shown on the map, the draft states: The potential utility service area boundary is shown and was taken from the City of Kalispell Water, Sewer and Storm Drainage Systems Facility Plan adopted by the Kalispell City Council in December of 2002. This is the area anticipated to be served by City of Kalispell water and/or sewer over the next 20 years and beyond.... In order to provide some vision for the future and to provide a basis for zoning upon annexation, the uses and density inside this area have been assigned with this consideration. (Draft Growth Policy, p. 1, emphasis added.) An accurate map is an integral part of legally valid growth policy. Section 76-1-601 (2), MCA, states: (2) A growth policy must include: (b) maps and text describing an inventory of the existing characteristics and features of the jurisdictional area, including: (i) land uses; (viii) other characteristics and features proposed by the planning board and adopted by the governing bodies. (Emphasis added.) A growth policy mast also contain "projected trends" for "land use" and "economic needs." § 76-1-601 (2)(c), MCA. In this case, what the planning board has proposed is further study to determine the need and amount of commercial and industrial property needed for future growth, not a specific finding that commercial growth should justifiably be expanded in this particular location. Thus, the map showing expansion of commercial uses into this location by 2020 does not accurately reflect "projected trends" at all.. since. the planning board acknowledges that further study is needed in order to determine future levels of commercial growth. The Montana Supreme Court has made it clear that planning documents must be internally consistent. In Bridger Canyon Property Owners v. Punning and Zoning Commission (1995), 890 P.2d 1268, the plaintiffs challenged approval of a planned unit development (PUD) which, although in compliance with the zoning ordinance was inconsistent with the general plan and accompanying zoning map for the area. The Court found a "central problem" to be that the planning documents were "not only inconsistent with each other, but they are internally inconsistent." Id. 890 P.2d at. 1274. The court ruled that ... in order to effectively plan for the development of a planning and zoning district, the planning documents which comprise the development pattern must be internally consistent as well as consistent with companion planning documents. Id. Likewise, in an Oregon case relied upon by the Montana Supreme Court in the case of Lit e v. Flathead County (1981), 631 P.2d 1282, South of Sunnyside Neighborhood League v. Board of Commissioners (1977), 569 P.2d 1063, 1072, the Court said "(I]n order for a comprehensive plan to be coordinated and interrelated as required by statute, its land use maps must be consistent with the applicable textual provisions, which normally take the form of goals and policy statements." In short we urge the City to ensure that the Growth Policy, and the maps associated with the Growth Policy, be "internally consistent" as well as consistent between documents. As proposed, there is a major disconnect between the record, the proposed Growth Policy, and the maps which must be addressed before the Growth Policy is finalized. The record reflects that large scale commercial development at this site will not be good for the land, or the waters of the Flathead River system. The proposed Growth Policy reflects that there is insufficient documentation of the need to expand commercial designations in this area. In the event that a reasoned study finds that further commercial development is beneficial, then the City will have the chance to determine where that development will occur, but it should not occur at this site where there is already sufficient documentation of potential harm from such development. In summary, the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020 Future Land Use Map should be made consistent with the text including removing from the future land use map changes to the designation of commercial land at the Reserve and US 2 Intersection. Thanks you for incorporating my clients' concerns into your decision making. Sincerely, David K. W. Wilson, Jr. cc: clients Darlene Jump-Rauthe 687 Scenic Dr., Kalispell, Mt. 59901 Jan. 13, 2003 To the Kalispell City Council: I feel the need to speak up on several matters, including the proposed Glacier Mall in Evergreen and the zoning that has been suggested for the portion of land that is owned by my family. It has been suggested that the zoning be reduced to Industrial; which I feel is not what should be there. It should be zoned Commercial along with other land between East Reserve Dr. and Rose Crossing. I do not feel that the general public has been well enough informed. The proposed Kalispell Growth Policy Map should be published in public newspaper in a format large enough for the public to easily read and understand how it will affect their future. As a user of First Avenues, East & West, I feel they are creating a gridlock and filling the air with automobile fumes caused by cars waiting to turn comers. If you haven't heard complaints; you are not listening. As truck owner, I believe the Eastside By-pass would be very beneficial. Most sincerely, kvs,�- _ Northwest Montana Association of REALTORS@ Inc. 690 North Meridian Road, Suite 105 Office (406) 752-4313 REALTOW Kalispell, Montana 59901 FAX (406) 752-7834 1/13/03 e-mail nwmisgen@digisys.net Kalispell City Council and Kalispell City Planning Board Tri-City Planning Office 17 2nd Street East Kalispell, MT 59901 (Faxed to 751-1858 and mailed) Dear Kalispell City Council Members, The Northwest Montana Association of REALTORS, Inc. had representatives _at the recent public hearing of the Draft of the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020. We formally stated that we would have written comments to you by 12/24/02, which we did. Those comments were very minor in comparison to the concerns that we wish to express now that we have had more time to study the document. At this time we. have more serious concerns about the document and are voicing our concerns and recommendations. The first request we make to the City Council is that you send the policy back to the planning board with directions to address the concerns stated in this letter as well as other recent public comment. We formally request that once the Planning Board has a final document that a public hearing be granted with 30 days notice to the public for a final hearing. While in attendance at a joint planning session over three years ago the Northwest Montana Association of REALTORS pointed out that there was new legislation addressing Growth Policies that was not being adhered to. We warned that the plan did not meet current Montana law. We now state that the Kalispell Growth Policy of 12/31/02 does not appear to comply with current Montana Statute governing growth policies. References to the statute are shown as footnotes. There are currently new bills proposed in the current session that may again change Montana law on this type of document. Passage of this policy before the session ends is not necessary given the inadequate time the public has had to review any final draft. The Northwest Montana Association of REALTORS, Inc. appreciates the time and dedication you have given to the Kalispell Growth Policy and hopes that you will continue to welcome input until this project reaches implementation contributing vision to a well planned community and a future that offers our citizens a healthy economy with affordable housing and opportunity for ail. The Kalispell City Growth Policy (KCGP) dated 12/31/02 presents very broadly worded and vague goals and policies. Recommendations are also very broad and often raise more questions than they answer with respect to how implementation would occur. Real estate interests, property rights and affordable housing are areas of great concern to us. The KCGP does not provide the detail needed for a reader to evaluate whether those concerns would be alleviated by the eventual implementation of the KCGP. The KCGP chapters offer no explanation, which shows the reader changes that would occur to existing land use regulations. We need an answer to this question, "How does the City plan to meet obligations to meet the Montana state statutory growth policy requirements and to correct these deficiencies before final adoption?" Although some of the changes made to the KCGP since the recent public hearing are helpful the final version was not available until 12/31/02, only 13 days ago. This was not adequate time for meeting constitutional procedural due Process standards for public review and comment. ANALYSIS: There is an insufficient foundation for the goals, policies and recommended actions presented. While Appendix A presents some analysis of the City's demographic, housing and employment trends, it contains insufficient analysis of current and future land uses. Appendix A is not adequately referenced or discussed in the policy chapters. Addressing critical issues such as Growth Management (2), Land Use & Housing (3) and other types of Land Uses Management (3 & 4); contain only brief paragraphs and cursory summaries of the issues. Transportation does not even reflect changes that have occurred in the last eight years. This strongly reflects insufficient analysis methods were utilized. In many cases facts or conclusions Presented are not even linked to or supported by the analysis presented in the policy. As a