Loading...
DeJana to Council/Preliminary Plat DiscussionRichard DeJana &dissociates, PLLC 126 North Meridian Road Post Office Box 1757 Kalispell, MT 59903-1757 Phone 406. 752 4120 Fax 406. 752. 5015 E-mail r&jaaa(gdigisys.aef September 23, 2002 The Honorable Pamela B. Kennedy 1036 Sixth Avenue West Kalispell, Mt 59901 Robert HalPerman 1337 Thud Street West Kalispell, Mt 59901 Don Counsell 78 Hawthorne West Kalispell, Mt 59901 Hank Olson 485 Second Avenue East North Kalispell, Mt 59901 Fred Leistiko 132 Buffalo Stage Kalispell, Mt 59901 Jim Atkinson 1237 Fifth Street West Kalispell, Mt 59901 Randy Kenyon 403 Seventh Avenue West Kalispell, Mt 59901 Jayson Peters 936 Sixth Avenue East Kalispell, Mt 59901 M. Duane Larson 1111 Eighth Avenue E Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: Preliminary Plat Discussion D:�KruckenbergUr Re Kru kenberg.wpd a'd STOSZSL90b eueraQ dDC:aO aO TO quo Tri-City Planning Office Staff Report KPP-02-6 on the agenda for your October 7�' Meeting Madann Mayor and Members of the Council: I have been retained by a number of the neighbors of this proposed subdivision. I can advise you that their intent was to take whatever action was necessary to prevent the subdivision as it is now being proposed, 62 units on 10 acres, from going through. I met with them on the evening of the 19`h for several hours. The resolution c f that meeting is very simple. This neighborhood is committed to pursuing all lawful means to preclude the subdivision as it is proposed from development. I did explain to them, as I would hike to rem nd you, that as a result of one case involving the City of Kalispell, if the subdivision approval is given for preliminary plat , the time to litigate, whether it was done properly or not, actually commences to run and is appropriate only after final plat is issued. This meaning that the developer will have expended a great deal of funds to get to a point where we might find that the action was illegal and the Court grant our request to remove it. I explained that situation is not good for the developer or the opponent. And so, with the thought in mind and recognizing the consequences should we be forced to pursue necessary legal action, the result of the meeting was an attempt to get a neighborhood consensus of what would be acceptable and thus be imposed as conditions on the final plat. We hope in this way to avoid a legal conflict. Fist of all, I call your attention to the recommendations made by the planning staff. We recognize that this came out as a 3-3 tie from the planning board and so you will basically be attempting to make a decision off of what was not an approval. Should you choose to approve this subdivision, the neighbors I met with are willing to look at the staff recommendations and are accepting of the following ones: Recommendations 2 through 7 and Recommendations 10 through 14. The neighborhood is somewhat split on Item 8 which is street fighting. Sonic do not feel any street lighting should occur. In general though the staff proposal, if that includes lowered poles and shields that are aesthetically pleasing, will not cause a great deal of problems. Item 9, which is the park land dedication, was based upon the fording that the calculation of the amount due as cash hi lieu, is totally unacceptable. We must recognize that the fair market value is that of an unimproved, undivided piece of land. But it is 10 acres within the city- limits. That value is in excess of S10,000 an acre. Therefore, we request that you do seek an appraisal valuing the unimproved property as within the city limits. To be honest, the area does need a park and cash in lieu is not the best choice. We then request, and will accept, an additional condition which should read substantially as follows: "That the preliminary plat as submitted be amended to include not more than 14 single family residences. " I wanted to get this letter out so that the developer would know where the neighbors will be coming from at the time of the hearing and that you would know the positions that would at least allow some development without potential appropriate legal action. ➢:\Kruckcnber-. CL(r Re Kruckenberg, wPA E'd sTOsZSL90b eueraQ doe:ao ao TO 400 In evaluating this subdivision, it is essential that you deal with some other issues. The first is the impact on the road systems around it. Although they may technically meet city standards, they are deficient to handle the potential generated traffic. If, a development of any extensive size is to be contemplated, a developer must take actions to not only improve the roads within the subdivision but those which service the subdivision and would be severely impacted. Additionally, as you know with the R4 Zoning, lot sizes need to be 6,000 square feet. My review of the plat seems to indicate that a number of the proposed lots do not even meet that standard. Finally of course there is the issue of zoning which I know arises everywhere at the moment. The annexation zoning allows three types of zoning to be conducted simultaneously at the annexation. Without going into a great deal of detail; the first two do not apply and would not be correct under the zoning ordinance_ The third one involves the growth policy which is the question that has surfaced across the county. Obviously, the decision to install R4 zoning which is not comparable to the RI of this county, had to have been done pursuant to the so called growth policy which did not exist. I thank you for your time and consideration. The neighbors will be speaking at your meeting and I ask that you give them particular attention as they will be giving you more detail concerning the problems that will occur as a result of an approval of the subdivision of this magnitude in that neighborhood. I again thank you for your cooperation and remain, Sincerely, Richard De,Tana Richard DeJana RD/rlj PC client Owl Corporation 500 Palmer Drive Kalispell, MT 59901 Sands Surveying 2 Village Loop Kalispell, MT 59901 DAKrnckenberg\th Re Knickenberg.wjYJ b'd STOSZSL90b euera0 0106:2D aO TO 100