Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
04-10-07
KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING APRIL 10, 2007 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and CALL Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were: Timothy Norton, Rick Hull, Bryan Schutt, Robyn Balcom, and John Hinchey. Kari Gabriel was absent. Nicole Johnson, Sean Conrad and Tom Jentz represented the Kalispell Planning Department. There were approximately 60 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Balcom moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the March 13, 2007 regular. planning board. meeting. The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. HEAR THE PUBLIC No one wished to speak. FLATHEAD HOSPITAL A request by Flathead Hospital Development Company, LLC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, for a conditional use permit to operate a learning center and LLC - CONDITIONAL USE sick child day care center (Dinosore program) in the lower PERMIT portion of the existing building at 66 Claremont Avenue. The Kid Kare program, a day care center, currently occupies the upper level of the building and until recently the VA Clinic, a medical use, occupied the lower level portion of the building. The property is zoned H-1, Health Care, and a conditional use permit is required for the proposed change in use. STAFF REPORT KCU-07-03 Nicole Johnson, representing the Kalispell Planning Department presented Staff Report KCU-07-03 for the Board. Johnson stated this is a conditional use permit request by Flathead Hospital Development Company to locate a sick child day care center (Dinosore) and a kindergarten (Individual Learning Center) in an existing building located within the Kalispell Regional Medical Center campus. The property is zoned H-1 Healthcare and a conditional use permit is required to locate these 2 functions within the building. The existing building is 2-story and the Kid Kare program operates from the upper level of the building and as proposed the kindergarten and sick day care center will be located in the lower level, which was formerly the VA Clinic. Johnson said these programs have multiple entrances and exits which they will share with the Kid Kare program. The proposal will combine the 3 day care functions under one. roof and serve the hospital employees and the general public. During the review a variety of issues were addressed including parking. The parking lot will be re -striped and a van accessible spot will be provided. The lights in the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Pagel of 33 CD parking area and on the building will be brought into compliance with the city's outdoor lighting standards, and a permit will need to be obtained to modify the existing signs for the property. Staff recommends that the planning board adopt the staff report KCU-07-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the 6 conditions listed in the staff report. QUESTIONS BY THE Norton was glad to see that the outdoor lights in the parking BOARD lot and on the building will be brought into compliance with the city's lighting standards. APPLICANT/AGENCIES Marcello Pierrottet, Facilities Manager for Kalispell Regional Medical Center said they are trying to combine all of the kids into one building which will be a benefit to the parents. This facility will serve the KRMC employees and the general public. Pierrottet said originally when the VA Clinic was located in this building it required 200 square feet of space per parking space, 22 spaces, and now with this use they will only be required to provide 9 parking spaces which will alleviate some of the parking problems on the campus. PUBLIC HEARING No one wished to speak. MOTION Hinchey moved and Balcom seconded a motion that the planning board adopt the staff report KCU-07-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the 6 conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION None. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. PRELIMINARY PLAT - A request from Brian Cloutier, of Ashley Square Partnership, ASHLEY SQUARE for preliminary plat approval to create two lots on a 3.193 AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 2, acre lot within Ashley Square. The property can be accessed RESUB OF LOTS 1 & 3 OF from US Highway 2 West and is zoned B-3, Community GIBSON ADDITION NO. 41 Business. Lot 2A contains an existing building and parking lot on 2.887 acres in the northwest corner of Ashley Square. The state Driver Services and Northland Hobbies are two examples of businesses located in this commercial building (1325 Highway 2 West). Lot 2B is located in the northeast corner of Ashley Square south of Fatt Boys Bar and Grille (1307 US Highway 2 West) and is currently vacant. STAFF REPORT KPP-07-05 Nicole Johnson, representing the Kalispell Planning Department presented Staff Report KPP-07-05 for the Board. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 2 of 33 Johnson said this is a preliminary plat request to subdivide 2 lots within Ashley Square Commercial area. Johnson provided the location of this proposal for the board. The property is zoned B-3 and the applicant is proposing to subdivide lot 2 which would create lot 2A at approximately 3 acres and lot 2B at approximately 1 /3 of an acre. The property is currently developed with buildings, parking lots, signs, etc. and they are not proposing to further develop any of the sites at this time. Johnson noted during review they addressed a variety of issues which resulted in the conditions, most of which relate to the future development of lot 2B which contains landscaping and parking spaces, and compliance with the sign regulations and building standards. Staff is recommending that the planning board adopt staff report KPP-07-05 as findings of fact and recommend to the city council that the preliminary plat of Ashley Square Amended Plat of Lot 2, Resub of Lots 1 & 3 of Gibson Addition No. 41 be approved subject to the 8 conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD QUESTIONS Hull asked for the reason behind this subdivision and Johnson stated that the consultant could address his questions. APPLICANT/AGENCIES Erica Wirtala, Sands Surveying stated she is representing Mr. Cloutier. Wirtala noted that this project comes before the board as a major subdivision because of the previous splits of the parcel. One use for lot 2B could be that Fatt Boys Bar 8. Grill purchase the lot for additional parking. Wirtala said they don't have any firm development plans at this time. If there are further development plans they would go before Site Review. Wirtala said they are in agreement with all of the conditions. Norton asked about access onto the highway. Wirtala said the existing access would be used. She added MDT would like to look at the access at the time development plans are firm in case there would be additional use of that access or a change in use. Wirtala said that lot 2B goes up to the R/W of the highway and there is still quite a bit of buffer area between the lot and the highway. Norton asked if the sidewalks are along Highway 2 and along the interior road. Johnson said the conditions note the sidewalks would be along the highway and within the interior of the lot and added Public Works felt that it would be more appropriate to wait until the use was known for the site and then determine where the sidewalks should go. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 3 of 33 0 Balcom asked if there was any discussion regarding the poor condition of the current parking lot. Wirtala said a good portion of this property is grass and landscaping. She added there is a small portion that is part of the parking area however the upgrade of the parking lot was not included in the conditions. PUBLIC HEARING No one wished to speak. MOTION Balcom moved and Schutt seconded a motion to adopt staff report KPP-07-05 as findings of fact and recommend to the city council that the preliminary plat of Ashley Square Amended Plat of Lot 2, Resub of Lots 1 & 3 of Gibson Addition No. 41 be approved subject to the 8 conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Norton said his only concern was the condition of the parking lot and that has been addressed. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. GATEWAY PROPERTIES A request from Gateway Properties, Inc., for annexation into (VALLEY RANCH) the City of Kalispell with the initial zoning of R-2, Single ANNEXATION AND Fancily Residential, and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) PLANNED UNIT overlay zoning district on the 80.7± acre project site. The DEVELOPMENT PUD will be known as Valley Ranch and is proposing 204 residential lots, 29 townhouse lots and a future assisted and independent living facility with up to 120 units on the project site. The project site is in the County zoning jurisdiction and is zoned SAG-10, Suburban Agricultural. The project site is located on the east side of Highway 93 approximately 1 1/2 miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. STAFF REPORTS KA-07-05 Sean Conrad representing the Kalispell Planning Department & KPUD-07-02 presented Staff Reports KA-07-05 8s KPUD-07-02 for the Board. Conrad said before the planning board is a request for annexation & initial zoning of R-2 Single Family and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay district to allow some deviations in the R-2 zoning district. The deviations would include smaller lot size, smaller lot width, varying the types of land uses, and varying the setbacks. Conrad described the location of the property for the board. Conrad said the PUD layout is a conceptual plan and the board is not reviewing a preliminary plat at this time. The developer is seeking approval of the zoning and the PUD layout so they can have direction on how to proceed with the development of the project. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 4 of 33 C-3 Conrad reviewed the PUD layout for the board. The land uses vary but are primarily residential and include large lots abutting the Ponderosa Subdivision and being 12,000 and 25,000 square feet in size. Between these lots and Ponderosa the developer has proposed a 20 wide swath of land for a bike path and landscaping. South and west on the site the lots are 6,000 to 7,000 square feet and are alley loaded garages. The developer is also requesting that townhouses and an independent/assisted living facility be permitted through the PUD overlay. Conrad said there are also larger residential lots, 7,800 - 9,000 square feet as the property transitions down to the site of the proposed Glacier Town Center (Wolford Mall). Conrad said the developer is proposing approximately 15 acres of parkland and open space and he described these areas. There could be some changes to the parks as the Parks Department felt that combining the parks into fewer larger parks would be more appropriate. Conrad noted the developer has proposed 2 access points along Highway 93, an access point east to an 80 acre piece of property with the possibility of future connection with Whitefish Stage Road, and 2 access points to property to the south (Wolford Mall site). The traffic study indicates that the 2 access points along the highway would be limited to right - in if traveling north; right -out to continue traveling north; or if traveling southbound on Highway 93 a left turn into the project site. However, a left turn onto the highway from this project site would be prohibited. For that reason Condition #8 states when the developer comes in to submit the preliminary plat he would not get final plat approval until a connection to either the south or to the east was secured. Conrad reviewed the letters received on this project. (Copies are attached to the minutes). Conrad said there is a Stormwater Management Plan which would be reviewed when the preliminary plat comes in. Staff is recommending that the planning board adopt staff report KA-07-05 as findings of fact and recommend to the city council that the initial zoning upon annexation of this property be R-2 (Single Family Residential) and adopt staff report KPUD-07-02 as findings of fact and recommend that the PUD for Valley Ranch be approved subject to the 13 conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD QUESTIONS I Hull asked if the developer owns the access to the west to Highway 93 and Conrad said yes. Hinchey referenced the 5 lots along the highway that are not a part of this development and asked if there was any discussion with those landowners to how those lots will be Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 5 of 33 0- accessed when this project develops? Conrad said as far as he knows the developer has not discussed access to those lots with the owners. But access could be discussed with the first phase of the preliminary plat. Conrad reminded the board when the preliminary plat comes in there could be deviations on the design but the concepts would remain the same. He added MDT has already indicated that access to Highway 93 will be limited. Schutt said the board is not approving a preliminary plat but is reviewing the initial zoning and he asked if the PUD elements are set or in progress. Conrad said the PUD elements are set and are included in the conditions. Some changes to parks, roads and access could occur. Increases in percentages of townhouses, units in the assisted/ independent living facility and access points would require an amendment to the PUD which would have to be reviewed by the planning board. There was further discussion regarding access points and road connections. APPLICANT/AGENCIES Bruce Lutz, Sitescape Associates said he is representing Gateway Properties. They began this effort almost a year ago and had several meetings with the planning office. After the August revision of the Growth Policy in this area they analyzed the surrounding properties and took particular note of the Silverbrook project to the north which will facilitate the connection of water and sewer to this property and was a pivotal point in the decision of Gateway Properties to go ahead with the Valley Ranch project. Lutz said their strategy was to create a transition from the lower density properties to the north and northeast by creating larger lots in the 1/3 acre category and above along their border with Ponderosa Estates. Lutz also noted the location of the open space as it relates to the open space of Ponderosa. He said this would create a larger open area that will benefit everyone. In addition, in the 20 foot buffer between this project and Ponderosa a trail will be created and become a link between all of the open spaces within Valley Ranch. Lutz noted that the townhouse lots were also an attempt to create more efficient housing but also create an enclosure in this development that was an aesthetic barrier between Valley Ranch and the more commercial properties to the west and to the south. Lutz said they ended up with an increased setback (100 feet total) from the highway R/W to the assisted/independent living project. They don't have a problem with this increased buffer but it may result in a reduction of units for the facility or a more challenging architecture for the building which will Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 6 of 33 come back to the board in detail before that project moves forward. �1 Lutz continued that one of the special parts of the property is the knoll that is situated south of the northwesterly entry into the project. Everyone agreed that the knoll needed to be preserved and left in open space. There will be no intent to take down any of those trees or alter the topography in any way. Lutz said they originally contemplated having the assisted/independent living on the south part of the project and in closer proximity to the future Glacier Town Center but all agreed that the site on the west would provide better views and a better location. The interior residential areas have more density but are planned with streets and alleys. The typical size of those lots is 48 feet wide by 130 feet long. They went for a longer lot so that they could have some variation in the setbacks and avoid the snout forward aesthetics. The streets will be open to nice boulevard plantings, limited parking on the street, and a nice look throughout. The 7,800 - 9,000 square foot lots are driveway in lots. Lutz said the Parks and Recreation Department prefers an open space strategy that would accommodate larger park areas and utilize underground storm drainage throughout the project. Lutz said they received a letter from the Wolford organization that states Wolford would entertain the idea of Valley Ranch connecting with the Glacier Town Center project to the south. They are mentioning only one access point and if that is approved Lutz said they would recommend that this access road be moved to better connect to the future Rose Crossing extension and over to the lighted intersection on Highway 93. They fully realize that this project depends on the Wolford project in order for them to connect and get to a traffic light and they accept the condition that states that this project cannot go to final plat until that is achieved. Brent Card, 41 Kintla in Kalispell said they met with the Ponderosa Homeowners Association to discuss this project. Card said the 20 foot buffer/trail goes around the circumference of the project and includes the park/knoll area along the highway. Card said knowing that Ponderosa Estates is a subdivision with larger lots they orientated their larger lots on their border and placed a park area to connect to Ponderosa's park. The only reason for the townhouse idea was to provide a buffer between the larger lots and the commercial properties. Card said they are excited about the rear loaded garages because they like the old neighborhoods in Kalispell with the alleys. It also makes the neighborhood Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 7 of 33 nicer with all of the houses oriented to the front. Card said they prefer the smaller parks that are more spread out so the residents can enjoy a park closer to their home. They wanted to provide more park areas rather than having higher density. Card said they had 3 deeded accesses onto Highway 93 and knowing the traffic concerns they eliminated one planned for the far south. They also moved the northern -most access in consideration of Ponderosa's access to get as much separation as possible. Card said he feels they have a great project. Andy Hyde, Carver Engineering said they will be involved with the civil aspects of the project including water, sewer, roads, and storm drainage. Silverbrook is extending big city mains down the east side of the R/W and this project will be connecting to those for water supply and sewage conveyance to the treatment plant. Hyde said this property is essentially flat and it was brought to their attention by an adjacent farmer who has worked this land for decades that there is a small depression in the northeast corner that collects water. Their approach with the drainage design is to fill that area to get it to drain. Hyde said the properties in Ponderosa Estates north of this site have had water either in their crawl spaces or basements and they pump it out. Hyde said they can put in conveyance systems to get the water out of there and will try not to interrupt the drainage patterns that may have already been established by the pumping of the adjacent properties. Hyde continued regarding eliminating the many smaller parks one of the approaches they took with the stormwater