foundation for any change in land use or development related policies there should be: Type of Analysis: Quantitative analysis of existing land uses to determine the amount of land in various land use categories currently in use or available for development or use based on the existing regulatory framework must be provided. Analysis of Future Demands for land for growth and development and projected demand, by land use category, over a reasonable time frame should be provided as a basis for trends regarding land use. Deficiency: KCGP Appendix A contains an Existing Land Use Map, which maps the various categories but furnishes no summary or analysis of the total area devoted to each land use category. It is a major deficiency to lack an analysis of future land use trends in a growth policy. ISSUE 1: 2 The Planning Board process has not afforded us an adequate opportunity to review and comment upon the KCGP and therefore has failed to comply with the policy's own public participation and public hearing process. MT law provides for at least 10 days prior to the date of a public hearing on a growth policy. * MT law provides that the governing body conduct public hearings for the purpose of providing reasonable opportunity for citizen participation prior to final decision and to provide for the submission of written and oral testimony. * Changing the policy document required a new hearing before final decision. The Planning Board has passed their final decision on to the City Council without a hearing on their final document ( a document which also changed between the public notice and the Dec. 17`s hearing). Even more specific notice is required to the public when local governments adopt ordinances. One could easily draw an analogy to the ordinance adoption procedures to illustrate how the opportunity to review the specific text of an ordinance is a critical element in satisfying both notice and due process requirements.* Cases decided by MT. Courts have held that the Open Meeting Law and Public Meeting Act require government bodies to act to encourage public participation in decisions of public interest. The Planning Board's Final Recommendation on a growth policy is of definite public interest!* Courts in some instances have invalidated the adoption of zoning ordinances and amendments where the adopted version differs from the ordinance as advertised.* However if additional notice is given, the defect may be cured. In the case at hand where the Planning Board has not highlighted the changes made to each earlier version, it has been difficult to track the nature and extent of the changes made to each version and to determine whether or not the changes have been substantial. MT Code Anno. Sec. 76-1-601(1) MT Code Anno. Sec. 76-1-602 Mt Code Anno. Sec. 2-3-104 (4) See.7-1-4131 Sec. 7-5-103 and 103(3) MT Constitution, Article II, Sections 8&9 KCGP, p.73 & 74 We request that you direct the Planning Board to ensure that each change to any typographical or grammar corrections. This will ensure that the public can adequately judge the nature and extent of any changes. It also would help if they used word spell corrections. Of course, this change would also make your job easier! ISSUE 2: The KCGP does not meet with MT statutory growth policy requirements. This deficiency creates uncertainty and should be remedied prior to adoption by the city council. a. MT planning statutes list the specific required contents of a growth policy as follows: i. Community goals and objectives ii. Maps and accompanying text describing an inventory of the existing characteristics and features of the jurisdictional area including 1. land uses 2. population 3. housing needs 4. economic conditions 5. local services 6. public facilities 7. natural resources and 8. other characteristics and features proposed by the planning board and adopted by the governing bodies; iii. projected trends for the life of the growth policy for each of the following 1. land use 2. population 3. housing needs 4. economic conditions 5. local services 6. natural resources; and 7. other elements proposed by the planning board and adopted by the governing bodies; iv. a description of policies, regulations and other measures to be implemented in order to achieve the goals and objectives established in subsection (2) (a); v. a strategy for development, maintenance and replacement of public infrastructure, including water systems, wastewater treatment facilities, sewer systems, solid waste facilities, fire protection, roads and bridges vi. an implementation strategy that includes; 1. a timetable for implementation of the policy 2. a list of conditions that will lead to a revision of the policy 3. a timetable for reviewing the growth policy at least once every five years with revision when necessary. vii. A clearly defined statement of how the governing bodies will coordinate and cooperate with the other jurisdictions that explains: 1. how Kalispell will cooperate with Flathead County on matters related to growth in the areas bordering Kalispell viii. A clearly defined statement explaining how Kalispell will 1. define the criteria in MT Code 76-3-608 (30 (a); and 0 2. evaluate and make decisions regarding proposed subdivisions with respect to the criteria in MT Code 76-3- 608(30 (a); and ix. a statement explaining clearly how public hearings regarding proposed subdivisions will be conducted. Showing projected trends in land use according to the physical aspects of Kalispell must be completed before any adoption of any new land use goals or policies could create more uncertainty from the prospective of a property owner or developer. State statute requires analysis of projected land use trends and this draft of the KCGP shows almost no analysis of those trends. An analysis of projected land use trends would require a discussion of Kalispell's existing regulations that currently govern growth and development and the extent of change that would result from implementation of the KCGP recommendations. Montana Statute 76-1-60 also requires more than the broadly worded statements that do not give adequate explanation of the type of action being proposed; nor does the implementation strategy contain the required timetable for implementing the KCGP. Zoning regulatory actions are listed in a limited way but do not fully address the broad range of recommendations included in the other substantive chapters of the KCGP. As an example, the land use recommends encouragement of infill housing where public services are available (p.10), but the implementation strategy section does not identify specific zoning regulations that will result in the implementation. Broadly worded goals and policies are nice to read about but have the potential to create continued and additional uncertainty. Specific regulations must comply with growth policies in order to comply with MT statute so if the growth policy is to be used when considering development decisions it must be specific and not broad leaving it open to vaned interpretations. These deficiencies defeat the very purpose of a growth policy by increasing uncertainty. Goals, policies and recommendations need to be grounded in sound factual understanding and analysis and in this case are just too general. As such, they are more likely to be subiect to change at whim or to be inconsistent in the futureThis will create uncertainty, which may end up impacting local property values and the willingness of developers to invest in the community. rfoara ana to atrect tnem to correct statutory deficiencies Clearer descriptions of proposed regulatory and implementation plans need to be included. Specific analysis of conditions and how the implementation plan will be designed to address any existing problems or concerns must be included. ISSUE 3. The KCGP Growth Management chapter should be revised to more clearly explain how the goals, policies and recommendations would implement the urban service area (USA) and how the USA would guide decisions regarding allowable uses and densities. Low -density suburban development in outlying areas is briefly mentioned. The intent of the accompanying goal "to have new urban and suburban development occur in areas where public water and sewer are available" and the recommendation to use the USA as "a guide when deciding future land use and densities in a particular area" are very unclear. Are you suggesting that the County should limit the development potential of property in these areas? Is Kalispell committed to make a corresponding commitment to promote higher density development throughout the USA? It is not possible with this policy document to determine the extent to which such land use trends by land use category are being proposed for change and/or the consequences of such regulatory changes. For example, would demand continue for low -density suburban development even if incentives were offered for higher density development in more urban areas within the urban services area? Studies elsewhere often show that this occurs, driving new development even further out and raising housing costs. A key consideration in delineating an USA is that it should be large enough to accommodate the urban growth that is projected based upon population forecasts, at densities that are achievable in light of the local real estate market and other market factors. If the USA does not include enough developable land within its boundaries, property values in that area will increase to beyond affordable. Property values outside that area will initially decrease