Kalispell extends its reach

By JOHN STANG

Council considers role in development north of Reserve

The Daily Inter Lake

One 600-acre chunk is the only part of a proposed growth policy with which the Kalispell City Council is seriously wrestling.

The question: How much commercial development should be allowed in that chunk?

These 600 acres are bordered by U.S. 93 on the west and by West Reserve Drive on the south.

The majority of this area is owned by developer Bucky Wolford, who wants to build a retail complex there. That project is working its way through litigation.

On Monday, the council discussed a draft policy on how growth should be encouraged as far as three miles north of Kalispell. The council expects to vote Aug. 7 on that policy. Monday's meeting was a workshop session at which no votes were allowed.

The policy's purpose is to guide Kalispell in commercial, industrial and residential development in an area bound by West Reserve Drive on the south, the Stillwater River on the west, U.S. 2 on the east, and a line roughly following Birch Grove Road and Church Drive on the north.

Kalispell has no direct control over land outside city limits. But it owns the sewer system to which many rural developers hope to connect - giving the city some clout over construction near the town, especially if landowners want to be annexed.

In broad strokes, the draft policy would keep most commercial and industrial growth next to the current city limits, and allow only houses and small neighborhood commercial spots farther north. Also, a mixture of uses would be accepted on U.S. 2, which reflects how the road is set up.

Council members agree with this concept, with some minor tweaking possible.

The council also appears to support requiring a buffer area 100-150 feet wide on either side of U.S. 93 as a safety measure to allow traffic to travel without slowing for numerous entrances and exits. The buffer eventually would include walking trails and frontage roads.

"We don't want it to be another LaSalle [Road]. We don't want to see a traffic light every 500 feet," said Timothy Norton, chairman of the Kalispell Planning Board.

Existing buildings within 100 feet of U.S. 93 would be granted exemptions to that requirement.

However, the council appears undecided about how much commercial development should be encouraged in the 600 acres - dubbed "KN-1" - that is just outside Kalispell city limits.

Two proposals will go to the council Aug. 7. These are:

. The recommendation of the city Planning Board and Planning Department.

It calls for the 600 acres to be 25 percent for commercial use, 25 percent for office and related uses, 40 percent for homes, and 10 percent for open spaces. This is somewhat close to the Flathead County planning recommendations that 270 acres should be set aside for commercial use, if offices are counted as commercial buildings.

Tom Jentz, city planning director, said: "There is no magic to these numbers. But we tried to be reasonable with what we expect to happen."

. Council Member Bob Herron's recommendation.

It would allow as much as 45 percent commercial development in the 600 acres, 40 percent residential, 10 percent for open space and 25 percent for a mix of residential, commercial and industrial office uses. If one use reaches its maximum percentage, at least one other proposed use won't reach its maximum.

Herron said attempts to stop commercial growth at Kalispell's northern edge has led to the strip-mall ambiance of U.S. 93 between West Reserve Drive and Flathead Valley Community College. He contended that by encouraging a significant amount of commercial development in the 600 acres, commercial developers will be less tempted to explore building farther north on U.S. 93.

Some council members suggested a planned-unit-development zone for the 600 acres. Such a zone is a contract between developers and the city. Under such a contract, the city would release the developer from some Kalispell rules in return for the developers promising to mitigate the city's concessions.

A planned-unit-development contract for the 600 acres means that Kalispell and the landowners would negotiate a custom-made development plan for that area.

In a related matter, council members and the Citizens For A Better Flathead supported the concept of transferring development rights.

This is a rarely used and legally tricky concept in which the owner of land allowed a specific housing density can sell the rights to that density to another landowner who is not allowed as many homes.

City officials said if Kalispell wants to set up a transfer development rights system, it should work with Flathead County so the two end up with the same regulations. Right now, neither has a transfer development rights system.

Council members did not think this concept should be addressed in the vote scheduled Aug. 7 on the growth policy. The idea is being sent to the Planning Board for more study.