was to try to decentralize it, collect the water but then to dispose of it in many smaller systems rather than collect it and concentrate it in fewer bigger disposal systems. They were trying to spread the water out rather than put it all in one place. He noted they don't disagree with Condition #9 but he would also like to suggest that in addition to the Parks Department that Public Works should be involved in the input for the location and the size of the drainage facilities. The open space typically does get used for stormwater disposal and because of the heightened awareness of the impacts of stormwater Public Works is carefully reviewing those issues. The City of Kalispell will be charged with the responsibility of maintaining these systems permanently and if they are not accessible for maintenance bigger problems could be created. Norton noted the depression is on Lots 6, 7, 8s 8 however, there is not a park there. He asked how would the water be retained. Hyde said on the street to the south of the lots Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 8 of 33 0 there will be a line running to the west and an underground detention and disposal system will be put in. They would have to put in some kind of parallel pipe on the back side basically to intercept that water because they don't want water flowing from Ponderosa into basements or crawl spaces on lots in Valley Ranch. Hyde also mentioned that they have a series of test holes drilled out there right now and they are monitoring groundwater. Depending on the results of the monitoring they may recommend finished floor elevations that preclude crawl spaces. Any sort of improvement on those lots south of the path could end up blocking or intercepting flow and they don't want to block existing disposal patterns that are already working. But at the same time knowing that they could put in some kind of French drain or infiltration piping to intercept the water and move it to a place where the disposal wouldn't cause problems. PUBLIC HEARING Craig Luke, Ponderosa Estates Subdivision said he has 2 official protests to submit. The first official protest is from people who all own lots within 150 feet of the Valley Ranch proposed project. Luke said they wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density, R-1 in the Kalispell City Growth Policy area of the properties included in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. (Copy attached to the minutes) Luke continued the second official protest is from people who own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. They wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density, R-1 in the Kalispell City Growth Policy area of the properties included in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. (Copy attached to the minutes) Sharon DeMeester, 415 Chestnut Drive, Ponderosa Estates read portions of a letter to the board. (A copy is attached to the minutes) . DeMeester summarized their major concerns are water, traffic, setbacks, and light pollution. She added the developers are proposing much more density than Highway 93 can handle until something is done with the traffic. Jean Ambrose - 445 Sirucek Lane stated her concerns are the same as DeMeester's. The growth policy shows that it should be R-1 and she is confused as to why it needs to be changed. She walks her dog on the southern border of Ponderosa and it is very steep there. She thinks saving the knoll is a great idea and the other tree barriers should be saved too because they serve as wind breaks. She is officially protesting any change in the current zoning density due to the reasons that were documented by DeMeester. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 9 of 33 n Cork Andrews, said that he is a property owner with 2 pieces of property that adjoin the Valley Ranch project. Andrews said he is not opposed to the project. Years ago when all the land was owned by Al Reed, Reed envisioned this was a logical place to have development. A lot of time since 1978 has been spent putting in the infrastructure, including power and gas, where the easement is located. The developers have talked to him because his property connects to Highway 93 and he is working with them to help with their access to the highway. The neighbors have brought up some good issues and the planning board will be able to handle those issues when they receive the first plat. The project is proposed for the right spot. Bill Dale, Bigfork resident said change is coming and they have to accept a certain amount change. He feels this is an appropriate location for this type of density. Dale wanted to address the assisted living facility proposed because he started 2 very successful assisted living facilities, Prestige and Riverside, which he added are both full. There is a demand for more assisted living in this area. The parking situation at these facilities is not as bad as some might think because it doesn't involve a lot of traffic. Dale reviewed the traffic generated by the other assisted living facilities in the valley for the board. He said assisted living facilities make good neighbors. Melissa Evanoff, 4th Street West said she called Lewistown Chamber of Commerce to get a relocation packet because even though she agrees growth is inevitable she thinks growth needs to happen with integrity. Evanoff said she misses the old Kalispell. She noted that the Lewistown Chamber of Commerce said the amount of people from Kalispell and Bozeman who have contacted them about relocation is unbelievable. She said the native people are being pushed out because of subdivisions like this which brings in people from out of state. Evanoff suggested the board stick with bigger lots. Tom Kittle, 134 Sinopah said that he is a builder and would like to take his hat off to Gateway Properties for a great job and he supports it 100%. To put a 100 foot buffer between Ponderosa and Valley Ranch is too much and could take away 80 lots. Kittle said if the homeowner's of Ponderosa are interested in a 100 foot buffer they should have bought the property. He added this is a great place for an assisted living facility, a great location and he feels the traffic has been addressed by the developers. Kittle said that he believes the open areas, the different size lots, and the trails, makes it a very nice subdivision and he said Kalispell and our economy will benefit from this project. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 10 of 33 Wayne Smith, 118 Ponderosa Lane said he bought his lot 5 years ago because it was large and he has a dog. Smith said to look across his fence to the south and see a trailer park subdivision makes him ill. They were told at one time that there was going to be 100 foot lots and he is opposed to the small lots that are adjacent to Ponderosa Estates. Pete Wessel - 121 Rainbow Drive said that he is not a neighbor but it is good to see a lot of people involved who are directly affected by a project. Others of us are not as fortunate. He said everyone is Highway 93 North neighbors because everyone drives that road. There needs to be some comprehensive planning done as far as the transportation system. He knows the city is in the process of updating the Transportation Plan but it is not complete yet. He would be a lot more comfortable with the access to this site if he knew what the Glacier Town Center trip generation was. How much traffic will it generate? Wessel said it is hard to look at these projects closely without having the big picture and they need to look much farther than just this site. MOTION - ANNEXATION Schutt moved and Norton seconded a motion to adopt staff report KA-07-05 as findings of fact and recommend to the city council that the initial zoning upon annexation of this property be R-2 (Single Family Residential). BOARD DISCUSSION Schutt asked about the official protest and what steps the board should take. Jentz said there is a provision in the state law that addresses action on the protest letters by the City Council and has no bearing on the board. If the board recommends approval it will be forwarded to City Council. City Council will then determine if the letters contain signatures from at least 25% of the lot owners within 150 feet of this project. If the protest percentage was met, a 2/3rds majority vote of the council would be required for approval. Schutt asked if the board should be holding an annexation hearing prior to the PUD. Jentz noted that board doesn't hold a hearing on the annexation but deals with recommending an appropriate zoning classification to the City Council. Council then takes care of the annexation issue and applies the appropriate zoning. Hull said he is very much opposed to this project for a number of reasons. The board always talks about having a large piece of property so the developer can do the kind of development that the board wants to see. This proposal is unusual for a rural piece of property. The minimum lot size for R-2 is 9,600 square feet. The developer is requesting a reduction of the minimum lot size to 6,000 square feet for single family homes, which is smaller than his lot on St" Avenue West. The width is going to be 48 feet instead of 70 feet. A 5 foot rear setback from the alley is extremely small. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 11 of 33 Hull said when they were reviewing the Riata Ridge project on Willow Glen the board was upset that they had only gone to the minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet and now these developers are requesting 6,000 square feet. Hull continued there will be more than 2,000 vehicle trips out of this subdivision onto Highway 93 trying to make left hand turns back to Kalispell. This is huge amount of traffic on 93 and the developer's only real proposal is hopefully by the time this is completed there will be some magical way that they can get on to 93. This project has a lot wrong with it including density, roads, and transportation problems. Schutt said one of his frustrations is they are trying to review a PUD without having the entire plan and it makes it tough for the board. Hinchey said he feels this project has certain positive characteristics. However, he is still bothered by the traffic problems and the fact that they are really relying on some connectivity to the south and the east which is an unknown at this time. It seems premature to him to be talking about the PUD. Hinchey said the density is pretty tight that far from the city limits. Hinchey stated the traffic situation is too undecided at this point for him to support the PUD. Balcom said she is still confused about the density. She asked is it a benefit for the developer to submit a PUD because it gives them the freedom to deviate from the zoning and asked if they approve the zoning but not the PUD would the developer have to stick to the lot standards of a straight R-2 subdivision. Norton said that is correct. If the board approves the R-2 zoning but not the PUD they would have to redesign the project with 9,600 square foot lots. Hull agreed if they approved the R-2 zoning either this developer or someone else could come in. with another PUD or a straight R-2 subdivision where they are not asking for deviations. Hull added there are reasons why the standards are in place. Balcom suggested taking all of the concerns into consideration and perhaps a plan could be reached that every one could live with. Norton said he lives on a 1/3 acre lot in the city and it is an adequate size for a buffer between him and his neighbors. He said what the board asked for at the work session is included in this PUD. Norton said it seems now the board is changing their minds. He doesn't see any new issues with the exception of the neighborhood's concerns brought up at the hearing. Conrad said the initial zoning they are requesting is R-2 and Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 12 of 33 with a fair amount of deviations from the R-2. Under the PUD the zoning regulations allow a maximum of 5 units per acre. They are coming in at about 4.4 units per acre. It is totally up to the discretion of the board how much density to allow under a PUD but 4.4 units still substantially complies with the Suburban Residential land use designation on this property which calls for up to 4 units. Conrad said what the public gets in return for this PUD is increased open space and parkland. If they were to come in and do a straight R-2 the parkland would only be about half the open space proposed here. Hull said the board can't just listen to the neighbors because the neighbor's never want increased density. The board also has to consider what is good for the city. He realizes the density is comparable to downtown but he still thinks it is not laid out well. ROLL CALL - ANNEXATION I The motion passed on a roll call vote of 3 in favor and 2 opposed. MOTION - VALLEY RANCH Schutt moved and Balcom seconded a motion to adopt staff PLANNED UNIT report KPUD-07-02 as findings of fact and recommend that DEVELOPMENT the PUD for Valley Ranch be approved subject to the 13 conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Balcom said that the lots are too small and should be closer to what is called for in R-2 zoning. She doesn't have any problems with the assisted/independent living facility and doesn't feel that it will cause an additional traffic problem. Jentz said he wanted the board to keep on track. If you have no problem with the assisted/independent living facility then you are looking at 220 housing units or 3 units per acre density for the remaining 75 acres of the site. The small lot trade-off is an extra 10 acres of parkland. If the PUD is denied either this developer or someone else can come back in with a regular subdivision that may have slightly bigger lots but the total number of lots would be the same with a net reduction in open space and parkland. Norton said that is an excellent point because all they would be doing is a drop from 232 lots to 220 lots and then they would lose open space. Hull said they were talking about consolidating the open space into a municipal park. If they take the assisted/independent living facility out there still would not be alleys wide enough for garbage trucks to get through and would not have lots that are as wide as the ones in downtown Kalispell. There was discussion regarding the alley width and Jentz noted that the street and alley widths are proposed at the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 13 of 33 city urban design standards. Hull disagreed. P.J. Sorensen said most alleys in the older part of town are 16 feet wide for the R/W and 20 feet wide between Main Street and First Avenues East & West. In this project the developer was proposing 30 foot wide alleys. The R-2 would be a 10 foot setback but the garage setbacks proposed for this project would be very similar to what you would see throughout the rest of the city, even with the request to reduce the setback to 5 feet the alley was significantly wider. Balcom said normally with PUD's they receive more information and they have a better feel for how the project will work. Balcom suggested continuing the PUD and the developer ask for further clarification. Also the comments and concerns of the neighbors can also be addressed. MOTION TO CONTINUE Balcom moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to continue the discussion of the PUD for Valley Ranch until the May 8, 2007 meeting. ROLL CALL The motion to continue passed on a roll call vote of 3 in favor and 2 opposed. BOARD DISCUSSION Conrad asked if the board could give the developer some direction on what they would like to see with this PUD that would help them make an informed recommendation to council. Hull said personally he would like to see a subdivision design to reflect the rural area that it sits in. Schutt said it would be helpful to see more detail on the roads and traffic circulation. Hinchey said it's the traffic flow that is his biggest concern. He would like to see how residents would get south to Kalispell. Conrad said the only problem that this developer has with moving traffic to the south is without the mall site being proposed at this time it is difficult for them to provide more information to the board. Norton noted that Condition #8 addresses traffic and needing some outlet to the east and the south. Hinchey said they also heard that Wolford would only allow one road through his property and according to Condition #8 the one road would be sufficient to proceed. However, it would only be one way out to the south or east. Conrad stated that Wolford may want to allow only one access road into their property but staff, and the planning board may recommend 2 or 3 to the city council because it would provide for better traffic circulation and connectivity to the adjacent property. Jentz said this developer is at the mercy of the Wolford Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 14 of 33 C) Development and there is no timeframe for when that project may or may not come in. The board is recommending the zoning and a plan for the neighborhood and at some point someone has to actually get the roads built to Whitefish Stage and Highway 93 whether it is this developer building the roads themselves or accessing the roads built in the Wolford project. Jentz noted the bigger question is if the board is comfortable with the design. He said this project is not premature as the entire section is being planned out with 200 acres of commercial development and 150 acres of residential development, so now how do we make it work. ASHLEY HEIGHTS - A request from Ashley Heights, LLC, for annexation and ANNEXATION initial zoning on approximately 8.5 acre tract of land. The owner is requesting annexation into the City of Kalispell with the R-4 (Two Family Residential) zoning district. The property is currently zoned County R-1 and is located on the western end of Bismark Street, immediately west the Sunnyside subdivision phase 2. STAFF REPORT - KA-07-02 I Tom Jentz, representing the Kalispell Planning Department presented Staff Report KA-07-02 for the Board. Jentz stated this is an 8.5 acre piece of land for annexation into the city with an initial zoning request of R-4. Sunnyside Drive forms the northern boundary and Bismark Street would enter into this property at the southeast corner. The Highway 93 Bypass forms the western boundary. There is a 2 -1 / 2 acre strip that will be purchased by MDT as part of the bypass expansion. In addition there will be a deceleration ramp coming onto Sunnyside Drive from the bypass in the future but no access onto the bypass is proposed at this location. Sunnyside Drive will actually dead end when the bypass is constructed. Jentz said the R-4 zone is a single family/ duplex zone with a 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. There was a subdivision plat submitted as part of this proposal however staff did not support the R-4 zone change request and decided to hold the subdivision application until after the board could decide on the appropriate zoning for this property. Jentz said staff is recommending an R-3 zoning which is a straight single family residential zone with a 7,000 square foot lot minimum. Jentz said the Growth Policy land use designation is 3-12 units per acre which would accommodate either an R-3 or R- 4 zone. When the site is reviewed they look at the bypass that will be on the west side. Jentz added this board said 5 years ago that more density against the bypass would be a better use of land because it would create less desirable