if there is a loss of development interest within the USA. However, land immediately adjacent to the USA will greatly increase in value. This has been shown to act as an impediment to future urbanization of these areas. The KCGP proposes policies that limit development outside the USA, even though that area is not under their jurisdiction. If increases in demand for developable land exhausts available supply as a result of the failure to designate areas in excess of actual demand, land price inflation results. We recommend that before the KCGP is adopted, further analysis of the goals, policies and recommendations related to the USA be concluded. Reasonable projections as to the demand and supply of land for development over a variety of time periods need to be made. Flexibility should be given to allow for an avoidance of constraining the supply as the USA becomes built -out. ISSUE 4: The KCGP is not clear on how goals, policies and recommendations can be implemented if that implementation depends on actions within and by Flathead County. A continued lack of agreement by citizens of the County with the City of Kalispell has contributed, in the past, to the dissolution of a combined growth policy. For the KCGP to be so greatly focused on curtailing growth outside of its jurisdiction the City of Kalispell should identify a long-range plan of coordinated efforts that would be taken, as a failure to do so could undermine the feasibility of implementation of many of the goals, policies and recommendations. It does not seem appropriate for Kalispell to focus on an area delineated prior to the dissolution of the City -County Planning Board. ISSUE 5: Adequate public facility requirements are recommended by the KCGP. However, the KCGP fails to identify specific actions that would be taken to implement the public facility requirement. They are not supported by the analysis in the KCGP and will greatly affect housing costs. If the KCGP proposes any new adequate public facilities (APF) policies it should address an analysis of the existing capacity and planned improvements and more clearly explain how an APF program would be implemented and how standards would be determined. This is a significant concern for the real estate industry. Direct costs of an APF will be passed on; raising housing costs or being absorbed by builders and developers. The KCGP needs to more clearly address this issue. ISSUE 6: Infill policies will involve the use of techniques that require more extensive local planning efforts and the commitment of public resources to stimulate private investment. The KCGP does not address adequate analysis to determine the extent to which infill techniques will achieve the goals and objectives of the plan. Without this type of analysis, it is not possible to determine the extent to which infill may be viable. Stimulating Private investment is critical to the success of an infill strategy. Market dynamics must be considered or infill will fail and scarce public funds could be wasted. We recommend the KCGP outline with more specificity the planning efforts that would be undertaken to focus on infill and related infrastructure. ISSUE 7: The KCGP generally suggests that mixed uses and compatible design are to be encouraged, but fails to discuss how such policies would be implemented. From a real estate perspective, promoting certain design elements should be balanced with the need to maintain flexibility in regulations to allow development that is market - supported and consistent with established growth patterns for a particular area. Providing real estate professionals review and comment when drafting specific regulations with design requirements can contribute to minimizing negative consequences. We recommend that the vague references to design be explained so that the intent to which design standards will be imposed is understood. We further request that the statutory basis for a design regulation be identified. ISSUE 8: Language has been removed that focused on current trends for business & industry. We request an explanation as to why that language is missing. We would also like to recommend to you that there is not enough land dedicated to either business or light industrial needs. Assessment of these needs is vital to a good plan for the future. Other land uses are being reflected as needing growth areas but not these categories. This is unbalanced. These economical trends cannot be ignored in the KCGP. ISSUE 9: The map has not had adequate public comment most likely because viewing it or printing it off the web site is not adequate. This is another reason for continuation of the public hearing process. Appendices were not working on the website prior to the Dec. 17' public hearing and therefore there was not adequate public notice. ISSUE 10: We reiterate that the KCGP does not contain specifics about how to amend the policy document. This is another reason it needs to be returned to the planning board. FINAL STATEMENT & REQUEST: The NMAR requests that the Kalispell City Council refer the KCGP back to the Planning Board to review the above issues and finalize compliance with Montana Statute before they adopt this policy. We recommend and request that when the Planning Board has completed their work; another public hearing be held after 30 days notice has been given to the public for review of their final policy document. This letter is accompanied by a copy of the current document with tabs on individual pages and comments that are suggested with strike outs and additions from some of our task force members. Although we recognize the long hours and hard work that have gone into this document we also state that the adoption of this current draft would not be in the best interest of the citizens of Kalispell. There is more work to be done. We are available to assist in completion of this very important task. We have a database of statistics that can be utilized to assist in analyzing trends and future needs. We have offered before over the years but have never been asked for this information by your staff. Nonetheless, we offer our assistance again. Sincerely, Richard Doran, President Northwest Montana Association of REALTORS "The Voice of Real Estate in the Northwest corner of Montana" nmar.com 13 January 2003 City Council City of Kalispell Subject: Kalispell Growth Policy From: Bill Breen 335 Mountain Meadow Road Kalispell, Mt. 59901-8407 Following are my comments and suggestions regarding the Kalispell Growth Policy Document. These comments relate to the section on Neighborhood Plans starting on page 58 of the draft. Page 58 Delete: Neighborhood Plans may be used as a tool to amend the growth policy and to coordinate and clarify the development of large projects that are not anticipated in the growth policy. Substitute: Neighborhood plans provide a means to support existing neighborhoods and assuring new development is part of a larger whole rather than a specific subdivision. Reasoning: The danger here is that opening the growth policy to amendments using neighborhood plans could be used to circumvent the intent of the growth policy. Page 65 Delete: Neighborhood plans may be used as a tool to amend the growth policy. Substitute: Neighborhood plans may be used to provide a basis for evaluating a development proposal including large and complex development projects that have not been anticipated under the growth policy. } .. Reasoning: Same as previous comment. Could result in attempts to circumvent the growth policy. Page 65 Add: A neighborhood plan should extend over an area of at least 320 acres. Reasoning: Some size standards should be established to avoid a proliferation of mini neighborhood plans. Page 66 Neighborhood Plan Implementation Strategies. Paragraph C Change to: Neighborhood Plans should be reviewed every 5 years etc. Reasoning: A review every 3 years seems too frequent. State Law requires a 5- year review for growth policy acts which is reasonable. Page 66 Add 2 elements to be included in the list of implementation strategies. A map showing boundaries of the specific plan stating why the boundaries are appropriate. A transportation network that conforms with adopted plans showing connecting points to commercial areas, parks and housing developments Thanks for the opportunity to comment. LAW OFFICES OF KAUFMAN, VIDAL & HILEMAN, P.C. Leonard L. Kaufman James E. Vidal Daniel W. Hileman James M. Ramlow Tia R. Robbin Shelly F. Brander Ken A. Kalvig 22 Second Avenue West P.O. Box 728 Kalispell, MT 59903-0728 January 13, 2003 City of Kalispell 312 1 st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: Kalispell Growth Policy Dear Mayor Kennedy and City Council Members: Telephone: 406-755-5700 Fax: 406-755-5783 kak@kvhlaw.com Thank you for considering comment on the Kalispell Growth Policy. My comments are tied to the draft growth policy dated December 31, 2002. If you have any questions regarding my comments or would like to discuss them further, please feel free to call me at my office. The public has not had a fair opportunity to review the many changes that have been made in this document. I believe that the draft growth policy prepared by the former city county planning board (which is when the last public involvement occurred prior to November of 2002) was approximately 35-40 pages long. The document in its current form is nearly twice that length, yet the public had little time to become familiar with the document and to develop comment. Furthermore, only 6-7 weeks were allowed between the open house held by the planning board and the public hearing by the city council —which period coincided with the Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years' holidays. Isn't it ironic that Administration Goal 8 is that the City "Seek ways to provide avenues for greater public participation in the development review process" but the City apparently is not concerned about increasing public participation in the process of reviewing the growth policy? See also, Admin Recommendation 3, p. 7. January 13, 2003 Page 2 INTRODUCTION 2. Page 3: Introduction: "Recommendations" are defined as specific actions to be taken by the City to implement the goals outlined in the document and are intended as part of an overall implementation strategy. If all these recommendation are mandates, the Council should review them carefully. CHAPTER 2-GROWTH MANAGEMENT 3. Page 10: Policy 6: Delete the words, "encourage the most appropriate use of land" or replace it with "encourage an appropriate use of the land." CHAPTER 4-LAND USE: BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY 4. Page 14; Issues: Reinsert as Issue 41 the following, which language was in earlier drafts dating back to the City -County Planning Board: "Spreading out from an historical concentration in downtown Kalispell, most commercial growth in the Kalispell area during recent years has occurred along highway commercial strips and centers at highway intersections. The highway centers are usually anchored by large discount stores, supermarkets, and/or hotels. The remainder of the highway strip generally focuses on franchise businesses closer in and quasi -industrial businesses in outlying areas. Another commercial center, the hospital area has grown as a major medical and office complex." This language is fact -based and should be left in. You cannot deny the commercial development in Evergreen, Highway 93 and West Reserve, and south of Kalispell on Highway 93. 5. Page 14: Issue 1: In the third line, replace the words "also present design problems" with "may also present design challenges" and delete the words "and lack of general appeal" at the end of the sentence. 6. Page 15: Goal 2: Change this to read "where public water and sewer can be made available." This makes the statement consistent with your Visions Statement and Goal 4 in the Chapter on Growth Management. 7. "Target Development Areas" a. This concept should be deleted. It creates an implication that these areas should develop before other commercially designated areas. b. Land Use: Business and Industry Goal 3, p. 15 January 13, 2003 Page 3 8. Page 16: Policy 3a: Change this to read as follows -- "Established commercial districts along major arterials are anticipated to provide areas for commercial uses that include but are not limited to those that require space for outdoor display of merchandise ...." The underlined language is new. It helps to prevent this policy from being interpreted as limiting commercial uses along highway arterials that are already permitted under existing zoning, which include restaurants, banks, various service providers. 9. PaQe 16: Policy 3b: Commercial expansion will not, and should not be required to, only occur as a "continuation of adjacent commercial development." While the concept of keeping commercial expansion near other commercial property is a good idea, this language may be too rigid. Consider the following to replace it: "Expansion of established commercial districts should be encouraged to occur lineally and laterally near existing commercial land." 10. Paee 17; Policy 4c. DELETE. This is essentially a repeat of Policy 4a, and is overkill 11. Page 17• Policy 4_d.4: Insert at the end of the first sentence, "unless the scale of the development warrants other sign considerations." 12. Page 177 Recommendation 5: Delete the words "including analysis". This change makes it clear to developers what studies are expected and eliminates the possibility of unexpected requirements. 13. A regional economic study to quantify amount of commercial, industrial, and residential land needed to accommodate future growth is not necessary. What happens in one city should not be contingent upon what happens in other cities. It is very likely that consulting with business leaders and real estate professionals could yield results that may be just as accurate at a fraction of the cost and more quickly. 14. More commercial land should be designated on the map. January 13, 2003 Page 4 CHAPTER 6-THE ECONOMY 15. Page 25, Policy 6: This policy should be rewritten as follows: "Work with business and industrial associations to better understand the needs of business and industry and to prepare and coordinate a growth policy that responds to those needs." As currently written, Kalispell's growth policy is trying to dictate the future of business and industry, by saying "Business and industry must develop according to the growth policy." This is exactly opposite of how it should be. Kalispell should recognize that planning cannot dictate how the market will move. Rather, Kalispell should focus on encouraging feedback from business and industry and shape its growth policies in response to that feedback. The change suggested above, encourages Kalispell to respond to business, industry, and the market, which will yield better results for Kalispell. CHAPTER 12-NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS 16. Neighborhood Plans: A neighborhood plan should not be identified as the tool for developers or landowners to amend the growth policy. Montana Code Annotated section 76-1-601(3)(a) states that "[a] neighborhood plan must be consistent with t h e g r o w t h policy." If a developer or landowner's plan must be consistent with the growth policy, then why is the developer or landowner even amending the plan? Neighborhood plans are defined in Montana Code Annotated section 76-1-103(6) as "a plan for a geographic area within the boundaries of the jurisdictional area that addresses one or more of the elements of the rg owth op lice in more detail." Based upon these two statements form the Montana Code Annotated, neighborhood plans should be primarily be used as a tool to develop a plan that addresses in more detail one or more issues, goals, policies, or recommendations made in the growth policy. 17. Page 58. 2nd Paragraph of the Introduction: Any reference to "projects that are not anticipated in the growth policy" should be deleted throughout the document. Other than the few neighborhood plans identified in the growth policy, specific projects are not discussed. The following language should be amended: a. Change the I' sentence of the 2"d full paragraph on page 58 FROM: "Neighborhood plans may be used as a tool to amend the growth policy and to coordinate and clarify the development of large projects that are not anticipated in the growth policy." ID] January 13, 2003 Page 5 "Neighborhood plans may be used as a tool to amend the growth policy' and to coordinate and clarify the development of large projects." 18. Page 58: Change the last sentence of the first paragraph in the section on "Stillwater Destination Resort" to read "Approximately 212 acres ofthis area is withinthe growth policy area.,, CHAPTER 13-IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 19. Page 63: Items 2g & 2h: Are the words "growth policy map referring to the "future land use map" or "current inventory map"? 20. Page 64: Items 3a & 3b: These two sections are confusing. It is not clear whether they are mutually exclusive or if amendment pursuant to section 3b can only be initiated if the criteria in section 3a also exist. 21. Delete words of degree that potentially lead to argument or litigation over whetherthe degree exists, including the following underlined terms: a. Page 64: Item 3a: "maior change"; "large increase in population, a large unanticipated development." b. Page 64: Item 3b: "Significant changes" 22. Page 64: Item 3e: In the 4`h line, change the words "the most effective means" to "an effective means." This keeps the planning board out of the debate about whether the change is "the most effective" and, therefore, whether or not it should be made. 23. Page 66. Items 4c and 4f: Extend the time period for reviewing neighborhood plans from 3 to 5 years. In light of the duration of the Kalispell growth policy, and the slow pace at which development can sometimes occur, this suggested change is slight. 24. Page 66: Item 4e: Delete the following from the list of what needs to be addressed: —"feasibility of the development" --"a convincing showing of need" —"appropriateness of the proposed location of the project" The first two or these items should not be required of the applicant. If the applicant believes the project is viable, that should be enough provided that the other information required is satisfactory. If "feasibility of the development" and "convincing showing of need" are left ' The language "amend the growth policy" should be deleted if the council decides that neighborhood plans should not be used as a tool to amend growth policies. January 13, 2003 Page 6 in as criteria, then it needs to be explained HOW an applicant demonstrates that these issues are satisfied. The last of these items is unnecessary if the applicant satisfies the other criteria in the list (i.e., if it is shown that the plan is in overall conformance with the growth policy, compatible with the neighborhood, and that local services can be provided, then it seems the location is appropriate.) 