lots Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 15 of 33 that would be cheaper. Since then the board reconsidered that thought and generally has come to the conclusion that it would not be a place that we would encourage or direct a lot of people. Jentz reviewed the surrounding land use which is 1 acre lots or larger to the north and west and smaller lots, R-4 & R-3 to the south and east. He said when the property to the east came in at R-4 a fair amount of concerns were voiced by the neighborhood. Also city council is concerned with the amount of traffic on Sunnyside Drive, which is a rural road. Therefore staff felt that R-3 would be more appropriate for this property. Jentz reviewed the letters received from the neighborhood. (Copies are attached to the minutes) Staff is recommending that the planning board adopt staff report KA-07-02 as findings of fact and recommend to the city council that the initial zoning for this property upon annexation be R-3, Urban Single Family Residential, not the R-4 Two Family Residential as requested by the applicants. BOARD QUESTIONS None. APPLICANT/AGENCIES Wayne Freeman, CTA stated the applicant is on vacation and he agreed to represent the developer. Freeman said the applicant had submitted a preliminary plat along with the annexation request & initial zoning of R-4. In the preliminary plat request it was specifically spelled out there would be 3 lots that would be townhouse lots. Freeman showed the board the location of those 3 lots. The idea that most of these lots could ultimately have multiple townhouses has been eliminated with the submittal of the plat which is predominately single family. He continued with regards to the bypass the applicant is asking for permission and intends to put a sound barrier berm wall that would be set back from the buildings and would eliminate the sound problems. They have worked with the Parks Department who has requested cash -in -lieu of parkland for improvements to a nearby park. Freeman said his client is requesting approval of the R-4 zoning and the preliminary plat request that was submitted. Schutt asked what drives the decision to put 3 townhouses in a subdivision that would raise it to an R-4 for a small economic pay back. Freeman said his client has identified this project as in -fill and the margins of return are very low. Norton asked how many lots are being requested under the R-4 zoning and Freeman said 38. PUBLIC HEARING Neil Pierce, 1015 Ashley Drive said he lives near this Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 16 of 33 property. Three years ago they were before this board on another R-4 subdivision that is immediately to the east and it turned out to be a mess. The streets are substandard, the sidewalks and driveways have all broke, they have rebuilt the main road three times and there are still sink holes 1-1/2 feet deep. When that developer came in here 4 years ago they wanted R-4 and the neighbors fought it. Sunnyside Drive is only 32 feet wide and can't handle the amount of traffic that they already have. On the west side of the existing R-4 subdivision in the winter they have to park in the street because the driveways are so steep they can't stay on the driveway. There is no open space and kids play in the street because the only park available is Begg Park which is all the way over by the Lakers baseball field and Airport Road. Pierce stated that he strongly opposes an R-4 subdivision on this property. Mark Krom stated he lives at 701 Ashley Drive on the corner of Bismark and Ashley Drive. The streets are very narrow and 2 cars can't pass on the street, the sidewalks are cracked, and in front of his house there is a sinkhole about 1 foot deep that has never been fixed. If there is only one entrance into this new subdivision it is going to be very busy on this corner. Krom added if they plan on building townhouses they will block everyone's view of Lone Pine. Krom said he hoped this proposal is not approved. Cheryl Pierce, 1015 Ashley Drive said they tried to talk to the board to get the other subdivision stopped and they were not able to stop it even after filing a lawsuit. No one inspected Sunnyside subdivision and now they have overloaded the sewers, stormwater is a problem and the affects on the schools is astronomical. Pierce said there is not enough fire or police protection and those houses are built too close together. She added when one of the houses caught on fire it burnt the other one. The board has to stop approving these subdivisions with this high of density. John Hammett, 1215 Sunnyside Drive said he has lived at this address since 1962 and is right across the road from this proposed subdivision. Hammett said he is asking the planning board to deny Ashley Heights as submitted. R-4 zoning is too dense. Lots at 6,000 square feet are too small and townhouses are even worse. There is no park and where are those kids going to play? R-3 zoning is 7,000 square feet and single family but they have the same problem with the small yards and no park. Sunnyside Drive is very busy and is a feeder route to Foys Lake and Meridian Roads. It can't handle an additional 400 to 1,000 vehicle trips from this subdivision. Hammett said a lot of people use Sunnyside Drive for walking, biking, and the high school runs their track team routinely on that road. Hammett added Sunnyside Drive is a substandard road and the developer should be required to bring it up to the city standards for the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 17 of 33 C safety of everyone. The hill is truly a hazard and the entrance to this subdivision should be down the hill on the western edge of the property. Sunnyside Drive is also the first deceleration lane off the bypass and won't be able to handle the additional traffic generated from the bypass let alone this subdivision. Hammett suggested that this property should be redone to put in 8-10 nice homes. He hopes it will be denied. Angie Kruckenberg, 1116 Sunnyside Drive said she is there to voice her objection to the Public Works Department's request to require the developer of Ashley Heights subdivision to include a 60 foot R/W to an existing private easement/their private road. She noted the location of her property on the map for the board. Kruckenberg said they will seriously defend their private road. Joe Kauffman, 393 Valley View Drive said the existing zoning is County R-1 and he feels that the R-4, R-3, & R-2 are all too high of a density for this hillside, which he added is sloping. The existing zoning of County R-1 should stay in place. Mel Sharon, 37 Primrose Court East showed the location of his property to the board. He asked the board to consider the people who live on the hill and have invested $100's of thousands of dollars into their properties. They could have gone to a higher density when those homes were built but they didn't because they wanted to provide a buffer between their property and what is across the bypass. Sharon agrees with the comments made about Sunnyside subdivision and the lack of construction quality. His subdivision is all paved, curbed with sidewalks and one acre lots. The traffic coming off the bypass ramp will exacerbate the traffic problems that the area already has. Sharon said he is against anything but the current zoning. MOTION Hull moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to adopt staff report KA-07-02 as findings of fact and recommend to the city council that the initial zoning for this property upon annexation be R-3, Urban Single Family Residential, not the R-4 Two Family Residential as requested by the applicants. BOARD DISCUSSION Schutt said the board has often discussed how to determine an appropriate buffer between the density of the city and the larger properties in the County. It is his opinion that the densities should decrease the further out they are from downtown. He bikes on Sunnyside and in looking at this property he feels R-4 is inappropriate. Now that the neighbors have voiced their concerns and after reading the staff report he thinks R-2 zoning would be more appropriate. Balcom said she agrees because R-3 seems too dense for this area. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 18 of 33 U Hull said that he also agrees with the R-2 zoning proposed by the board. The hillside is very nice and it should not be spoiled. MOTION TO AMEND Schutt moved and Balcom seconded a motion to amend the original motion to recommend to city council that the initial zoning for this property be R-2 (Single Family Residential) instead of the R-4 (Two Family Residential) as requested by the applicant. BOARD DISCUSSION Jentz said if the recommendation is amended, findings need to be discussed. He also reminded the board that they are only discussing the initial zoning on this property and not the issues with the subdivision. If the zoning is approved they will be coming back with another proposal. Balcom wanted to bring up the road easement issue that was addressed by a neighbor and she was reminded those issues will be discussed when the preliminary plat is reviewed. ROLL CALL - AMENDMENT The motion to amend the original motion passed .on a roll call vote of 4 in favor and 1 opposed. In making the motion, the board directed staff to amend the findings to insert R-2 which would be minor amendments to the findings. The board said they were comfortable with the changes as noted above. ROLL CALL The original motion as amended passed unanimously on a roll call vote. WILLOW CREEK - GROWTH A request from Wayne Turner for a growth policy amendment POLICY AMENDMENT, from industrial to suburban residential on a portion of the ANNEXATION, PLANNED project site, annexation and initial zoning classification of R- UNIT DEVELOPMENT & 3, Urban Single Family Residential, with a PUD overlay over PRELIMINARY PLAT the entire 140f acre project site. The developers have also requested approval of Willow Creek, a preliminary plat to create 288 single family lots, 82 townhouse lots and 9 lots which would accommodate multi -family buildings. A total of 24 multi -family buildings are proposed over the 9 multi- family lots and would allow up to 340 condominium units. The property is in the County zoning jurisdiction and is zoned R-1, Suburban Residential, and I-2, Heavy Industrial. The property is located on the north .side of Foys Lake Road at the intersection of Foys Lake Road and Valley View Drive. STAFF REPORTS, KGPA-07- Sean Conrad representing the Kalispell Planning Department 01, KA-07-03, KPUD-07-01 presented Staff Reports KGPA-07-01, KA-07-03, KPUD-07-01 & KPP-07-02 8s KPP-07-02 for the Board. Conrad said the project is located on Foys Lake Road north of the intersection of Valley View Drive. Conrad noted before the board is a Growth Policy amendment on approximately 30 acres to change the land use from industrial to suburban residential to allow the residential uses proposed. Also before Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 19 of 33 the board is an initial zoning of R-3 over the entire 140 acre site, a Planned Unit Development to allow a number of deviations including smaller lot sizes, townhouses in the R-3 zoning district as a permitted use, multi -family buildings as a permitted use within the R-3 district, as well as some setback deviations on the smaller lots. Conrad added there is also a preliminary plat request that would ultimately allow up to 710 dwelling units on this site divided between 9 multi- family lots and numerous single family and townhouse lots. There is a significant amount of parkland and open space and an overall trail system connecting the entire project together. The four major issues are noise along the bypass which borders this property on the west, setbacks to maintain water quality and wildlife habitat from Ashley Creek which runs along the north boundary of the site, traffic impacts associated with 6,000 to 6,500 vehicle trips per day from the overall project,, and stormwater. Conrad reviewed the location of the bypass, condominium units, townhouses, large and small single family lots, open space/parkland and the bike trails. Conrad described the architectural features of the structures. Of note is the overall density of this project which is quite dense. All along Foys Lake Road the .developer is proposing a fencing system which would be a 5 foot high vinyl fence and a stepped retaining wall and buffer will be constructed along a portion of Foys Lake Road. Conrad said when the planning board reviewed this project at its work session they requested that a noise study be included. No detailed noise study was submitted by the developer and therefore was not included in the board's packet. The bypass has changed somewhat where previously it was thought that it would go up and over this section of Foys Lake Road now they are considering constructing the bypass below Foys Lake Road which could play a factor in the noise levels. Conrad said that it is up to this board as to whether or not they want to require that the developer submit a noise study so they can illustrate how the 60 decibel level will be met for the condominium units. If changes need to be made to the layout of the design as a result of the study, they would have to come in before this board with an amended design. Balcom asked if there would be a barrier and Conrad said the developer has proposed some berming but we don't know if it is adequate because the noise study has not been completed. Conrad said this project will generate a significant amount of traffic. A lot of it will go along Foys Lake Road and then north on Meridian Road. According to the traffic study a number of Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 20 of 33 O the intersections on Meridian Road are already impacted and the level of service is bad and getting worse. The Public Works Department commented that they are recommending as part of phase 1, which is located at the southeast corner of the project, that all of the improvements recommended in the traffic study save for a possible light at the intersection of Valley View Drive and Foys Lake Road, be completed as part of phase 1. Conrad reviewed the improvements for the board. Conrad continued regarding stormwater the initial proposal by the developers is to retain stormwater on -site using bio- swales that hold the water and then discharge it eventually to Ashley Creek. Conrad said the city has recently adopted stricter stormwater standards and if this development is approved they would have to comply with those standards and show how predevelopment runoff would be entering the culvert and not impacting other properties. Conditions #22 8s #23 relate to the stormwater drainage management plan. Conrad said the final item is the setbacks from Ashley Creek. Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP's) recommended a 200 foot setback from the high water line of Ashley Creek. This setback is fairly significant and if the 200 foot setback was approved by this board and approved by council they would have to pull all of their buildings and associated parking lots out of the setback area. FWP's said a 200 foot setback should also include a 75 foot vegetative buffer and outside the 75 feet they could install a bike path or trail. The developers went back to FWP's and were looking for something to allow the condominium units to get closer to Ashley Creek. The project as proposed comes significantly closer than the 200 foot recommended buffer. Conrad noted last week FWP's sent a letter (included in the packets) that states they still recommend the 200 foot setback but if the city is looking at allowing a reduction in that setback FWP's and the city shouldn't allow anything less than 150 feet and then the vegetative buffer should be increased from 75 feet to 125 feet. The developer is requesting that the board consider off -site mitigation for encroachment into the 150 foot setback. The current recommendation and discussion in the staff report refers to the 200 feet setback. Conrad reviewed the letters and emails received from adjacent property owners. (Copies are attached to the minutes) Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KGPA-07-1 and recommend that the growth policy land use designation for the entire 140.5 acre site be Suburban Residential on the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 21 of 33 Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KA-07-3 and recommend that initial zoning of the 140.5 acre site be R-3 as shown on the zoning district map for the property. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KPUD-07-1 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council the PUD for Willow Creek be approved subject to the 49 conditions listed in the staff report. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KPP-07-2 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the Willow Creek subdivision, phase 1-6, be approved subject to the 49 conditions listed in the staff report. Conrad reviewed some of the conditions more thoroughly for the board. QUESTIONS FROM THE Balcom asked if the vinyl fencing along Foys Lake Road was BOARD adequate enough for wind and to mitigate noise from the road. Conrad said it would provide screening with landscaping which probably would not help with noise. Conrad added if the board doesn't feel that type of fencing is appropriate they could recommend a different type of fencing. Hull noted the board requested a fence along this part of the subdivision but did not want a 6 foot high wall along the road and the fencing proposed was the developer's compromise. Schutt asked if the bike path along Foys Lake Road was inside or outside of the fence. Conrad said it would be outside the fence and would serve as both a sidewalk and bike path. APPLICANT/AGENCIES Wayne Freeman, CTA said they are trying to create a community with housing that is geared toward mixed income families. He stated it is not affordable housing and the units would be in the $180,000 - $400,000 range. Freeman said one thing this project does that the previous submittal didn't is it proposes a considerable amount of parks and open space. The project is a "town center" approach where higher density is located toward the center and larger lots around the perimeter to take into consideration the existing properties that are adjacent to this site. Freeman said traffic is being addressed by including an 80 foot R/ W that runs through this site and connects to Highway 2. They tried to create a system that works not only within the confines of the development but recognizing that people will use this road as a way to avoid traffic on the main Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 22 of 33 arterial roads. The traffic study indicates that traffic is already a problem in this area and there are intersections that are failing. Freeman stated this developer has no objection to Bing those areas. However, there are points within the conditions of approval in relation to traffic that the developer is requesting some minor relief. The traffic study recommends that the improvements to the area roads be completed in 2 phases rather than all at once. However, the Public Works Department is requesting that all of the improvements be completed with Phase 1, before even one lot has been sold. These improvements will cost approximately $2 million dollars and the developer is asking for some relief by allowing the improvements to be completed in 2 phases. Freeman said the other item is along Foys Lake Road (Condition #26) where Public Works has requested that the entire length be replaced before Phase 1 is final platted. Again the developer is not opposed to upgrading this section of road to an arterial street but they are asking that these improvements be completed in 2 phases. Freeman said that they have spent a considerable amount of time working with Fish, Wildlife 8v Parks (FWP's) in trying to define the 200 foot setback from Ashley Creek. The entire site is pasture with some level of vegetation on the south side of the creek. FWP's has indicated that they want some improvements along the edge of the creek by creating a native planting corridor. The developer proposed a 100 foot vegetative buffer and FWP's came back with 125 feet. Along the entire length of Ashley Creek the developer is willing to install, per FWP's specifications, native trees and shrubs. In addition, the Parks Department is asking for trails along the creek and there was a general agreement that they would put the trails system as close to the buildings as possible leaving a buffer of 20 feet between the trail and the buildings. Freeman indicated to the board the areas of the development that encroach within the 150 foot buffer of Ashley Creek and noted it is 1.29 acres. He said they are trying to work with FWP's to determine what they could do to mitigate the areas off -site. Freeman explained the environmental community has indicated there is a need for creation of a GIS database to determine where those critical areas are located both within the city and in the county. He stated the developer has proposed either to fund that study or provide an initial endowment that the city could hold to acquire those critical areas or work to secure conservation easements. Freeman said they are completing a noise study and they plan to berm along the bypass areas regardless of what the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 23 of 33 noise study determines. �\ J Freeman referred to Condition #46 that requires that the water rights that go with this property be transferred. He said the water rights do not necessarily go with the property and they do not know if the developer is going to able to secure them. Freeman said the developer owns some separate water rights that could either be retired or transferred to the city from another location within the valley that could be enough to off -set any impact from this development. Freeman noted that vinyl fences are not cheap, particularly the model proposed. He added vinyl fencing is relatively maintenance free and in 25 years will still be there and will not weather or deteriorate. However, they are not opposed to the board recommending another type of fencing for this location. Freeman said they have been working with Public Works on stormwater. He said all stormwater will be held on -site and they are proposing bio-swales throughout that would filter the water as it is coming through and then hold it and discharge it at a controlled rate. BOARD DISCUSSION Hull asked if the water rights would be on Ashley Creek and they are Ashley Creek. He also asked if the board agreed to the phasing of the road improvements listed in Condition #26 what work would be completed when. Freeman said the traffic study recommends that the improvements be completed in 2 phases. The other thing that is important to note, Freeman added, is the traffic study was completed prior to knowing what the configuration of the bypass would be in relation to Foys Lake Road. He noted that the developer is proposing that a new traffic study be completed that would consider the new configuration of the bypass and they would implement the improvements according to the recommendations of the new study. Balcom noted that the staff report calls for the 200 foot setback from Ashley Creek and they are using 150 feet and she asked why there is a difference. Freeman said that FWP's requested the 200 foot setback and now has indicated that they would consider a 150 foot buffer to include a 125 foot vegetative zone. They are trying to be creative and work with the city and FWP's to provide an incentive to provide off - site mitigation for those areas within the 150 foot buffer. Norton added there is a letter from Fish, Wildlife & Parks that was given to them tonight that clarifies FWP's position on the buffer/ setback from Ashley Creek along with CTA's response to that letter. (Both letters are attached to the minutes) Schutt mentioned Willow Creek Road within the subdivision Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 24 of 33 and asked the width of that road and how it would serve as a south connector between Foys Lake Road and Highway 2. Freeman said Willow Creek Road is proposed as an 80 foot R/W. He said the developer wanted to have a larger road recognizing that this road would be used as an arterial. Schutt said that the project has only decreased by one unit since the original proposal with one-half of those units being multi -family. Freeman noted that this proposal is an entirely different community than was originally proposed. PUBLIC HEARING I Marilyn Bain, 3350 North Ashley Lake Road read a. statement for the record. (A copy is attached to the minutes) Steve Lucky, 341 Stoneridge Drive said he is an International Security Consultant/Counter Terrorism Specialist who works in Washington, D.C. and commutes from beautiful Flathead Valley. He said it is a long commute to D.C. and he chooses to do that because of the quality of life here which is very important to him. Lucky doesn't think you can find people who would be willing to pay $180,000 - $400,000 for lots and houses that small. He suggested that this high of density is the same as you would find in an intercity ghetto. When you stick between 2,000 and 3,000 people on 140 acres in that area the traffic problems speak for themselves as do many of the other factors. We live in the 3rd largest contiguous state in the U.S. with less than one million people so we have a lot of space in Montana. We definitely need affordable housing because everyone needs a good place to live but we don't need to do it this way. This dramatically adversely affects those who live in that area, the police, fire department and everything else. He feels this type of density will create a magnet for criminal activity. Melissa Evanoff, 4th Street West asked for the dimensions of a 4,000 square foot lot. Norton said that the board or the developer will address all of the questions during the board discussion. Evanoff expressed her concerns regarding the placement of the bicycle path so close to the highway and the amount of traffic that -will exit on to Appleway having to cross over the rails to trails path. She felt that both proposals were very dangerous for the children in the area. Evanoff asked if the taxpayers would be responsible for the cost of the road improvements. She is also concerned about bringing so many more homes into the market and what this surplus would do to her property values. Evanoff said that Peterson School is full and the school is discussing moving the 6+h grade classes to Linderman School. She said there isn't enough room for the additional children and is also worried about the safety of the children going to school with all of the additional traffic in the area that this subdivision would generate. She noted at her Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 25 of 33 intersection of 4+h and Meridian there are people who constantly run that stop sign and it is just a matter of time before an accident happens. Evanoff asked if this development is really necessary or just a chance for this developer to make a lot of money. She wonders if the developer really ,cares about the quality of our town. Evanoff also asked if the Sewage Treatment Plant will be able to handle all of the additional sewage. David Rice, 511 South Meridian said the density here compared to their rural community is excessive and not consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. The traffic flow from this rascal is going cripple Meridian which already has major problems. He asked the board to require the developer to construct the road improvements as the subdivision is being built because Meridian won't survive the added traffic afterward. Rice said adding traffic lights at every intersection where there are stop signs now won't solve the problems. Pete Wessel, 121 Rainbow Drive said he understands the developer is trying to produce a different product but he will show the board photos of another development by them, Empire Estates, which Wessel thinks is atrocious. Wessel said since the previous plan was submitted the number of units was only reduced from 711 to 710. He added with the PUD proposal they are proposing a little bit bigger park, maybe a bit more bike path and a little better design but the board indicated at the work session that they felt the number of units needed to be cut back. Wessel said there is more density in this proposal than the west side of Kalispell. Wessel said if there needs to be density in Kalispell it needs to be encouraged in a walkable distance to downtown. The people in this subdivision would be driving to town which is a major problem with this site. Wessel did an analysis of three recent developments in the city. Empire Estates is 35% owner occupied and 65% rentals; Buffalo Stage is 65% owner occupied and 35% rentals; and Ashley Park is 50% owner occupied and 50% rentals. He said looking at a higher quality development such as Buffalo Stage you will see a higher level of homeownership. He added that a large majority of the rentals are not affordable rentals. Wessel mentioned he attended the affordable housing work session with city council last night and one of the main points was why are we building 1,200, 1,400, 8s 1,600 square foot houses for people who can't afford them. Wessel noted he reviewed the design guidelines for this project which proposes 7 different housing styles but there is no guarantee that is what will be built. Wessel said that he has a problem with the city allowing development to be Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 26 of 33 architecturally self -regulated. In addition to the condominium units being reviewed by the city's Architectural Review Committee, Wessel feels that the Committee should also approve a pallet of 10-15 home designs which the developer would be required to build. He also thinks there is a need to pay special attention to the architectural design of the homes that will be built adjacent to Foys Lake Road and the bypass such as 2-sided architecture and height limitations. Wessel said a 3,000 foot fence along Foys Lake Road is not acceptable. He suggested the board drive out by Empire Estates where there are split -rail vinyl fences that are pulling apart and the rails are laying on the side of the road. He doesn't think vinyl fencing will hold up, especially at that length. He did provide an example of a shorter vinyl fence at Glacier Commons which is nice and photos of Buffalo Stage subdivision which he likes because it that has an ample greenbelt, meandering bike paths, a frontage road, and houses that are oriented to the street. Wessel continued regarding the noise from the Highway 93 Bypass, this area qualifies for federal funding for sound walls. Ashley Park in the southern part of Kalispell also qualifies for this funding. Wessel stated the traffic study completely neglects studying the intersection of Idaho and Meridian. That location functions at a level of service E out of scale of A-F and a project of one-half the one proposed will put this intersection into the level of service F. He added when the traffic signals are installed by this project it will get worse. Wessel disagreed that Willow Creek Drive would be used as an arterial because no one would drive an S-shaped road with residential driveways as a cut -through. He added this is the same kind of bad design as Meridian. He uses Foys Lake Road to Meridian Road every day and will continue to drive that way. Wessel asked so what will improve this project? Lower density; architectural guarantees from this developer; the road through the site should be straightened; greater setbacks from the bypass; and high quality construction along Foys Lake Road and the bypass. Wessel felt the project needs further review. Wessel referred to the information sent to the planning board prior to the meeting. (Copy is attached to the minutes) John Rauk, 125 Stoneridge noted that he appreciated the intelligent and well prepared comments that have been presented by the neighbors. He noted most of what he wanted to say has already been discussed but he wanted to paint a picture of when all the current board members and Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 27 of 33 city council members are no longer around and the people who sit in their chairs are suddenly faced with condemning all the homes on the north side of Meridian all the way to Idaho. This board will not be here to take care of the problems that their decisions are creating. He referred to off - site mitigation and the water rights issue as bribes. He said water rights are not adjudicated in the State of Montana. People believe they own the water rights but they have to be approved for a use when it is deferred from its original use. Rauk feels it is all about money, the money the city makes, the money the builders and developers make, the money the landowner makes. We as homeowners in the area are also involved in the money game because we are looking at the appreciation or depreciation of our property. He said this is just window dressing and wondered if the board really is looking at the issues. Rauk thought the comment by the board member who asked, where do they draw the line was a very good point. The line should be drawn now. This is R-1 and there is no compromising and no debate. It should be left R-1. Everyone out in this area purchased properties based on the R-1 zoning and then to have the city entice developers through annexation, which allows the developer a much larger density, is wrong. Rauk noted he heard said that the board doesn't care about neighbors but they should care about the people around a project because they have been paying taxes a lot longer than the people who will purchase those homes in the proposed subdivision. You can make a project like this beautiful but stick to the R-1 zoning. Sarese Grant, 640 South Meridian said her primary concerns are safety and traffic. Her children cross Meridian every day to school and there are plenty of children who do. Increasing the traffic in this area, regardless of stop signs and traffic lights does not change the ratio that the cars will outnumber the children. Grant said there have been several accidents on the bridge over Ashley Creek. In addition there are many other pedestrians and bicyclists who use the area roads and it is not safe now. She is worried that the cost of road improvements will come from the taxpayers and there isn't enough money. Grant said she is also concerned about the environment and the wildlife along Ashley Creek. Grant voiced her concerns about Peterson School. It is full and even if next year those 6th graders are gone and there are 60 seats open, those 60 seats will be filled by the students who are currently displaced to other schools. The kids across the street from her can't go to Peterson School because it is full. Grant said that she opposes the project. Connie Lestiko - 5 Winward Loop said she is a resident of the city and is here in full support of Marilyn Bain's and Pete Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 28 of 33 Wessel's presentations. Those 2 presentations alone would give the board enough information to know that this project needs further review. Lestiko said she is surprised that the recommendation from the staff is to approve this proposal. She said to take the current zoning of R-1 and to change it to an R-3 with a PUD would change the whole nature of the area. She noted R-3 and R-2 zoning calls for single family homes yet with the PUD they are proposing 340 units out of 710 that would be multi -family units. She added that doesn't count the 82 townhouses. Lestiko reviewed some of the major deviations the developer is proposing which are smaller lot size; reduced setbacks; and allowing townhouses and condominium units in a single family zone. She said this proposal is way too dense for this area. Lestiko said that she has been a member of the Police Advisory Council for years and she knows what a task it is for our current law enforcement personnel to cover the city. By adding 710 more units will make it more difficult. Lestiko added the environmental impact with all of the previous uses on that land just reinforces the need for the 200 foot setback from Ashley Creek. Lestiko thinks the setback should be required and the board should not accept off -site mitigation. Lestiko asked the board to seriously consider the public comment. She added she doesn't understand the comment made by the board that the neighbors are not going to be listened to because they never want the density, which was shocking for her to hear. She feels the board should listen to what every taxpayer has to say but especially those who are most affected. Julie Robinson - 955 Foys Lake Road said she and her neighbors have concerns about wildlife and traffic. She counted 6 dead deer in one month on a small stretch of Foys Lake Road, which is a major arterial for deer to travel to and from their habitat. If there are 6,000 more vehicles going down this road there will be a lot more dead deer and she believes multiple car accidents. Robinson described the icy condition of the road especially on the bridge. She also expressed her concern about the safety of kids walking to school and the dangerous speeds at which people already travel in this area. Robinson described the problems that she and her neighbors are currently experiencing with groundwater and stormwater runoff. She feels that the developer's proposed system will only create more problems on their properties. She noted that she is also worried that she will be taxed out of the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 29 of 33 neighborhood and she cannot afford to move. Robinson said that she appreciates the time the architects have put in to try and make this project appealing she just thinks that it is the wrong place at the wrong time. Irene Houston - 1314 - 2nd Street West said she is concerned about the density and traffic on 2nd Street. She is less than 1 block from Peterson School and there is a lot of traffic on that road now and she is sure there is going to be a lot more. Mrs. Roach - 963 Foys Lake Road said they live across the road from the proposed development. Most of her concerns have already been voiced. However she doesn't feel enough consideration has been given to those homeowners who live outside of this subdivision. As the homeowner right across the road she is concerned with the overflow of the excess water and is certain during high water when the water from Willow Creek Subdivision is released her house will be underwater. Roach said she is also concerned about the noise along Foys Lake Road which is loud at times now and with the addition of 6,000 cars from this development and the bypass will be excessive. She asked if there was any consideration for noise barriers for the homeowners who are already there. Roach said she agrees with Julie Robinson that they are trying to do a good job but again it is too many homes proposed and too many exceptions to the rules without real clarification as to why. She hopes