25. Page 66; Item 4g: The City Council should reconsider the requirement that the zone change must wait until after the growth policy is amended. Neighborhood plans will probably only be requested when a zone change is contemplated. Bifurcating the process, only leads to more delay for the applicant. 26. Paee 73, Item 15: The last sentence of the introductory paragraph should be deleted because the growth policy already provides for this information to be provided or a mechanism by which this information will be gathered or it is vague as to what information is required. That sentence reads, "A neighborhood plan amendment or update of the growth policy involving a large area, major policy changes or major changes to land use designations may include collecting opinions, assessing community needs, an inventory or services and resources and providing the opportunity for meaningful public participation." --Opinions can be given at a public hearing (oral or written). Public hearings are already provided for. --The public is provided an "opportunity for meaningful public involvement" because the planning board and the city council will each hold a public hearing and all information relative to the application is available for public scrutiny. --It is unclear what is meant by "collecting ... an inventory or services and resources." 27. Pave 74, Item 15m: Delete this item, which reads as follows: "Conduct public opinion surveys to solicit a better understanding of the community's desires and concerns." This is not the function of the governing body. Taxpayer dollars should not be spent on this. Surveys can be very costly. THIS IS AN INVITATION TO A LAWSUIT. If a survey has a faint hint of bias in it, someone, whose position is not supported by the survey will file a lawsuit over how he or she was damaged by the results of the survey. This is a very bad idea. Who will prepare the survey? When will surveys be done? If surveys are not done in all cases, then what justifies a survey in one instance but not another? 28. Page 74; Item 16 This states that "additional plans, studies or reports can be performed to provide additional information, guidance or support for the growth policies.... These additional plans, studies or reports would not typically be considered if they are in conjunction with a development January 13, 2003 Page 7 project or performed by or on behalf of a developer or special interest group." If this language means that the city government must conduct traffic studies, environmental impact studies, etc. this creates additional burden for taxpayers. Historically, developers/applicants have had to submitthese studies and the credibility of the professionals performing the study, as well as the content of the study, help the governing body determine whether the study is credible. This historical process should not be changed and this new policy deleted. Sincerely, KAUFMAN, VIDAL & HILEMAN, P.C. I L I Ken Kalvi g P.O. Box 771 35 Fourth Street West Kalispell, Montana 59903 January 13, 2003 City of Kalispell City Council City Hall Kalispell, Montana 59901 G�T11.6N4 FoR A BETTER FLgt,HFgO W INO TOO F.TNF.& FOR XPlGMow"!n SOL V'IaONS Dear Council Members and Honorable Mayor: Tel. 406.756.8993 Fax. 406.756.8991 citizens@flatheadcitizens.org Please accept this letter and attached comments on behalf of Citizens For A Better Flathead as part of the record in your consideration of the Kalispell 2020 Growth Policy. Overall the Growth Policy contains forward thinking proposals and provides a good basis,a's a framework for growth. Kudos to the Planning Board and Tri City Planning Staff for the commitment of resources, professionalism, brain power and community involvement to the development of this document. The following is a summary of our suggestions for ways to make the policy more consistent and stronger. The proposed language is contained more fully in the attachment. 1. GET THE FACTS . Within one year of the date of adoption, conduct a comprehensive study of the commercial, industrial and residential lands contained within the plan area and determine what we'll need in the next 20 years. 2. FIX THE MAP Adopt a Future Land Use Map that reflects the results of the commercial, industrial, and residential lands study. Refrain from designating additional lands as commercial or light industrial in the area outside the city boundaries (e.g. remove the commercial designation forremove the commercial designation for the proposed Glacier Mall site in Evergreen) Mall site in Evergreen) until the study is completed. 3. SET PRIORITIES TO ACHIEVE GOALS Each year, identify and prioritize the Growth Policy Implementation Strategies in Chapter 13 for the planning board and city council to work on during the year so we can accomplish the goals we set. 4. KEEP THE "NEIGHBORHOOD" IN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN; Adopt minimum acreage and neighborhood plan criteria that allow neighbors to have a say in plans that amend the Growth Policy. These guidelines and criteria should identify and address site specific and area wide growth patterns, infrastructure and tax base impacts, as well as justification for the size of the plan. Insist that Neighborhood Plan amendment proposals be consistent with the Growth Policy. Avoid "spot zoning" changes that only benefit individual developers. s. CHANGE IT ONLY ONCE A YEAR. Establish a provision for an annual mid -winter review of any proposed growth policy amendments. Look at the cumulative impacts of proposed changes. 6. ESTABLISH AN ANNUAL REPORT CARD. Each year, measure how well the plan is being implemented, and identify annual goals to ensure completion of the Growth Policy Implementation Strategies. Keep the public better informed and they will get more involved. 7. SHOW WHAT IT WILL COST AND WHO WILL PAY. Include a policy to conduct a cost benefit analysis of the potential costs for delivery of services and other tax base and job impacts prior to the hearings on major developments or annexation proposals. 8. KEEP OUR DOWNTOWN VIBRANT In the "Land Use: Business and Industry." section emphasizes the importance of retail and office uses in downtown Kalispell. Strengthen the text to discourage traditional lineal strip commercial development along major arterials. Encourage walkability in new developments. 9. PROTECT OUR CLEAN WATER Include language that development should be designed, sited and conditioned to avoid loss and minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. Strengthen policies to support viable agricultural now and in the future. 10. STRENGTHEN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Require 30-day notice with posted signs on property affected by land use changes. Include provisions to diffuse potential conflict with pre -application meetings between neighbors and developers and encourage collaborative opportunities for innovation and consideration of neighborhood compatibility. Sincerely, TI ENS F R A BETTER lane Conradi Executive Director Encl. TEN STEPS TO EXCELLENCE Ten Recommendations for a Sound Growth Policy for Kalispell GET THE FACTS. Within one year of the date of adoption, conduct a comprehensive study of the commercial, industrial and residential lands contained within the plan area and determine what we'll need to accommodate those uses for the next 20 years. Q�_ Page 25, Recommendation # 5. Add the following language that is underlined. 5. Obtain Seek funding for a regional economic study to assist in assessing the existing inventory and project the long term needs for additional land to accommodate future growth and development of commercial, light industrial and residential uses and make completion of this study a top priority . 2. FIX THE MAP. Adopt a Future Land Use Map that reflects the results of the commercial, industrial, and residential lands study. Refrain from designating additional lands as commercial or light industrial in the area outside the city boundaries (e.g. The Kalispell Growth Policy 2020 Future Land Use Map should be made consistent with the text including taking the immediate step of removing from the future land use map changes to the designation of commercial land at the Reserve and US 2 Intersection. Qr Page 1, Introduction. Add a fourth bullet that reads as follows: ➢ The Future Land Use Planning Map depicts current and proposed acceptable uses in a very broad manner. It does not represent a commitment by the city to approve every development proposed within each category. The map is advisory only outside the current city limits. Under state law, a growth policy map must be consistent with the textual language of the growth policy. Therefore, until the map can be reviewed in light of a recommended regional economic study to establish the long term needs for additional land to accommodate future growth and development of commercial, light industrial and residential uses, the map is non- binding for purposes of annexation and zoning. This study is intended to be a high priority implementation strategy of this plan. C�Fl Page 4, Add to end of that paragraph the following sentence: It is recognized that completing a recommended regional economic study to assist in assessing the long term needs for additional land to accommodate future growth and development of commercial, light industrial and residential uses, is a prerequisite to developing a more meaningful map. SET PRIORITIES TO ACHIEVE GOALS Each year, identify and prioritize the Growth Policy Implementation Strategies in Chapter 13 for the planning board and city council to work on during the year so we can accomplish the goals we set. Qe- In addition to the text changes proposed under our heading "Establish an Annual Report Card" add the following implementation strategies. On page 74 add strategies "o", "p", and "q." Q o. Use web based tools and print media to better inform the public of opportunities to participate in annual goal setting and progress towards identified goals. Consider publication of a quarterly newsletter. p. Provide updates on progress towards goals that reflect the need to encourage infill and cost effective development from the center of the community out in keeping with the long range vision of this plan for future growth. q. Host an annual town meeting to celebrate progress, recognize those who made this possible, encourage the greater participation of our community's youth and develop input for annual goal setting. Haopt minimum acreage and neighborhood plan criteria that allow neighbors to have a say in plans that amend the Growth Policy. These guidelines and criteria should identify and address site specific and area -wide growth patterns, infrastructure and tax base impacts, as well as justification for the size of the plan. Insist that Neighborhood Plan amendment proposals be consistent with the Growth Policy. Avoid "spot zoning" changes that only benefit individual developers. Adopt the proposed definition of "neighborhood": An area of Kalispell with characteristics that distinguish it from other areas and that may include distinct economic characteristics, housing types, schools, or boundaries defined by physical barriers, such as major highways and railroads or natural features, such as watercourses or ridges. A neighborhood is often characterized by residents sharing a common identity focused around a school, park, business, center or other feature. As a distinct and identifiable area, often with its own name, neighborhoods are recognized as fostering community spirit and a sense of place, factors recognized as important in community planning. [�- Page 7, Recommendations, # 5. Change this to read (changes are underlined) 5. Use the neighborhood plan process to address large scale and /or complex projects that have not been anticipated in the growth policy to reflect a shared vision of the future. This tool is available to neighborhoods only. The minimum size for neighborhoods that are 50% or more built out as measured by the number or area of occupied developable parcels is 160 acres. The minimum for neighborhoods less than 50% built out as measured by the number or area of occupied developable parcels is 640 acres In no case shall the neighborhood plan be limited to the size of a proposed development application or protect. Page 12, following policy 8. Add four additional policies to help preserve neighborhood character and change numbering to accommodate as follows: 12. Discourage medium and high density residential developments in fragile, sensitive or critical areas so as to avoid exceeding the carrying capacity of the site. 13. Conserve open spaces within the city, as well as in rural areas. 14. Neighborhoods should be involved in the planning and decision making processes that affect them. 15. Develop a reliable support program for the preparation and implementation of neighborhood plans. Page 19, Recommendations, #8. Insert after "intricate mix of land uses" the following "including retail, office, and residential," Page 58, Neighborhood Plans. Delete the first sentence of the second paragraph to be consistent with text changes we recommend on Page 7, Recommendations, # 5. COF, Page 64, #3 Updating the Growth Policy, Delete current language under "a." And insert language found on page 7, #7, to provide consistent policy statements. cz�_ Page 65, #4, In that paragraph insert a sentence after the first that reads: Neighborhood plans are intended to allow for a greater degree of early citizens participation in planning efforts which will directly influence their place of residence or work. lzr_ Page 66, top of page. Delete the following language from this sentence and add underlined language. A siRgle ^-e^_•ty GWReF a A group of property owners may initiate a neighborhood plan development patterns including addressing unique situations, development pressures a Gomplex projeGt or other specific neighborhood concerns. 5. CHANGE IT ONLY ONCE A YEAR. Establish a provision for an annual mid -winter review of any proposed growth policy amendments. Look at the cumulative impacts of proposed changes. [�F_ Page 65, Growth Policy Update Implementation Strategy. Insert g. to read as follows: A request to amend the Kalispell Growth Policy may be submitted at any time to the office of Planning and Community Development. However, amendment applications by private parties will be grouped and processed cumulatively on an annual basis. This will allow for all proposed changes to be reviewed collectively, prevent unexpected outcomes from incremental changes and aid in prevention of inconsistencies. 6. ESTABLISH AN ANNUAL REPORT CARD. Each year, measure how well the plan is being implemented, and identify annual goals to ensure completion of the Growth Policy Implementation Strategies. Keep the public better informed and they will get more involved. CW_ Page 6 and 7, Policies, # 6. Replace # 6 with the following to be consistent with text on pages 64-65: The growth policy will be reviewed annually by the planning board and a report will be prepared for the city council. The report shall include a summary of annexation, subdivision, and land development activity and development of an inventory of available land for each land use category. The report shall summarize progress on annual goals toward fulfilling identified implementation strategies and recommend new goals for the year. Finally, the report may identify any weaknesses in policies or implementation strategies that have been raised during the year that could benefit from additional review. The city council will review the need for any updates. Amendments should be viewed cautiously and be based primarily on significant unanticipated changes and sound findings of fact. (0- Page 7, Policies, # 7. Insert the changes underlined below. Comprehensive updates of the growth policy should be considered when there is a major change in circumstances such as a significant increase or decrease in population more than 15% during the period between five year reviews), changes in economic or environmental conditions established by adequate findings of fact or significant changes in public infrastructure and services that were not considered in the original plan. Page 64, # 3a. Replace language used here with language used on page 7, Policies, #7 to insure internal consistency in the document. SHOW WHAT IT WILL COST AND WHO WILL PAY. Include a policy to conduct a cost benefit analysis of the potential costs for delivery of services and other tax base and job impacts prior to the hearings on major developments or annexation proposals. � Page 19, # 5 change text to read (underlined text is new proposed language) 5. When large-scale development may have significant impacts on the community, studies should be provided to assist in assessing impacts including analysis related to traffic, infrastructure, tax base lobs and affordable housing and other public services. `� Page 24, Goals. Add another goal that would become goal #8. 8. Discourage development that fosters significant job shifting as opposed to the development of new jobs. Page 42, 11. Infrastructure and Public Services. After the brief introduction include a new section titled, "General Infrastructure and Public Services." Add the following issues, goals, policies, and recommendations: Issue: There is concern that new growth and areas annexed into the city pay their fair share of the cost of infrastructure development and maintenance and the provision of public services. Goal: Significant development and annexation proposals should provide the public a cost/benefit analysis of the potential cost for providing long term services and infrastructure in taxes, fees, tax base or city budget and how these costs will be met prior to public hearings on these proposals. Policy: Provide a cosUbenefit analysis prior to public hearings on significant developments and annexation proposal prior to public hearings. Recommendations: Put in place record keeping systems to provide timely and specific �&, Page 45, Recommendations, add recommendation # 9 9. Provide the public a cost/benefit analysis of the potential cost for providing long term services and infrastructure in taxes, fees, tax base or city budget and how these costs will be met prior to public hearings on the renegotiation of the Evergreen Sewer District interlocal agreement or consideration of additional annexation in conjunction with this agreement. 8. KEEP OUR DOWNTOWN VIBRANT In the "Land Use: Business and Industry' section emphasize the importance of retail and office uses in downtown Kalispell. Strengthen the text to discourage traditional lineal strip commercial development along major arterials. Encourage walkability in new developments. Page 15, Policies, 1 b. Replace `Recognize" with "Support" Cy- Page 16, #3 General Commercial, a, b and c a. Delete this policy as it is inconsistent with #4 Highway Community Entrance and is covered under b and c. Replace with policy from current master plan (page 8, #6b) which states; "Set standards for the designation or expansion of commercial areas based on a compact development pattern designed to meet the needs of the intended service are and not the desires of speculation or strip developers." c. Insert the words "need and," after the word "upon." Page 19, Recommendations, #8. Insert after "intricate mix of land uses" the following "including retail, office, and residential," Q&- Page 20, Recommendations, #12. Replace "Encourage" with "Establish" 12P Page 25, Policies #9. Insert the word "office" after retail. 