that the board will ask the developers to take their plan back and present something that is workable for the current residents, the community and potentially for the city of Kalispell. David Klingensmith, 245 Stoneridge said as a newcomer to the valley he sees the growth and he doesn't have a problem with growth as long as it is done appropriately. He agrees with the statement made from one of the board members that there needs to be some logical transition from city to rural. If those transitions are not done it will be a great disservice to the city and to those who live in the county who have purchased their property with the R-1 zoning. With the density of this proposal including a 2-3 story condominium at the far west corner of Foys Lake Road there isn't much transitioning from the city to the county R-1. He feels the density is excessive. Klingensmith noted he was also appalled that the proposal was to support this project with 49 conditions. It would be like him telling his patient you are fine you only have 49 problems. Obviously this project needs to be started over from the beginning and reworked. He realizes this property is going to be developed. He added it is a beautiful drive out Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 30 of 33 Foys Lake Road and he would hate to see that transition lost with a huge development like this one. Scott Creekmer, 229 Sunset Trail said he wanted to reiterate what Marilyn Bain said earlier. He is a builder who built a home in Stoneridge and he was talking with his painter one day, who happens to be 65 years old, and Creekmer said he couldn't wait to see what would be built on this site because they will be beautiful homes. His painter responded anyone would be a fool to build over there because when he was a kid they used to get chased out of there because it was so dangerous. Edna Carter, 100 South Meridian Road said she has lived there for 40 years and everyday the traffic is backed up from Albertson's past Peterson School. She can't get out of her driveway even though she eventually made a circular driveway so she doesn't have to back out. Carter said her property also backs up to the mill and she has watched many fires there and they had to bring in Cats and other equipment to put out fires in the sawdust. She can't understand putting more traffic onto a road that already has so much traffic. She is against this project. APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL Wayne Freeman said they appreciate all the comments especially the ones acknowledging they have tried to take a unique property and turn it into a good project. Freeman said the mill site was on the north side of Ashley Creek. There was a location on the south side but that is in the highway R/W and is not within the development area. As far as the testing, obviously before you go out and do any of the work you do a number of core samples which they have done. But, before the project goes forward there will be a full scale analysis of sub -soil conditions. Freeman said the high water table has been addressed within the staff comments and they recognize there might be some restrictions on basements in some of those areas. They don't discount the comments on the water rights in fact that is what they were trying to get to when discussed before. They recognize there are several people involved in that issue. Since they didn't feel the condition could be met what they were offering was to transfer water rights from another location to make up for the impact of this project. Freeman said the traffic concerns are no surprise. He said the developer will be paying for the improvements recommended in the traffic study and not the taxpayers. The drainage problems that were brought up will be corrected as part of the improvements to Foys Lake Road. They will retain water on -site and release at the rate required by the city. Freeman added the bypass will do a lot to relieve traffic Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 31 of 33 congestion and noted that was not addressed in the traffic study. Freeman said this is not Empire Estates. They are more than willing to include the design standards into the conditions and the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CCR's) for the project. Freeman added height limits are regulated by zoning. Freeman again reviewed their proposal for off -site mitigation for the encroachment of the Ashley Creek 150 foot setback. Freeman said 49 conditions is not uncommon and they feel can be met with the exception of the 4 areas he listed earlier. MOTION - GROWTH Hull moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to adopt staff POLICY AMENDMENT report KGPA-07-01 and recommend that the growth policy land use designation for the entire 140.5 acre site be Suburban Residential on the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map. BOARD DISCUSSION Conrad said the board could address the growth policy amendment and continue discussion on the remaining items until the next planning board meeting on May 8, 2007. Hull said he recalled when the neighbors were against the Stoneridge subdivision. Hull noted that this property is not out in rural Flathead County but directly across the street from the oldest part of Kalispell. ROLL CALL - GROWTH The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. POLICY AMENDMENT MOTION TO CONTINUE Norton moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to continue the discussion on the annexation 8s initial zoning, planned unit development and preliminary plat for Willow Creek until the May 8, 2007 planning board meeting. ROLL CALL - The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. CONTINUANCE BOARD DISCUSSION Balcom assured the people in attendance that the board seriously considers the public's testimony at these meetings and their perception that they are not considered couldn't be further from the truth. OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:20 a.m. The next work session (which is a joint session with the Flathead County Planning Board) will be held on Tuesday, Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 32 of 33 April 24, 2007 beginning at 7:00 p.m. at the Herron Park Community Room, 101 Foys Canyon Road. �1 Timoth orton President The next regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission will be held on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 beginning at 7:00 p.m. Michelle Anderson Recording Secretary APPROVED as submitted/corrected: 5 / b /07 Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 33 of 33 n• i. MAR 2 92007 YI FLfi) t4':': 't ;t'ti!'i�ti<IG Stephen and Cheryl Wilson 348 Blue Spruce Lane Kalispell, MT 59901 March 26, 2007 Kalispell City Planning Board 17 2' Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development Dear Planning Board: We recently received your correspondence regarding the above mentioned development and are writing to express some of our concerns. We have enclosed- photos! we- took of the. property being proposed�for the. development, n and -you will findxeference&to the, photos. on:the=enclosed...plot plan. . Photo Al shows 2 red flags - the one on the left is 100 feet from the north boundary of the property and the one on the right is 20 feet from the boundary. Photo #2 shows a red flag 20 feet from the north boundary, where you see the chain link fence. Note the yellow stake warning of a buried gas line. There is a 3-cable electric transmission line buried just north of the gas line. Photo 43 shows the weeds and ground cover growing on the old slough that used to run across the parcel. Most of this area is too wet to even farm. Photo #4 shows the ground water that came from the area in photo #3. In the mid 1990s water flowed across Ponderosa Lane at this point. There is an on going drainage problem in this area. We have many concerns about this proposed development, but the issues that immediately come to mind are as follows: 1. Is the 20 foot wide designated park area at the north side of the proposed development adequate to accommodate; both the buried utilities and.the walking path that the developers have indicated will be along this corridor? In addition, there is only a ten foot setback requirernent iL .. L�..,I. ,, .F +L ,, 1, +., ,+b; ,.-F+L,; „-;a .:.h;f•1, ,�T; 11 adA f=�,�-4'h Pr Cnn traction, vii lii0 ii fu.'vi� vi uv i..w vv «.... .:.. .....J ......__sJr, -- - ,'�" 2. The "buffer zone" between the building lots on the north side of the proposed development and Ponderosa Estates should be a minimum of 100 feet. 3. A public walking path is being proposed along the northern edge of the development within the proposed 20 foot designated park area. How is this to be maintained? An area of public access in such close proximity to the wooded environment of Ponderosa Estates is of great concern to us, primarily because of the potential fire hazard this would create. 4. As shown in photos 93 and 9-4, there is a serious drainage problem that needs to be addressed. Is it prudent to put in a housing development over an area with such serious drainage issues? Your consideration of these concerns will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, 152 %- eryl and Steve Wilson a tom" aJ�-„',�1•�i ' _ rt '. ay t'.-�.• '- - l' Z J ra f .� .n.. '_ • 3 1 = . - >.�, ' lit .tZ-e. r- ! ly ' 's �.f £*rrd p'Ge� �n "sY,x+"� a U.S, HIGHWAY 93 jA r m�g n. 9 - -------- , W -"O' 18 7 N ilarcka - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - North\ '9" 1 f f -------- ------- PERIP., P km ve rr. r ii4 A U. . !;1? -- - — - — - — - — - — - - - — 4;1 AS w W v j CD (D 4, CD C:) cD (D Wg-04*i t8i b, f. lAh p ID "o fill > a) q -0 k wo T F IT T- c, E S c, 11 W k r!K -o4' In rp 0 r- co Go L) > tq q' m F r"T-T-T-T!t FD r 'L C) R f/3 Zia 12 SO o -o rL IIIl/hod cn (D D) (D h Aj, v 4. .91 TRACT a ::I a < m rn cn rn G3 0 rn .21 A > :3 co CD (D CL lilt-, ID c') -4 I. I um - In (D 0- } i PONDEROSA ESTATES KALISPELL, MT 59901 l / Flathead Valley's Finest Sub -Division • 4 Miles North on Hwy 93 March 30, 2007 4., AQR 0 2037 City of Kalispell Planning Departmient�1';ii'? ►_ FP = i="iG 0 ; tr`V)= i3 i Attn: Mr. Sean Conrad 17 Second Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Gentlemen: On Friday, March 16, 2007, I met with Mr. Sean Conrad regarding the PUD proposed by Gateway Properties. During our discussion i emphasized that in no way is the Ponderosa Estates Homeowners Board connected with Gateway Properties in the development and construction of the Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development. Last summer Gateway Properties briefly met with the Ponderosa Board and said that they 0"might" buy property adjacer:t to our development. They explained what they "might" build and then went on their way. Some individuals on our board did express some concern regarding water tables, lighting, streets, lot size, etc. But in no way did we make specific requests regarding anything Gateway Properties was contemplating. Therefore, the sentence in Section Ea on page 1 of their PUD, i.e., "This complies with a request by the Ponderosa Hom owner's Board of Directors." does not apply. I have discussed this with Mr. Brent Card of Gateway Properties unc. and he has agreed that the afore mentioned sentence was placed on their PUD in error. Please do not..consider it in any of your future deliberations. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mrs. Elaine Crahar:. President Ponderosa Estates Homeowners Board Copy to: ;D~_ viriieJLer 0 Mr. Brent Card L-�, f- Il Cr v---, �':, C`-) JV ,✓—t-- �-. Jam% w�-- :R-LE wR-k T 1 NG -,1-1 lj C-T-CC--(Z -t-o Sk('F, r(-L pu.� � _1.1 Ss I v ` i Si'C,tiS f�N� y 1,'-A -C LI.0 LC k�/ 'Do C: S p ut� V s GZ S i� t�1� �N t G �i S rL�� P� �1�c C i KE SS u t= rs D lt� Y-6 Is tTi' -p L-i= [ a w� Q'tts o sS S 3 i:=. l�DSTANb try ��I� D owe �EtGi-ctb�2S Fl�t�i✓ L0 I S'S Z s C. •7K �S SL.. v I s G ,✓ �—, f-lJ t lv G- N Et .l NZ lGt t U2,S IJEP�Rb'� . GTKc �S °t �E C� Lc�;.cCt� f�P�ovL-r Et�V�22� N��C!'�- 1SS ILt_S S i,Lc, � .Jc� S t,,-� N--roz- 3,u A l- CTi S -" l � JS G PVG E7C-) (-A ISM S C °,Q E , 07r lb�-S J\R..0 v�^�) Co 1-N C��21��D t� , rF TF-LS t $ S-fit �; i 'l1Sl}�F�IC. ALL '-FR9fS C' t3l t~t = G G�,t EV s✓ - +iE`f -t 6 E r sG �� —p 'T t ,; C �t t G •2iifT Cs= 4 c Ep ICI F\-P�T RE.Pv•D \)Nu-- `r [S i_L r n t Tt—D G PTl o ss S I-c c �; AN`t vj u r, SE U_yF FIE E 'TH V1 cam" -� PV t� Cz�1 !�S` t�j v Y pct�iS ('� [_i i-1 JC �l t (� l� T ✓C T i �(t IYl E 1 f-C S l v t~>� �-�% �' � {'-i: t t�.T '� r- �N `J ;1�+> N i�� N'• i� ,n� r.1D C.LT�; � 1�-;� w�•�J' i ' � E-i ��- •Tf-( �� 17' a ! ? as l i.`(J E:Z- L cT�l,v �{ i -Cif' YZ-t-t C %t `� N i✓kC��-L� .:;i ; pL_A ti L.ky�� , � C:� t ,v�_; /t( n-,c f��L r�. _� � ."S — T'H I •,aspo��S, If�� �>)`.j C�l'ti�IG ��.�� � t •�� ����1� _ 1,�r I—Ei:,t_ ea—G'S—�..J ;}c�`� � ��l.l.:C: MIiJ<�, .a N'l: � t-Z.i-��'• i_,: C`•^. VYt. ll',J 1.r`i � jv _, `•..n. �'�-- �'.J }\ L.L��.' _�. '�� ��,�l Lew i.%%�, t ,_....,.-✓ April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department C2nd Street East, Suite 211 Lalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the 1W current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots within 150 feet. Please refer to Montana Code Annotated 2005 as follows: 76-2-305. Alteration of zoning regulations - protest. (1) A regulation, restriction, and boundary may be amended, supplemented, changed, modified, or repealed. The provisions of 7672-303 relative to public hearings and official notice apply equally to all changes or amendments. (2) An amendment may'not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and Cvoting members of the city or town council or legislative body of the municipality if a protest against a J change pursuant to subsection (1) is signed by the owners of 25% or more of: (a) the area of the lots included in any proposed change; or (b) those lots 150 feet from a lot included in a proposed change. . LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE 0 47�';s &0L -,-ter J � f� f ('�' �a c IZ o aA L A AIE �L, 5P �z 5g4ai 75 -D7 C W April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 7 2nd Street East, Suite 211 _dlispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 213C in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots within 150 feet. Please refer to Montana Code Annotated 2005 as follows: 76-2-305. Alteration of zoning regulations - protest. (1) A regulation, restriction, and boundary may be amended, supplemented, changed, modified, or repealed. The provisions of 76-2-303 relative to public hearings and official notice -apply equally to all changes or amendments. (2) An amendment may'not become effective except -upon a favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and Cvoting members of the city or town council or legislative body of the municipality if a protest against a 0 change pursuant to subsection (1) is signed by the owners of 25% or more of: (a) the area of the lots included in any proposed change; or (b) those lots 150 feet from a lot included in a proposed change. . LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE A v April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department r" 7 2nd Street East, Suite 211 alispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3'", and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots -within 150 feet. Please refer to Montana Code Annotated 2005 as follows: 76-2-305. Alteration of zoning regulations - protest. (1) A regulation, restriction, and boundary may be amended, supplemented, changed, modified, or repealed. The provisions of 76-2-303 relative to public hearings and official notice -apply equally to all changes or amendments. (2) An amendment may 'not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and C� voting members of the city or town council or legislative body of the municipality if a protest against a J change pursuant to subsection (1) is signed by the owners of 25% or more of (a) the area of the lots included in any proposed change; or (b) those.lots 150 feet from a lot included in a proposed change. . LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE I 1 1 h/ �¢�- -�-- U �� P��� !� J �' � qua i April 5, 2007 4 Kalispell Planning Department " 7 2nd Street East, Suite 211 2alispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be'described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located -on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development_ LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE v ie �©7� Aw vze r 7 � Aj J 0 V April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department . 7 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 C Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME . ADDRESS PHONE 0 t Ye 'Zoe'12-e4� WI.FO-- `ls Cl . '7 _J� _ 7 i April 5, 2007 r( Kalispell Planning Department 7 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is.locatedon the east side of High- way 93 approximately l+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE 1 �• 71�/ i {�'� t iY_.� p _ 6''M Z z: j 26 I � ` -ri r � 6J: 7- Z - 2 33 / -1 - &51v� ;�:;L5 _(56 - � 7 i7L f ��/� �'% �L °.iCJ✓ r i v j u t i !' 'J kJL �' !] 0 d\ V L/V r /' C 1 , J r^ , G%t � s u: G-tz-�... C.Lc��� � I � � �Ytc('r�� L�•�" j�i�"�. �S , JqAI r� /� I I J T /1 J April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department C7 2nd Street East, Suite 211 x�alispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is locatedon the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE IIV ? cx- n'.4_ � �57- r.14 .��, vo #0,q� ��� f��s"� 1�rrl� r %� - , �U_ �y3 ,.;�. V 71 r `ram L ' % f .d —`t�t1 ��= U �—� 1-7'1 '? 1 �7 `� t — i c �. L./ 4.'L--"ticL b; �J F"GcS1L�= —i 71 I _ )'J ✓ ; /_ 5I L �_� ! �19 April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department �r",7 2nd Street East, Suite 211 �-x�alispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the raral character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 213C in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE .JTe e LllS0 ��gZrG (JISoN J April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the .properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this developmente. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE W k,k P:,. J April 5, 2007 Kalispell _'!..;fining Department C17 2nd Su ; ; ::ast, Suite 211 pl, 1\1` 9901IKis� Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately l+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE f r � , 77" I � April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department (--')7 2nd Street East, Suite 211 -Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any cha.o gc} ul f1;e current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the -prort-17ies cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located'on the east side way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAM�� ADDRESS P ; r II - 2 e prrti Gc�2 7 S i t 4 I . I April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department (--')7 2nd Street East, Suite 211 —Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any chatige current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the.- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and f r :C 1.5 k. it Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is.located on the east si(-ie oFa' ai way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME C;4- ra.u� ADDRESS L195 SJ�2 GL�, 'C /Lt .GIB-U z ctk Am�ovvs K0,k 5,.,p'C'L1 UXF s? rot +i �f2ri Cl� �Q �rsp�I l d q�d 1 �d61 LS7--z( F 3 yc�c�_ �7_ oa'i April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department (`�7 2nd Street East, Suite 211 —Kalispell, MT 59901 Ty- Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is.located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # i7 NAME ADDRESS PHONE r-A el ` 1 U C-e f C` n C. ! .S ` S I 1 April 10, 2007 To: The Kalispell City Planning Board Please accept the following detailed comments on the proposed Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development being developed by Gateway Properties. In brief our concerns include the following: 1 _ Failure of the applicant to comply with Section 27.21.030 (5) page 66: Standards for Planned Unit Development District. (PUD),* that requires specific information be submitted as part of a PUD application including subdivision documents and other essential information that has not been provided as required. Details comments on this are provided in the comments that are attached. 2. Failure to comply with state law 76-2-303 MCA on annexation hearings which allows that a municipality may only conduct a hearing on the annexation in conjunction with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation when the proposed new zoning is comparable with the existing county zoning. The proposed zoning of R-2 with a PUD is not comparable with the current zoning of SAG 10. 3. Failure to demonstrate that the proposed density and relaxed R-2 standards proposed under the PUD provide, as is required, that there will be an improved overall site design or comparable public benefits in additional open space. In fact the relaxed PUD standards provide for an equivalent R-4' zoning with little to no public benefit. R-1 is the classification associated with the Suburban Residential classification called for in the Kalispell Growth Policy, -which the public was led to believe was the future density for this area unless significant public benefit was to be provided for increased density under a PUD. A PUD under the R-1 classification would allow for 3 dwelling units/acre not the 4.5 proposed. A PUD for this proposed development should demonstrate the significant public benefits and improved site design should include elements that: • Create an increased buffer (100 ft) between lots for lots 170-189 which back into a steep ponderosa tree covered slope and lots 7-18 which are in an area of historic drainage problems and an area with existing trees that should be retained for buffering. • Consolidate internally (as opposed to highway frontage) public park facilities in excess of the minimum required of 10.59 to offset density increases requested; • Assure that trail systems are scaled compatible with proposed trails in adjoining subdivision and that they include and provide connectivity to parks and trail systems in adjoining developments, • Provide greater buffers to adjoining development in exchange for requested higher density internally, • Do not allow for storm water or lift station facilities to be considered as part of calculations for park facilities or to be sited so as to interfere with the optimal function of park areas, (J ' See attached Exhibit A chart that compares zone classifications • Retain existing trees, • Address areas of high ground water and seasonal flooding. 4. Inadequate transportation infrastructure or solutions are in place to address transportation issues identified in TAC committee discussions and in the current new draft Kalispell Transportation Plan. Conditioning this development on the future development of a full movement intersection is premature and allows for speculative development not consistent with the predictability and time lines that a PUD is clearly required to provide as part of the City of Kalispell Zoning Regulations. This application is premature until comprehensive transportation guidelines are in place for the development being proposed north -of Reserve Street. For example, it is of concern that the Sliverbrook development at Church Drive was approved with the assumption that an over -pass would be built and yet now it has apparently been announced that no funding for this by-pass exists! 5. Staff recommendations for a series of future amendments to the PUD are not allowed under Kalispell Zoning Regulations 27.21.020 (7) Limitation on Rezoning or under requirements under 27.21.030 (5) that require certain information to be part of a PUD application —not future amendments to a PUD. Missing information and issues proposed for future amendments include: phasing of the development under the PUD, a park improvement plan, location of parks, development of a proposed assisted living center, future parking and.signage plans, and a street connection for a future full movement intersection. Encouraging and allowing for a series of future amendments also C opens the door for amendments for other uses than say a proposed assisted living center. Lack of deadlines for future amendments may result in the inability to make adjustment to lots, parks, buffers, and streets. 6. Potential inappropriate citing of the proposed future assisted living center in an area where height, noise, and high groundwater may create unacceptable problems should be addressed now, not by future amendments to the PUD. Each of these six points is addressed in greater detail below. We request that you deny the application before you tonight and direct the developers to address the incomplete information that is required to be provided as well as the issues raised within these comments. This application is speculative in nature given that road infrastructure is not in place to serve it and time should be taken to create a better and more complete plan for this development. 1.) Incomplete PUD Application due to failure to submit Subdivision documents required by the Kalispell zoning regulations for a PUD application Section 27.21.030 (5) page 66: Standards for Planned Unit Development District (PUD), of the Kalispell Zoning Regulations, require that "The property owner applying for a PUD district classification shall submit three copies of a PUD preliminary plan which shall contain the following information. If a PUD also involves a subdivision, the k. ++ni ah.,ll is ' l.,.ln +he ' f.,, .++.++i .., a a + ] � J tior. sl1V11111�.a1 J11Y11 aA lllcILL LA llll. t111IJ-maL1V11 and LLVL.ullle11 S rC— fired fo aN�%111.a 1.1V11 stated in the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations." (Emphasis added) 2 The Valley Ranch PUD clearly involves a subdivision and yet the application submittal file does not include the subdivision documents required for application under Section 27.21.030 (5) page 66. A list of issues that should have been more clearly addressed as part of required subdivision documents like an environmental assessment include: identification of historic areas of seasonal high groundwater, groundwater mapping, clarification of proposed ( but vague) "underground" storm water detention facilities and issues of high ground water, Iot and parkland layout that could be problematic given areas of high groundwater, and lack of information regarding the source of city wells that will provide water. The well issue is of concern given the potential for problems under recent court rulings that may result in the lack of approval for new appropriations in the basin. New city wells are proposed at the recently approved Church Drive subdivision but it is not clear if the city has water rights for this development. Subdivision documents are needed to inform a decision by the planning board, the city council or to inform the public wishing to comment on this proposal. An environmental assessment is an important subdivision document needed given significant ground water issues in this area. This application should be rejected because the PUD application is incomplete and informed public comment and decision. making can not take place without this information provided. Incomplete PUD Application due to failure to submit other documents required JSection 27.21.030 (5)2 page 66: Standards for Planned Unit Development District (PUD): "(a). Proposed dimensional layout plan super -imposed on a two to five foot interval topographic map of the area drawn to a scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet showing all streets, buildings, open space, lots and other elements basic to the development;" Comment: THE SUBMITTED TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IS DIFFICULT TO READ AND. DOES NOT PROVIDE IMPORTANT SLOPE INFORMATIONNEEDED INCLUDING SLOPE INFORMATION FOR LOTS 170-189 WHICHBACKINTOA STEEP PONDEROSA TREE COVERED SLOPE AND LOTS 7-18 WHCHARE INANAREA OF HISTORIC DRAINAGE PROBLEMS. THE B UIDABLE AREA OF THESE LOTS IN CONFORMANCE WITH SLOPE REGULATIONSAND NATURAL DR4INAGEAREAS 2 It is important to note that such information is not optional, but that the code say this information "shall be" provided. 27.21.020: General. The following application and review procedures shall apply to designation and approval of all planned unit developments in the city. (1). Initiation of Application: The land owner shall submit an application to the zoning commission for a change of zoning from the existing district to a proposed PUD district or for creation of a PUD district on annexation of the property into the city. The application shall be accompanied by a preliminary plan containing the information required in Section 27 21.030(5). In cases where the development will be executed in increments, a schedule showing the t:n;e within each part will be filed and con;pleted shall also be included in the application. SHO ULD BE ESTABLISHED THR 0 UGH MISSING SUBDIVISION ANALYSIS FOR THESE LOTS. SINCE B 0 THAREASARE TRANSITION AREA SBETWEEN VALLEY RANCH AND PONDEROSA ESTATES THEYSHOULD BE REDESIGNED TO PROVIDE A LARGER B UFFER FROM THIS EXISTING SUBDIVISIONAND OF THESE SENSITIVE AREAS. THE PROPOSED BUFFER AREA SHOULD BE INCREASED FROM 20 FEET TO 100 FEET. .(SEE MORE DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED B UFFER AREA BELOW) (b). Proposed locations, areas, densities. and types of residential and nonresidential uses and structures within the area proposed to be developed and maYiii um-heikht;of.:` buildings or structure; Comment: WHILE THE APPLICATION NOTES THAT IT WILL ALLOW FOR A MAXIMUM OF 35FEET IN B UILDING HEIGHT IT DOES NOT ADDRESS AREAS WHERE USE OF THIS FULL HEIGHT WOULD IMPACT VIEW SHEDS. THE STAFF REPORT REFERENCES "EXCELLENT VIEWS OF THE VALLEYFLOOR AND BEYOND " YET THE APPLICA TION AND STAFF REPORT FAIL TO IDENTIFY AREAS WHERE.HEIGHTLIMITATIONSMAYBENEEDED TO RETAINIMPORTANT VIE WSHEDS. JUST SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE INITIAL PROPOSAL BYB UCKY WOLFORD LIMITS BUILDINGS ALONG HIGHWAY 93 TO ONE STORYHAVE BEENPROPOSED. A SIMILAR HEIGHT LIMITATIONSHOULD —> BE PLACED ON THE PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVIING CENTER THAT IS PROPOSED TOFROUNTHIGHWAY93. Proposed plans for handling vehicular traffic, parkmg;s Comment: THE APPLICATIONISLACKING INNECESSARYDETAIL FOR ALL OF THESE ISSUES. PARKING —THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQ UIRE NO ON STREET OVERNIGHT PARKING AND REQUIRE TWO CAR GARAGES AND TWO GUEST VEHICLE PARKING SPACES ONEACHL0T NO D0CUMENTATIONISPR0P7DED TO SHOW IF THIS IS DOABLE. SEWAGE DISPOSAL ---A LIFT STATIONIS IDENTIFIED AS NEEDED AND SITED WITHIN A PARK AREA. CREDIT FOR PARKLAND SHOULD NOT BE PR O VIDED FOR THE AREA USED FOR THE LIFTSTATION. DRAINAGE NO INFORMA TION IS PROVIDED TO ALLOW FOR EVALUATION THE PROPOSED STORMWATER SYSTEMOF "UNDERGROUND TANKS". NO INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO DEMO NST RATE HOW ST ORMTVAT ER GENRATED BY STREETS WILL BE HANDELED AND IF CURB AND GUTTER WILL BE USED TO DIRECT THIS WATER. WATER SUPPLY. NO INFORMATIONIS PROVIDEDAS TO HOWA WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM WILL BE DEVELOPED AND IF THIS INCLUDES THE DEVELOPMENT OF VFTV WELLS „S' TN,4T RAVE EUSTLNG WATER RIGHTSAVAILABLE IN THE AREA 4 AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO EXISTING WELLS IN THE AREA FROM THE DEVELOPMENT'OF A LARGE CAPASITY WELL.. SITE PERINIERTER TREATMENT AND OTHER PERTINENT ,SITE DEVEL OPMENT FEATURES —NO DETAIL'PLANS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. ALL DEVEL OPMENT STANDARDS PROPOSED ARE LEFT TO THE TUD GEMENT OF THE DEVELOPER AND A DEVELOPER APPOINTED COMMITTEE. THE PUD SHO ULD SET BASE STANDARDS THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED. THE RETENTION OF EXISTING TREES THAT BORDER, BUFFER, AND PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT CHARACTER FOR THE PONDEROSA SUBDIVISION HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. (d) Elevafiori drawings which demonstrate visually the general architectural features;o:f each proposed building or architecturally: distinct group or.typ:e of buildings aad the.site perimeter .treatment Comment: NO DRA WINGS HA VE BEEN PR 0 VIDED. (e). The plan shall show the boundary lines of adjacent subdivided orunsubdivided land and the existing zoning of the area proposed to be changed to PUD as well as the land adjacent thereto; Anenumeratoriof covenants .in detail proposed to be made a part of the PUD and shall be enforceable by the city council; Comment: THE STAFF REPORT PROVIDES NO REVIEW OF THESE COVENANTS AND THEIR ADEQUACY OR ENFORCABILITYBY THE CITY. ANALYSIS IS NEEDED TO DETERMINE IF THESE COVENENANTS COMPLY WITH 27.22.030 Design Standards for Single Family Dwellings OF THE KALISPELL ZONING . REGULATIONS. THESE COVENANTS OR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS THEY ARE CALLED BY THE APPLICANT DO NOT PROVIDE ASSURANCES OR DETAIL ABOUT THE MAINTAINCE OF COMMON AREAS AS REO UIRED. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHAT PARK AREAS WILL BE CITY PARKS AND WHAT WILL BE COMMON AREAS MAINTAINED BYA HOlYIEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. IT IS NOT CLEAR IF A HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION WILL EVER BE CREATED AND IF IT COULD HAVE ANY VOTING POWER. (g) A statement expressing the ordean which the developrrient shall occur and;estimated- time for. cornpletirig the development. In case of a phased development, estimated time schedule for starting and completing each phase of the development shall be provided (emphasis added); Comment: NO PHASING PLANIS PROVIDED AS IS RE_OUIRED. IT IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH THESE REGULATIONS TO SUGGEST, AS THE APPLICANT HAS, THAT AT SOME UNKNOWNFUTURE DATE AFTER ADEOUATE TRAFFIC (J INFRA SIR UCTURE HAS BEEN B UILT BYDEVELOPMENTS TO THE SO UTH, THAT 5 THEN THEY WILL PRO VIDE A PHASING SCHEDULE. CITY REG ULATIONS CLEARLY REQ DIRE THAT THIS SCHED ULE BE PRO VIDED AND COMMITTED TO AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION (h). Adequate provisions shall be made for a private organization with direct responsibility to, and control by, the property owners involved to provide for the operation and maintenance of all common facilities, including private streets jointly shared by each property owner, if such facilities are a part of the Planned Unit Development, and in such instance, legal assurances .shall.be.:provi:ded: v ich;show that the pnuate organization is.s:elf..perpetLiating and adequately._funded to. accomplish its. purposes: Real property taxes of the private streets and common areas shall be assessed as levied pro rata to all privately owned parcels within the district; Comment: SEE COMMENT ON 69 ABOVE. THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PROVIDED TO NOT PROVIDE FOR DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY TO OR CONTROL BYPROPERTY OWNERS. LEGAL ASSURANCES ARE NOT CLEAR. i . Adequate provisions shall be made for common facilities which are i of declicate.ci:-tb- tl e public to be maintained to standards assuring continuous and adequate maintenance at a reasonable and nondiscriminatory rate of charge to be beneficiaries thereof. Coirimoi:: "tes: not dedicated to the public shall be operated and maintained by the private organization and at no expense to any governmental unit; Comment: SEE COMMENT ON (0 AND (h) above. THE APPLICANT HASFAILED TO IDENTIFY WHICH FA CILIES WILL BE COMMONAND WHICH WILL BE DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC THUS THIS REQUIREMENT HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. 0). All private streets shall be maintained by the aforesaid private organization in such a manner that adequate and safe access is provided at all times to vehicular traffic so that fire, police, health, sanitation and public utility vehicles can serve the properties contiguous or adjacent thereto and so that said vehicles will have adequate turning area; Comment: IT IS NOT CLEAR WHAT STREETS WILL BE PRIVATE AND WHAT WILL BE ASSUMED BY THE CITY. (k). The off street parking to lae provided shall meet;the minimum standards for off atree. parking as per Chapter 27_'25 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance; Comment: THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRE NO ONSTREET 0 VERNIGHT PARKING AND REO UIRE TWO CAR GARA GES AND TWO GUEST VEHICLE PARKING SPACES ONEACHL0T NO D 0 C UMENTA TION IS PR 0 VIDED TO SHOW IF THIS IS DOABLE OR IF IT COMPLIES WITH KALISPELL ZONING ORDIANCES. THE STAFF REPORT NOTES POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH �) PARKING UNDER ITS REVIEW OF THE PUD EVALUATION CRITERIA #S NOTING PROBLEMS WITH SETBACKS FOR GARA GES AND PARKING BLOCKING 6 SIDEWALKS OR ALLEY AREAS. IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THE RECOMMENDED "SIDE LOADED "GARAGE DESIGN ADDRESSES ALL THESE ISSUES' (I). Where a PUD also involves a subdivision of land, it shall also meet the requirements of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations and the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act; Comment: AS NOTED EARLIER REQUIRED SUBDIVISIOND0CUMENTATION WAS NOT PROVIDED. (m}_ The city council shall regnire',bonding or any other appropriate collateral to ensure that all required improvements shall be satisfactorily completed in accordance to the approved plans, specifications and time schedule; and, Comment: NO CONDITIONS HA VE -BEEN SUGGESTED TO ESTABLISH THE REQUIRED BONDING. (n). Any other information, plans and details which the planning board and/or city council may desire to fully evaluate the development proposal and its impacts. Comment: GVEN THE RECENT REPORT ON THE KALISPELL TRANSPORTATION PLAN THAT INDICATES SIGNIFICANT FUTURE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES IN THIS AREA GIVEN THE DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED IN THIS AREA, THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE TABLED UNTIL FINIAL RECOMMENDATIONS ARE MADE BY THIS STUD YAND THESE RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE CONSIDERED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROPOSED PUD. 2) Annexation hearing method is not consistent with state law. The proposed method of annexation for Valley Ranch is not in conformance with state law. 76-2-303 MCA3 which only allows that a municipality may conduct a hearing on the annexation in 3 76-2-303. Procedure to administer certain annexations and zoning laws —'hearing and notice. (1) The city or town council or other legislative body of a municipality shall provide for the manner in which regulations and restrictions and the boundaries of districts.are determined, established, enforced, and changed, subject to the requirements of subsection (2). (2) A regulation, restriction, or boundary may not become effective until after a public hearing in relation to the regulation, restriction, or boundary at which parties in interest and citizens have an opportunity to be heard has been held. At least 15 days' notice of the time and place of the hearing must be published in an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the municipality. (3) (a) For municipal annexations, a municipality may conduct a hearing on the annexation in conjunction with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation, provided that the proposed municipal zoning regulations for the annexed property: (i) authorize land uses comparable to the land uses authorized by county zoning; (ii) authorize land uses that are consistent with land uses approved by the board of county commissioners or the board of adjustment pursuant to part 1 or 2 ofthis chapter; or (iii) are consistent with zoning requirements recommended in a growth policy adopted pursuant to chapter 1 of this title or in a master plan, as provided for in 76-2-304(3), for the annexed property. Fri conjunction with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation, provided that the proposed municipal zoning regulations.for the annexed property: (i) authorize land uses comparable to the land uses authorized by county zoning;" The proposed land uses (R-2 with a PUD overlay allowing for smaller lot sizes) are not comparable with the existing county zoning of SAG-10. Under state law a separate hearing on annexation must be held prior to consideration of rezoning. This request for initial zoning and annexation should be rejected and the legally required separate hearing on annexation should be held first. 