9. PROTECT OUR CLEAN WATER Include language that development should be designed, sited and conditioned to avoid loss and minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. Strengthen policies to support viable agricultural now and in the future. c2P Page 27, Goal #3. And the following language that is underlined. 3. High levels of air quality and water quality should be maintained through design standards and careful siting of developments. Q�P- Page 28, Policy #13. Note that design alone can not serve to avoid and minimize losses and impacts to sensitive areas. Insert "and sited" after the word designed. This change is also needed to balance and clarify the emphasis on mitigation in policies #1 and #3. C'2F1 Page 28, Policy, 11 Add an introductory sentence to this policy and other underlined changes: Maintain current maps and minimize development density near critical wildlife habitat Wildlife travel corridors should be conserved and maintained with planning tools including easements or other voluntary restrictions is encouraged. (OF, Page 29, Recommendations. Add the following recommendations that would be #11 and 12. 11. Work with Flathead County to develop a riparian management corridor along the Flathead, Whitefish and Stillwater Rivers and develop design standards for this area. 12. Prepare an Urban Open Space plan that conserves areas of open space and natural scenic values as essential natural and recreational resources for the city's quality of life, neighborhood character and the tourist orientation of the local economy. Qy- Page 21, Goals, 41. Delete "based primarily on" and replace with "including encouragement of Page 21, Goals, #4. Change this slightly clarify meaning to read (changes underlined): 4. Cluster developments are encouraged in the rural areas that are within the potential utility service area and to preserve opportunities for continued agricultural uses. As area. C�P_ Page 22, Policy 5. Change this to be consistent with proposed change to goal #4. (Changes proposed are underlined.) 5. Open space areas in cluster developments that are located inclose proximity to the city limits should be considered as an urban reserve area consistent with the goals of this section, so that it can accommodate redevelopment when public services become available. 10. STRENGTHEN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. Give early notice with posted signs on property to be developed, include provisions to diffuse potential conflict with pre application meetings between neighbors and developers and encourage collaborative opportunities for innovation and consideration of neighborhood compatibility. Page 74, Public Participation and Public hearing Process. Insert implementation strategies "o", "p." and "q": o. Require applicants for development to post easily visible signs on the subject property stating a description of the proposed project in conjunction with a application submittal. p. Particularly in large or potentially controversial projects strongly recommend that a developer meet with concerned public and neighbors between a pre -application meeting with the planning office and prior to submitting of an application. Maintain a list of public interest groups that a developer could easily contact to encourage input in the pre - application stage of a project. q. The planning staff should pro actively host occasionally design charets and question and answer sessions in areas within the growth policy plan that are beginning to experience increase development pressures. cz If Region One 490 N. Meridian Rd. Kalispell, MT 59901-3854 (406)751-4566 FAX: 406-257-0349 REF: DV035-03 January 13, 2003 E-mail Pam Kennedy Kalispell Mayor 312 1st Ave. East Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mayor Kennedy, My staff and I have reviewed the draft growth policy for Kalispell and the surrounding area. I commend your staff and city planning board for a well thought out and written set of policies that need to be considered by this growing community. Completing a plan of this nature is not an easy task. We do have a few comments regarding the natural resources aspects of this policy. First, as you well know, Kalispell is uniquely located between two incredible natural resource areas. One is the braided section of the Flathead -Stillwater -Whitefish River complex that includes the unique Owen Sowerwine Natural Area and several fishing access sites. The second is the mountain foothill -lake region of Lone Pine -Foy Lake. To have such outstanding natural features within this community is a great asset and may be one of the reasons this community continues to grow. The growth policy does mention these areas in a general sense. However, we feel these assets are not only unique for this community but significant on a statewide scale. The braided section of the Flathead is one of the best examples of riparian island habitats in the state. This area contains more than 30 islands and supports more than 100 species of bird, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals and is within walking/biking distance of down town. The parks, schools, and fishing access sites along these rivers receive an incredible amount of use by both residents as well as visitors to this area. The public areas as well as the habitats that they connect are important to this community and should be recognized in this growth policy. Similarly on the west side of Kalispell, the steep and diverse forests, hills, lakes, and streams of the Lone Pine -Foy Lake area are situated very close to Kalispell. This area still supports numerous big game species, natural grasslands, ponderosa pine forests, and winter range while also providing numerous outdoor recreational opportunities to the city. Montana Fish, Wildlife & e Pam Kennedy Page 2 of 2 January 13, 2003 Parks has worked closely with the county and city to maintain access to and connectivity between Kalispell, Lone Pine State Park, and the Foy Lake area. Both the conservation and maintenance of the values associated with these areas as well as the need to access to them from the city should be clearly highlighted as an objective of the growth policy. We suggest that you include a new recommendation under Natural Resources (recommendation #11) that mentions that the city (in conjunction with Flathead County) define the important values associated with the riparian/wetland complexes of the Stillwater -Whitefish -Flathead Rivers and Lone Pine/Foy Lake areas and subsequently develop the appropriate management and design standards that will insure the conservation and connectivity between and to these areas. Also under Natural Resources, policy # 11, the growth policy addresses fish and wildlife travel corridors. Although we support the concept of voluntary conservation easements and other voluntary means that may lead to conservation of these areas, this may not result in an outcome that actually provides for these wildlife habitats or corridors. The growth policy should include recognition of special wildlife habitat areas, important travel corridors and then provide incentives, use of available public funds, and other tools to insure that these areas are maintained in the future. The consequences of loosing these important habitat areas and corridors include increases in traffic accidents, fragmentation and loss of important habitats such as winter range, loss of access, and direct impacts to specific species. We recommend a clearer growth policy under agriculture (pg 24 #3 and 5) for conservation of these natural resource lands within the growth area. The city and county could be more proactive in finding ways to purchase development rights or to provide other incentives to private landowners to conserve important lands and linkages within the community. This could be added under agricultural as river and foothill habitats are often linked to agricultural or timber operations. Finally, under Parks and Recreation (pg. 32), we would welcome the addition of language under the goals and recommendation sections that encouraged the city to form partnerships with the county and FWP to create bicycle and pedestrian trail linkages. These linkages would conned semi -rural recreation sites such as Lone Pine State Park, Heron Park, Old Steel Bridge FAS, and Pressentine FAS with residential areas encompassed by the growth policy area. We thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important document. If you need additional information or have any questions, please feel free to contact me. c: Tom Jentz, Gael Bissell, Dave Landstrom Sincerely i V an Vincent Regional Supervisor January 11, 2003 RECEIVED Y033 J +.N 13 PK 2: 09 ALIJPELL CITY CLERK Honorable Mayer Pam Kennedy and Members of the Kalispell City Cbounc , I wish to state my concerns regarding three issues concerning our city and county's efforts to adopt an effective growth policy. I refer to the Policy Draft: 1.) Chapter 13, Implementation Strategy, Section 3: Updating the Growth Policy: I believe the intent of a community growth policy is to provide predictability and stability to our growth plan. Reviews of this plan should be done no more than annually, thereby providing a complete overview of all proposed changes together, insuring the integrity of a comprehensive plan, not one that is subject to frequent, spot revisions or the pressuring influence of a proponent for amendment. Although I do support the design of our plan being flexible, a year's time span — the maximum wait, is not so long for changes that can hold a significant impact to our experience of growth in Flathead Valley. 2.) Chapter 13, Implementation Strategy, Section 4: Neighborhood Plans: I am concerned about the very possible misuse of the neighborhood plan concept. As Chair of the Labrant-Lindsey Neighborhood plan, I am well acquainted with the value of neighborhood plans in the planning process. These plans are intended to provide a means for neighborhoods, from the bottom up, to insure and preserve the integrity and character of their neighborhoods. They are not meant as a tool for development and they should not be allowed to be misused to achieve amendments to our over-all policy. Specifically, I object to the language in subsection e. that refers to neighborhood plans in terms of "the feasibility of the development" and in subsection f, "neighborhood plans associated with a specific development...". This would seem to link neighborhood plans to neighborhood development plans, opening a Pandora's box. Would this support the use of a Neighborhood Plan to achieve a subdivision or commercial development otherwise outside the growth plan? Can one owner, buying up surrounding property, or promising to, propose a neighborhood plan amendment allowing a significant development? I suggest further definitions of Neighborhood Plans to protect their original intent. These should include: a minimum acreage limit, a timeline for the plan development process (Ours was two years in the making) and a justification of the proposed neighborhood boundary that is related to an identified neighborhood. As example of the latter, the Labrant-Lindsey district is a 4,000 acre forested habitat. Neighbors went through a lengthy process defining their neighborhood in terms of character, values they wished to preserve and an actual boundary of their perceived neighborhood. 3)Finally, I note that although there has been statement to the effect that we need studies to determine the need for further light industrial and business zoning, it appears the map — in the area of the mall proposal - was changed without such study. The tent and the maps should be consistent with each other and each should be consistent with a clear public involved planning process. Thank -you for your consideration of my comments, Philip Crissman -736-6 9 +s 6 ti 5 6 4-1, A i�z 30 L_44R(2-A�T szo. k F}�. �SeE%, L/ �vtT SQ4C � 5 T U D I O & G A L L E R Y 01/13/03 Dear Mayor Kennedy and Councilmen, Please do not expand the amount of commercially zoned property unless we really need it. It seems to me we don't need it. Further, if more is needed, I believe that due to pending litigation and due to the fragility of the Flathead aquifer, the land at the intersection of LaSalle and Reserve is perhaps the worst choice for commercial zoning. Isn't there abetter alternative if we must have more commercially zoned land in the new plan? Respectfully yours, Marshall Noice 127 Main Street, Kalispell, Montana 59901 406-755-5321 January 13, 2003 Kalispell City Council 312 First Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to you regarding issues with the Kalispell Growth Policy. I am a downtown businessman and will be for several years. I am concerned and hopeful that Kalispell adequately and appropriately plan for the residential and commercial growth that is certain to come over the next 20 years. My first concern is that the Kalispell Growth Policy must be a flexible document that allows land owners and developers to amend the document as the need arises. No matter how well we plan, we will NEVER be able to fully anticipate the direction in which the supply and demand of the market will take us. An inflexible plan sets us up to miss good opportunities if our plan does not accommodate these opportunities. On the other hand, if we have the flexibility to amend as opportunities present themselves, then our appointed and elected officials and the public can decide on a case - by -case basis whether we should seize these opportunities. My second concern has to do with the concept of"Target Development Areas". These are unnecessary because the plan already contains a future land use map showing where commercial and industrial uses are allowed. To identify a few of those areas as a TDA implies that it is preferred for business and industry to locate only in those areas. Such implications may lead to future arguments when a controversial commercial or industrial project attempts to locate outside the TDA. Opponents of such projects may attempt to block such developments by arguing that development should not occur outside the TDA until such areas have first been filled. My third concern relates to the proposed Glacier Mall. From a commerce standpoint, this project needs to happen and the Kalispell Growth Policy needs to accommodate it. The developer has been through four public hearings and has four approvals including one from the County Commissioners and one from the City Council. There are a few from the vocal minority who are attempting to thwart this project by influencing this growth policy. We cannot let this happen. We all know what the developer of this project wants and it is simply not a good idea to reduce it or eliminate it through this growth policy. Let's allow FULLY for this development in the growth policy and then let Wolford Development get to work on this $1004150 million project...... our local and state economies need this! Finally, I would like to make a few comments regarding "Areas for Future Commercial Grow lf'. These areas need to be more responsive to market demand. We need to have the flexibility to accommodate new and innovative ideas and businesses. We have the opportunity to attract world class entrepreneurs and businesses and we cannot afford to miss these opportunities. This area won't survive without continually improving our business environment. We are competing with other areas for these quality businesses and the fight for these businesses has just begun. Montana is at a disadvantage over other area for recruiting businesses and Kalispell has the opportunity to neutralize this disadvantage by identifying substantial acreage for commercial development. The business community is watching this process very carefully. I recommend you take into account, my input before you finalize this document. Thank you and good luck! Regards, Brian D. Beck PO Box 845 Kalispell, MT 59903 January 13, 2003 R. M. O'Neil P. O. Box 886 Lakeside, MT 59922 Kalispell City Manager Please consider the following recommendatiom for a change in the proposed growth policy for Kalispell: Page 21, Land Use: Agriculture, Goals, #1 add, primarily on products for export.products to support value-added industries and small specialty crops intended for a local market. a R. M. O'Neil /—/j-0Z To 02X4 -z LISA POLER • PRESIDENT 139 MAIN STREET • KALISPELL, MT 59901 • 406.752.6809 -Fb learn ct- ft,�o,� n C/Y\- ccy-cP aZ-) C kk ' s ru-(,j ov-CIT� 4wy-c�� bevy,; ct !v� o iw� c Tie �Cc G� e�cC ll � uY � O � C cenv.Qo� � .itQ cl��,, rr camrn.e� _ A.�DC, Q 618 Leisure Drive Kalispell, MT 59901 January 13, 2003 Kalispell City Council Re: Growth Policy Council Members: In reviewing the Natural Environment section of the proposed growth policy, I would like to compliment you for your efforts to consider, protect and preserve wildlife and wildlife habitat in this growth policy development. I have some suggestions for additions to the policies and recommendations that I believe will strengthen your intent in this area. In policy 10 on p28,1 strongly encourage you to restructure the sentence to emphasize the highest priority in protection of wildlife and wildlife habitat should be conscientious actions to maintain established habitats. Restrictions to feeding and attracting large wild animal species and controlling domestic dogs are more relevant to avoidance of people - wildlife conflicts in areas where the two may overlap at specific times of the year. In policy 11 on p28, if you truly intend to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat, maintenance of travel corridors is essential to facilitate wildlife travel and to minimize people -wildlife conflicts. My experience suggests that in order to establish and maintain travel corridors, more rigid restrictions than voluntary easements and other measures will be necessary. And, in conjunction with the following new recommendation on riparian corridors, the basis for protecting wildlife and wildlife habitat as well as maintaining travel corridors may become much easier. On p29, I would suggest anew recommendation # 11. This recommendation would direct the City of Kalispell to coordinate with Flathead County to establish and map riparian corridors along the Flathead, Stillwater and Whitefish Rivers and design standards for development that will preserve these highly diverse and highly important habitats for watershed values, wildlife values, recreational values and esthetic values. This recommendation is consistent with intent of policies 10 and 11 above and will enhance your efforts to accomplish these policies. Thanks for the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed growth policy Respectfully, gox.�y �In-Jiy James Cross