3.) Failure to demonstrate that the proposed density and relaxed R-2 standards proposed under the PUD provide, as is required, that there will be an improved overall site design or comparable public benefits in additional open space. The following definitions give guidance on the public benefit that should result from relaxed standards or increased density. 76-3-103. Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the context or subject matter clearly requires otherwise, the following definitions apply: (10) "Planned unit development" means a land development project consisting of residential clusters, industrial parks, shopping centers, or office building parks that compose a planned mixture of land uses built in a prearranged relationship to each other and having open CJ space and community facilities in common ownership or use. From the Kalispell Zoning Regulations, Definition'- Page 193, (169). Planned Unit Development. A tract of land developed as an integrated unit. The development is unique and is based on a plan which allows for flexibility of design, setting and density not otherwise possible under the prevailing zoning district regulations. From the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations 9.45 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD): A land development project consisting of residential clusters, industrial parks, shopping centers, or office building parks that compose a planned mixture of land uses built in a prearranged relationship to each other and having open space and community facilities in common ownership or use. A PUD allows for flexibility of design, setting or density, in exchange for improved overall site design. Public benefits for increased density should be the cornerstone of developments that request annexation into the city if Kalispell is to retain a former reputation for having great neighborhood. Given the significant density and relaxed standards be requested (b) A joint hearing authorized under this subsection fulfills a municipality's obligation regarding zoning notice and public hearing fora proposed -annexation. History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. 136, L. 1929; re -en. Sec. 5305.4, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 11-2704; amd. Sec. 1 Ch. - I � . 1;1977, amd. Sec. 1 Ch. 355 i . 1999; Sec. 34Ch. 582 L. 1999; amd_ Sec. 5 Ch. 87. L. 2003. here public benefits should be demonstrated and required. We are proposing that the following public benefits be assured: • Create an increased buffer (100 ft) between lots for lots 170-189 which back into a steep ponderosa tree covered slope and lots 7-18 which are in an area of historic drainage problems and an area with existing trees that should be retained for buffering. • Consolidate internally (as opposed to highway frontage) public park facilities in excess of the minimum required of 10.59 to offset density increases requested; • Assure that trail systems are scaled compatible with proposed trails in adjoining subdivision and that they include and provide connectivity to parks and trail systems in adjoining developments, • Provide greater buffers to adjoining development in exchange for requested higher density internally, • Do not allow for storm water or lift station facilities to be considered as part of calculations for park facilities or to be sited so as to interfere with the optimal function of park areas, • Retain existing trees,. • Address areas of high ground- water and seasonal flooding. 4. Inadequate transportation infrastructure or solutions are in place to address transportation issues identified in TAC committee discussions and in the current new draft Kalispell Transportation Plan. Conditioning this development on the future development of a full movement intersection is premature and allows for speculative J development not consistent with the predictability and time lines that a PUD is clearly required to provide as part of the City of Kalispell Zoning Regulations. The PUD gVplication is premature and should be denied as demonstrated by it failure to meet the following PUD requirements: A) 27.21.030. Standards for Planned Unit Development District (PUD). (1). Location of PUD. A PUD district shall be located in, an area where public and private facilities and services are available or are to become available by the time the development reaches the stage where they will be required. There is no know date for the development of a full movement intersection to the south and thus this PUD is premature and speculative and should be denied until certainty is available assure adequate public facilities. B) 27:21.020: General. The following application and review procedures shall apply to designation and approval of all planned unit developments in the city. (1). Initiation of Application: The land owner shall submit an application to the zoning commission for a change of zoning from the existing district to a proposed PUD district or for creation of a PUD district on annexation of the property into the city. The application shall be accompanied by a preliminary plan containing the information 15 required in Section 27.21.030(5). In cases where the development will be executed in increments, a schedule showin6 the time within each part will be filed and completed, shall also be included in the application. (emphasis added) Phasing can not be addressed until adequate public facilities are in place and thus this PUD is premature and speculative and should be denied until certainty is available assure adequate public facilities 5. Staff 'recommendations for a series of future amendments to the PUD are not allowed under Kalispell Zoning Regulations 27.21.020 (7) Limitation on Rezoning or under requirements under 27.21.030 (5) that require certain information to be part of a PUD application —not future amendments to a PUD. Missing information and issues . proposed for future amendments include: phasing of the development under the PUD, a park improvement plan, location of parks, development of a proposed assisted living center, future parking and signage plans, and a street connection for a future full movement intersection. Encouraging and allowing for a series of future amendments also opens the door for amendments for other uses than say a proposed assisted living center. Lack of deadlines for future amendments may result in the inability to make adjustment to lots, parks, buffers, and streets. See regulation below. 27.21.020 (7). Limitation on Rezoning. The zoning commission shall not initiate any amendment to the zoning ordinance or Official Map concerning the property involved in a Planned Unit Development before the completion of the development as long as development is in conformity with the approved detailed Planned Unit Development and proceeding in accordance. with the time requirements imposed therein. From and after approval of the Planned Unit Development by the city council under Sections 27.21.020(4) and 27.21.020(5) the building official is authorized to issue appropriate permits complying with approved plan. 6. Potential inappropriate citing of the proposed future assisted living center in an Area where height, noise, and high groundwater may create unacceptable problems should be addressed now, not by future amendments -to the PUD. This issue should not be the subject of a future amendment. In accordance with city PUD regulations such issues should be resolved as part of the original PUD approval. 10 CD bn 1 O O N 'O rn ^� p O O N o ^� O c�i iC ry U• �n cd Cad 0 'd z— - �; � 9 bA x 0 O, r� c p 'o M d' o �, + -cJ Py N • y cn O c� .d 0j p 3 I- m " Tl • a; b U rU„ N O d _ �,� .1." '.n C8 N o v o 0 o ' 0 0 N t, 0 cd 'd N ,a?r�w '�'' a CN 0 0 N Ln i'L7 N p N O 41 •�+ N O O Q• 'b d O CS I N N N •r, ¢i C% ^p' ^C 'd N y 4- y 9 0 'C E R. O .'a"' '-� -0 'Z7 N CI N . x N ic�i) N�' �0 }y °�.., ' y q y U U�+ ,.., �•+ 0 as b U bq�• N y ,. 0.4) 4. •. � �^� cd O O cd oU vl 4"' `r'O b�0 y w y mG46,Aa O o^opa���3 a 4. > o p,`. A C4 .M. W C/] N U] y. U ¢' N id Cd U +^� CO .o d� �" b Q�+ U kn + o N O r' ,,T cj•'"' N O .�" 4� .p c .r''. 0 ,'T G YO cd ® d tb p � O Cd Q O v^ bjD cd ° M ¢ 0 y U. ,� ° �'s a� 3b b �. 0c rn O ry 1 l 4 O N y YO N l— tI- — 'O CN cd P 4, U�M N d = N O O W N 4NN. C >'.En o 5 bO N°O 3 a NO d , 0 'hi A' Cd U 'G O ^O .O 0 ' v . x c C/] N ) A O .�'�, r+-'�+ �' N �' ftS O ES��' ,5•+ O Cd M 44"'. N [vim �++ i% �' y d R% •r d O Cdj" y yet R+ O ten. C%] 1/ p cd a) U l N U O O � 'C E•'' N r }' r, COD N m E V.m 04 CZ d' W in I'O l 00 «3 N Q. cd cd rn N ...� ..i �..� O H O yU 4-1°O —V .. a P. ° � •:.o �' g-, Cd 0 0 b .Fw. > oA x o E,- dMO I NN F 0 0 .- O 1 O °++ 1+'b cad � 'C .G N U G.i C/� O �%"� " Oa ra p"' W N y cd 4t cd CD 0 16 CPS Q+ ' > o O rn `�' ccd s"i aU�i q�q a0i ID� o —In -0 °� � � C7 cn a�i o -d °? , F w n It `n o � � fi U' 0 ,D >~" Ctl N cd U 4ti 1 N v ..Cd O N M O .b (~ ND N O O to x N OOi cd O= I� W d O p�I" 3 "Cl'd U N O � aN GA "C p U Q •r'. NO o WN N N y �.'�U PiN p '�' I N i t F. .-. O C` gC00bO O N O 4-4o .� c0 N N N d W ' *� o o a o c �.� j. ° s ue P o 0 cd �n W 0� Nq..� n ....wiz d n o IS 04ini x.�..��...�..N 0 4. W o O �r cd w fn O U Cl) C14 V] y U Cd "Cl ^d cG v .. `b w bA bl) N U10 bA x U OOi V1 V N F. .t." _ y N � > U bq v O .Cl U O IU IN �' " O ' " cp9 cd �YO CNv � O Ci, O" d 3 a" -- +� d O p rn a ra n 0.� i p W N N p N ~ v U bA Qp.� .. 4� Cd ° P c 4 . N E � U cC N ^C Q b "�' 4� 'd 'U N :.i h W V] C/i d' U .wi 00 cd R-1 Density Per Acre R R-2 Density Per Acre E 0 1 r t- w n cu Ul cu -0 5' Lo -0 I r� 1 1 1 . . n .fir pr iF7[ 34 r��,� ''p>s $I.ttTNSMgGK• r �, rAFdON 1�3U��s�'i t ,�c��• t, HAW GILL � �t3 !A ud ��+1�� "u; d91 y n Mw ;1 + 32 P ORB t ` .I�' C. BMi•C1I S ��. x �,.k1ir t ,� t+ 1� P'i I�� tn,r NtE u y"� u't w rl l,l.• f1t��h ,�47 tiF(nJJtt nmaaovr v% 1'1fAiil�I 1. ! . ,• H1►122tLR ' Wfibt3ti 1b P1 i1•IV' It•Py 24 IS 45 Robinson,' 1<TZlC1 6Yr►rt ' ' CATLLIT pR � 6� CALL 2"1 1?rl 27. XAu1CK.', f ZAUlIER �� 23 SOLLA 7Z•41 1� A! / IYLYlYI)ll T�'r[ I]v ( WALKBII 23 cem �i ADAkL1 • � L1SS 2i:'' �� •. 49 47A7QTj V ,' F� �il rt ., gHLER CLEIU H LARSON �AXDEtt 11in HA11tL Z1 ' 113-N tl LiiT}lAiT .':. � __. i11LLt11 87 Il td 73 t1 14 Wee [Rrai.i7 • A] Aid i U i lR7fl!» ib Sl. N ',SSA BBERT;. BI.AG7CVyLI1, :a NOLMG>fE�f 4C3ARAPT r qq a!:IThiesen Go 'BLt�Eflt(T 'f HAItFC15027 F. e. HULSLAIB3Efi r iril; ,3?i 2 3 4 Pmdtress Law- a, t rARK s a t }UIGEMEIER• . 'fi'r n rlY a',r' i ;UANTICYC S i� EINyC3C1<.TT � , 7tiA A h� {'M.,ih 06 �4 1 t r I �a� r�l 11 �• F { It 1�' d tj i 1 i iilq ;'AV � . I` f �f 1 f +.ar x / 7 � F,'trY i► a �.rf• g- � - 4 '!'Y # 4 t� ;S. -. s 6� r 6" i er�A rJ{j ram, � ` i � � ism. t � 1._, Ll 'tJ• 31 i.� �� Donald & Karen Cromwell -tiy Icl; �y,�C:lil;;; 0�P, MUNIT 340 McGregor Lane, Marion, Montana 59925 (406) 858-2498 April 2, 2007 City of Kalispell Planning Department 17-2Rd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission April 10, 2007 — Ashley Heights, LLC. Dear Mr. Sorensen, We are the homeowners of 702 Ashley Drive, Kalispell. Our single family home is located on the western end of Bismark Street and Ashley Drive. We are temporarily out of the area and will not be able to attend the hearing. However, we would like to respond to your notice of public hearing letter and provide you with our input for. the April 10, 2007 hearing on the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LLC. for annexation and rezoning. We object to the proposed zoning change requested from Ashley Heights, LLC that would change the zoning of their 8.5 acre tract of land from R-1 to R-4 (Two family Residential). As you are well aware, the area directly to the East and to the South of the 8.5 acres owned by Ashley Heights, LLC. s already zoned R-4 and Sumnyside subdivision is already too dense from approval previously granted to Owl Development and others. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem with Owl Development and other developers because of the small lot sizes, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads to provide safe ingress and egress. As you are well aware, although Owl Development reached an agreement with the City to limit the number of two family lots as a condition to receiving their final plat, there were significant problems that subsequently developed which resulted in several lawsuits filed against Owl Development. We do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of County R-1, as long as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding degradation of services. We do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex into the City of Kalispell with the R-4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current zoning. A change of zoning to R-4 to allow for two family residences is totally unacceptable. Let's learn from our past mistakes from Sunnyside, Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving this zoning change. Respectfully submitted, Donald L. Cromwell Karen L. Cromwell KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT City of Kalispell Planning Department 17-2.d Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, April 10, 2007 — Ashley Heights, LLC. Dear City of Kalispell Planning Commissioner(s): Date: We are homeowners in the Sunnyside Subdivision and would like to comment on your Notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission, April 10, 2007 regarding the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LLC. for annexation and rezoning. We object to the proposed zoning change that would change,the zoning of the 8.5-acre tract of land from R-1 to R-4 (Two family Residential). The area directly to the East and to the South of the 8.5 acres in question is already zoned R-4 to accommodate Owl Development's request for zoning change some years ago. Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense and we do not believe Oit is in the best interest of the City. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem because of the small lot sizes, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads to provide safe ingress and egress. We do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of County R-1, as long as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding degradation of services to city residents. It is our position that we do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex into the City of Kalispell with the R-4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current R-1 zoning. A change of zoning to _R_-4 to allow for two family residences is totally unacceptable. Let's learn from our past mistakes from Sunnyside, Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving this zoning change. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, / Su�'�n�'side ubdivisioil TO ntowner Property Address: Y /' K, LISPEL L PLANNiNG DEEA�8T1lENT Date: City of Kalispell Planning Department 17-2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, April 10, 2007 -Ashley Heights, LLC. Dear City of Kalispell Planning Commissioner(s): We are homeowners in the Sunnyside Subdivision and would like to comment on your Notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission, April 10, 2007 regarding the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LLC. for annexation and rezoning. We object to the proposed zoning change that would change the zoning of the 8.5-acre tract of land from R-1 to R-4 (Two family Residential). The area directly to the East and to the South of the 8.5 acres in question is already zoned R-4 to accommodate Owl Development's request for zoning change some years ago. Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense and we do not believe it is in the best interest of the City. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem because of the small lot sizes, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads to provide safe ingress and egress. We do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of County R 1, as long as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding degradation of services to city residents. It is our position that we do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex into the City of Kalispell with the R-4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current R-1 zoning. A change of zoning to R-4 to allow for two family residences is totally unacceptable. Let's learn from our past mistakes from Sunnyside, Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving this zoning change: Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Z 117Y17 ysi le ::7.: divi-sio..n Homeowner % Property Address: �(ALISrELL PLnP4I4ING.7EP ,�TP,iEPdT City of Kalispell Planning Department 17-2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, April 10, 2007 — Ashley Heights, LLC. Dear City of Kalispell Planning Commissioner(s)- Date: — We are homeowners in the Sunnysidb Subdivision and would like to comment on your Notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission, April 10, 2007 regarding the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LLC. for annexation and rezoning. We object to the proposed zoning change that would change the zoning of the 8.5-acre tract c f land from R-1 to R-4 (Two family Residential). The area directly to the East and to the South of the 8.5 acres in question is already zoned R-4 to accommodate Owl Development's request for zoning change some years ago. Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense and we do not believe it is in the best interest of the City. The density, of this area has been an ongoing problem because of the small lot sizes, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads to provide safe ingress and egress. We do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of County R-1, as long as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding degradation of services to city residents. It is our position that we do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex into the City of Kalispell with the R-4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current R-1 zoning. A change of zoning to R-4 to allow for two family residences is totally unacceptable. Let's learn from our past mistakes from Sunnyside, Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving this zoning change. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, . U4_ ; ... CSilnriysidc 'DUU 1V,Z:,iUil Homeowner u- Property Address: plon t-iIV 1R PR 0 9 2007 I � 0111SPE1, PUANNING DER° I MENT Date: City of Kalispell Planning Department 17-2"d Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, April 10, 2007 — Ashley Heights, LLC. Dear City of Kalispell Planning Commissioner(s): We are homeowners in the Sunnyside Subdivision and would like to comment on your Notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission, April 10, 2007 regarding the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LLC. for annexation and rezoning. We object to the proposed zoning change that would change the zoning of the 8.5-acre tract of land from R-1 to R-4 (Two family Residential). The area directly to the East and to the South of -the 8.5 acres in question is already zoned R-4 to accommodate Owl Development's request for zoning change some years ago. Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense and we do not believe Oit is in the best interest of the City. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem because of the small lot sizes, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads to provide safe ingress and egress. We do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of County R-1, as long as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding degradation of services to city residents. It is our position that we do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex into the City of Kalispell with the R-4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current R-1 zoning. A change of zoning to R-4 to -allow for two family residences is totally unacceptable. Let's learn from our past mistakes from Sunnyside, Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving this zoning change. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, OSunnyside Sub -division Homeowner Property Address: 7 jS� ASGt l ,y r. 7. U, / 6 Date: AN ZQ07. FI.M ICPrLL 1:1 N' ING D`P,1,1'3T IEN� i City of Kalispell Planning Department 17-2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, April 10, 2007 — Ashley Heights, LLC. Dear City of Kalispell Planning Commissioner(s): We are homeowners in the Sunnyside Subdivision and would like to comment on your Notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission, April 10, 2007 regarding the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LLC. for annexation and rezoning. We object to the proposed zoning change that would change the zoning of the 8.5-acre tract of land from R-1 to R-4 (Two family Residential). The area directly to the East and to the South of the 8.5 acres in question is already zoned R-4 to accommodate Owl Development's request for zoning change some years ago. Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense and we do not believe it is in the best interest of the City. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem because of the small lot sizes, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads to provide safe inID gress and egress. We do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of County R-1, as long as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding degradation of services to city residents. It is our position that we do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex into the City of Kalispell with the R-4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current R-1 zoning. A change of zoning to R-4 to allow for two family residences is totally unacceptable. Let's learn from our past mistakes from Sunnyside, Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving this zoning change. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted,- ly S iil�iysidc a abdivision Hollrle0 w i ier Property Address: 7 1 �S A tk 1QLV 0Y^ April 10, 2007 City of Kalispell Planning Dept. 17 2"s Street East Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Kalispell City Planning Board, 1 am responding to the four requests by the Applicant 'Wayne Turner far the changes to the property owned by the Charles and Wynona O'Neil Family Limited Partnership on Foys Lake Road. The A plic Lion for Growth Policlr Amendment, as presented by Wayne Turner has some critical errors of admission. He states on Page 3, Section h, "Where are no known hazards on the site." This same statement is repeated on Page 4, Section I, 1 beg to differ with this statement by the Applicant, This property was a portion of:`the former Forest Products Co, sawmill site. During the rgany years of operation of the sawmill this particular area was a portion of a mill pond. This mill pond area was filled in as the operation of the sawmill changed and no longer needed this mill pond. This area was filled in with bark, wood products, metal parts from unusable equipment. This fill area O could be as deep as 20' in places. bill was also placed along the banks of Ashley Creels. Some of this fill created the steep banks that are referred to by the applicant. Please refer to the aerial photo taken on Aug. 30, 1972 by Western Ways, Inc, labeled Exhibit 41, This fill area also shows in the aerial photo taken in 1980 by the same company. Please refer to Exhibit #2. As you can see this mill pond covered a major portion of the mill site, A requirement by the Planning Board should be core drilling of'the industrial areas which were filled for the protection of future buyers of this property and the city of Kalispell for liability reasons. The land in this area and other areas of the sawmill site have a high water table that continually flooded in the spring. The balance of the acreage South of Ashley Creek also has areas of fill in several places. The largest area covers approximately 36 acres. This area was the original mill pond, This area was filled in with bark and other wood products. After it was filled in it was used for lumber storage. Other fill areas show as light patches on the 1972 aerial on Exhibit #1. Areas along the creek were also filled. This fill can be observed on Exhibit #1 and #2. It is stated in the application that access for this site will be through the industrial area to the North. However, it is not stated what the industrial use will be. 1 would think that it is highly unusual to allow residential access to cross an industrial site. The only access to the North would be onto Appleway brine, as shown on the aerial labeled Exhibit #2. Highway #2 is approximately 150' or so away from this access, Most vehicles are traveling at a fairly high rate of speed as. they exit from the lughway onto Appleway Drive, Appleway Drive to the East is a very narrow road that can barely handle the ..._,,.I.',.1,....,,, Y'L..�1:., +L...t +1-1 n... - nn..— — v�rn-^—A Pnw+hn emmn;-4Ar -.F+ a UGuL2elf,L Velucle URIC. S UeAIUVV LL1G1. 611[P DgALAV "V%dVD,? lD 1Ji%JFVAV .LVA WAC va wav 90/Z0 39vd 00 9NIa-iing QOOMQ-iIM P99ZL9390V EV:6Z L00Z/Z0/60 Page Two, City 'planning Hoard, April 10, 2007 subdivision, as an access point. This access will create trains congestion a very serious safety concern. The Petition for Annexation and Initial Zonina states the need for smaller lots, However with the record number of subdivision requests for small lots with annexation approval that have already been granted preliminary approval I question his supposed need for high density lots. According to the paper approximately 6,300 small lots are waiting at this time for final plat approval. The developer should be required to present substantial evidence as to the need for the change to allow this zone change for this project. The applicant stated in his Apvlicati n for Planned CJnit Development on Page 25 that "The Applicant concluded that the adjacent property owners, general public and the new residents of Willow Creels will benefit from the requested relaxations, rather than be negatively impacted by them." Actually, the adjacent owners property values will be seriously and adversely impacted. K 1 zone regulations were followed to the letter for Stoneridge the subdivision directly to the West. They are not been followed in this proposal. The Applicant is asking for 9 variations to the regulations and has not presented evidence as to the necessity for these changes. This plan does not conform to the neighborhood. The adjacent properly lots to the West are 1 acre in size or 44,000 sq.ft. The Applicant plans to back lots of approximately 14,000 sq.ft up to the lots in Stoneridge that are 44,000 sq.ft. in size. It appears that he does not plan to install a buffer zone, but plans to maximize how many little tiny lots that he can cram onto the property and has the audacity to claim that it won't have an adverse effect. The Applicant will be the only one to benefit from this variation. The Applicant in his Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application answered N/A to the 5 questions regarding his requested variances. I believe that he should be required to give a more detailed answer to each question because a subdivision could be planned for this property that would not require the variances that the Applicant is requesting. The Staff Report on Page 33 Section E refers to the Effects on A and'culture an Agricultural Water User Facilities. The March 16, 2007 letter from Mr. Turner fails to address the actual facts regarding the pumping site, water rights, water right ownership and recorded easements pertaining to this pumping site or POD_ The details are fully spelled out in a document titled `Settlement Agreement' dated July 17, 1987, This document was recorded under the recording 42000291/14250. This pumping site is the main POD for one of the water rights listed in this document, The easements listed in this document are not shown on the Preliminary Plat for Willowy Creep. From a legal standpoint these easements must be revealed to future buyers of the lots in this subdivision. Three of these easements are very clearly detailed and directly affect this property. They are listed on Flathead County records as Cerdficate of Survey No. 8698. A 30' easement runs from the POD along the North property boundary to the property 90160 3Jad 00 9NIQ-1InE 000MQ7IM P99ZLSZ90P 61?:6t L00Z/00/60 Page Three, City Planning Board, April 10, 2007 line ending at the Stoneridge. Another easement dosses the property from Meridian Road to the POD, A third easement runs in a North/South direction on the boundary lane between Stoneridge and the proposed Willow Creek subdivision. This is a 60' easement with 30' on either side of the property, This 30' easement on the Willow Creek side will directly affect the useable space on the West end of the lots that border Stoneridge. I have briefly described these easements. The recorded document spells out the details and allowable uses of these easements. Mr. Turner's letter dated March 16, 2007 would lead one to believe that he will own the water rights at this POD and that this letter should take care ofthe problems with this site. This is not true. If he has an agreement regarding water rights in his purchase agreement of the property he will only receive a portion of the rights at this POD. Three other entities also own a share. I own a portion of these rights, the 60 horse pump and improvements at this site. Roger O'Neil also owns a share of these rights. He faxed me a letter regarding this POD and asked me to read his letter into this public record. It is as follows: see attached letter Page 43, #46 of the staff report requires the transfer of ground and surface rights to the city of Kalispell. It must be noted that only the portion that Mr. Turner will acquire at Otime of purchase of the property can be transferred. Page 44 #47 of the staff report requires the pump station and any associated mainlines to be removed prior to the final plat of Phase 4. When property is purchased it is purchased subject to existing easements of record. I sincerely expect that the easements regarding this POD will be houored..As an owner of this water right with this Historic POD site, I do not 'want my pump equipment, my underground pipe or any of my improvements removed from this site. I hope that you will consider my comments in your decision regarding the requests presented by the Applicant for review this evening. He has requested major changes that *11-affect this area -forever. --He-has-not-shown -compelling- evidence-to-subsuutiate the necessity for these changes. He is simply asking for the R 3 zone change to allow a higher density on this property. This will benefit him, but not the existing neighborhood. Please follow the zoning regulations and deny his requests as presented. Thank you for allowing me time to present my comments on the Wayne Turner requests this evening. Sincerely, Manly ain 90/E0 39Vd 00 Wiaiina aooma7IM P99ZLSZ90V Eb:6T L00Z/Z0/E0 I� •5d'4; y�,J't t'1�Y'y r - r �w,(p•, �fM I . IA^ q r 1 i' I r y I�� +{ Y r I v t. t 4'.�- t ,'•A"�t v ya><k T h i{i +,�. l (( 5 i-, is+'� I l )v yi , tr tt . 1.: I:. :;l •.;,J;J,:,.,{•t Ira, r 7 i !J , ,.i' ; yhJ t I ' lly,, a I, fy;,•1..+ „1 f f.'A t:,r�^ r, n•,J ,N' 1 ��yJ�� 1 �:�• ;I. %: f ,.•,Y L.'Y .4 �I Yt I• . F � ,�,,V Y,l,..d•I +G, S ,:.' >7 +i.� t. rr Ir " k L1'1 f,:rl.x Y;;: ^ i,': a ; r.., }� ° ,t , ,, n . , i" yi° Y'TJF:.. iJ' y: , y; 1.' W .Mn � ,�,' �': .:,I,• �;-: :.�Nr ,�a•���1 ,.,r �(.+�:�, ,� ki' Y"'�', �� ';�, � 1 ,, t, „t; rl��;{,r. �:ly �; ,,,•�'t"�•'�','�• , iP^;ii t. :r,,la �I, li. 1) �tw 'Y. �� r t II.1K+N•0+.0 r S t � .1 �"+nMLMwM p�� . it J I r yyF �{•1i d 4 C Ayt .1 + j;�.tjli";yl'] `,.t•�'y I <f}{.k�i J17i4ii h .0.. �,,y,i� �,h CM��I p.d�4Utr*'l41rY�'� I .:'F ,{.,r,3,/,Y>L ,r ',p�l'nM'Wl! `'_ h,,ril n�4i;a•Ih uyllr�;,}V7 Ii) r`. �h•+')•}•+�"V� r. ,'r' v „I. ;A4 i j•� dl�r�,;yuy'ry J, �, r t(J !' Y 7 ,{.;.y �JI (i r!GW�, 4 r {.+,V,, ,t II 1 ��G I ,;?aLJ..� l� •� � •�{G p � �,', rt r� I �I. ^i�I+r 11. 1�{ t�rppl t Zl�ryG�R(Il:r. �y{j75K�.�1,Y��7w t nl.�l�u•+nl i .'i i��; ,y,1§J,>LyLN^hn r�4. �fr'o�Si4 , vr4a• � , a •' r�• 'k :F.��'! 111Vs,"b a , 11i, ? - t Al W005 fi � F f • r ,vltlltrk��+ 4 r y�� G�j. r�'G(r ' � � u n fit �'.}fir',. , t y{ : •r it+5p.� ' !'lµ 9, 9 tr� ul,y �r C' n�� �, 4t'•,3 � 1 � t / :� �' � r � r l �, { li ) �'7 � �a11'+' �rys�•,Jh v^ � 1r1��1 1L{ �k,� r1�Pl I I. i„ Ik lii;; A:I. r 'f �i 1.1',Ytyn t . , '. � '��'�,h • nl`+�,! Jl £ ,I � ix r � A id• 'l� r j�+"; �I�r�+�1�Q��ttnq� I.,rc } ,�r{ I�, Srtyl ,�k3�',f• .° .�' 12'� i�''�uyrh:19•y91•T'7r•:'�I, �� ,� ,jr + 1;:':. , I: y-'i:�kl"riJi��}G iI 7 '� } I , i� {,� I'l'J/ •.tt 1 �I t, Ji.a I� Il.��yrr `.r �i.Jl q i �{' i'� leil !1 •YI ,,f '�a h , iAa rvl t 1.. - - I r r 1 w °y I I d}7�,t , Miy .I. I I , ' I , { � •, `'{`�`t+r� ,� w,,,bC L .°r � I ' Ivin II ,I I tl ' , ,. �{ v LY`,>rn^P1'-ivtKnlU�Ff �{�• ;r'I'+ M �'I b.l`rL.rr.ux•, � .. N4J;I•w{r '•"'�'I p�F,l I . . I Jl,r �L't'Yw. t •.1.�.�I l � � i•" } -bust' .J"' ! JI, ' � ya+•t}+kl!%�" :�� ior'- rt?: n iJ a h a 1 ;rw I i M� ris x �yy > ; rtv ~ 4. n� `} 1 �Vy 4 N y iu,in .,rl t, y l:', ,V,J + ,, p�"'NW�:r �J'^•+G{'���r, t'vlr.M+r,•t'�, A �41� ! , KKj tit pwl+t.�Mi p n + � {�{yryI�I} 1 7 1 � . . b * n irl `<' G'{ ++"'M ") k I,4/ - v ? •J r l •••���,,,,�����^��� t � i 1 � ,t, I I 1 I i t., 0j;lr•,I, , IrFI rl{ru'y- f 4 rr xalaJN..4s••v� •. ^ .t L •.,v GA yWJy�. L I Ua 1•.. y{, ., lA i- r / ,fin ' i •yYf ♦.. •�..., .�.� :e ,.. •. , ' ,,�yy�.J ; , I f r � r.. � tr V., � I r•p1 , :A 11Irf� v�.� .,vet+•+•-`.ytA4rLt'•a ppV,,Ih�� � • r d "?�w �•, a I V� AM1,yww• I' {,l�jy+rl ,,r,y , . r• IrO;.i� r.+rn v�3`A+ft A I r r� 1l r YAW I .- ..A�ay rp+l y ^� t,+.1 J J , • iti :.,a v L.�1'I +-7•t $,,J'T)V{! v ''4: 4vt" u' rlw� yl� 41 ��: ••1 , •.'� � ;',nvnN . ` . w«.�vt - 't �: ,,,cw, .F, .A.' 1. ; r'r 'A '•. ,l 11 r �+a`L,SYJJI,`� '''},�� �• ) 'I, '"'II ,,�., _ ,. I. _.'iy�•� '�flt%I \I ,�yf' W�,.11i' I '� �rt {ravL� 1• + !. \.. inn.+f^' I L+M .-, ''(�4',�V -, , li .•� t b N J r � Ir 1 1 yes ! 1 1 •�, tA. YI 6 r �G» h G 'G�.,.• '+ t � r,�lri��•,�I yI{ p�µ i n `� / � 1 � A11r Ir l�„rsr� v F .. I ��i� r I,1 Yrytw J�, �•r 1 M ' ,+ � AI J:i 'r � � � id'n �,a � . 4 L .y �fr N `M 'it '.1,, l'� VJ 1 � V«IyM1Hi1 �jM ^I�{� l�rr! �b W.�.�Jlrv^ � c . � ,.''.�.''��D„I'DnG[rvr ✓. .k�F � li" {� �i,1 � I .sh,Yl . 7 vi'}p i '1 , I t 11t'I'I �; L.. + ,�� �Ju „v�b.: �• y I 11. ix. A., ."••t �, M1'tOm, 1.0 r :. �rJ fn , y • , I4 i.,:!I'•, .+ ,� r r'_ i•,CROP',,�f T � IWa° .. . S •�b�f of `;'��,< f.l hl �. � tk�vr J�7r y I r t fi„r,�J4e, _ .Jttr IlYN; rll 11P,tl aRr,l r I,S!!h vld 4 ! Ji, 'nL: �.w•�._ -N7 I'�Wt �. tl<'Ii!'lir t tSx:. I�iJ , , {/ � - .,. npt uW u1 u i,UvP hQgar v i4eq 9 April 2007 ern Conrad City of Kalispell rlarming and zoning 17 21La St, East xWihspoll, Mr 59901 /qU-1;2a-040O ?.a: Lotter dated 16 March 2007 from Hubert Turner eonecnning water rights at the 'Willow Crcck PUD Dear' smara. The water rights involved with this property are not solely owned by MR114ubert Tamr. Tina ownership is shared with three additional catities. W. Trhmers portion would represent only 50�10 of the total water rights. These wohhld be aequirod along with the puxchm ofthe pwpcxty from MFP. .Any discussions and subsnqueat dctasa= that need to be mrtdo involving the water rights referenced in Section E pogts 33,34 and 46 of the Effects on Agricnitrhtal and water user f'edlilies must include all the respeativo owners. Ay ont of the ownership antitias, I request that you please kmlp infornhed at the addr= below. sin vly. Roller L, O'Neal 1934 Lettcadia Scenic Ct. l; =idw s, CA 92024 a 90/90 3Obd 00 9NIa7ina QOOMQ-lIM P99ZLSZ90P EP:6Z LeOZ/N/60 Page 1 of 1 O Michelle Anderson From Lavella Boylan [flboylan@aboutmontana.net] Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 1:55 PM To: planning@Kalispell.com Subject: Willow Creek Subdivision Kalispell Planning Board: I live on 4th St. West and am very concerned about the proposed Willow Creek Subdivision, with over 600 new homes to be approved. The traffic down Meridian Road will double and it is already very heavy. I think this project is very inappropriate for the community and this area. Why are you trying to make Kalispell a big city with so many homes all over? It seems like you don't care about public opinion but just have your own agenda of letting anyone build as many homes as they want, without thinking of the problems and money it might cause the city, and the people that live here. Why don't you slow down a little and really listen to the people and think about it? Thank you, Lavella Boylan 1314 4th St. W. Kalispell, MT 59901 4/9/2007 Ll j -IE AIRR 03 1 2007 lQIUSPELL PLANINNG DENARTMENT C") Yuma AZ April 2 2007 Kalispell Planning Board 312 First Avenue East Kalispell MT 59901 Dear Members of the Planning Board: i r r ,7 I� fli� rcu Y APR 0 3 2007 iVIUSP t=LL PLANNING DEPA,""I MENT We are writing to protest the annexation of the former O'Neil mill property to the city of Kalispell for the following reasons: 1) The present infrastructure is inadequate for the present use. We live at 1220 3'a Street West, west of Meridian Road. Currently, this area is already subject to many problems such as: a) The water system is totally inadequate, constantly leaking, and at times the water pressure is almost non-existent. b) The street is one continuous row of patches, due to water main leak repairs. The curbing, for which we paid, was never completed. There is nothing to establish a ditch line across driveways and alleys; therefore, after a rain large ponds are formed at the intersections with the street. Oc) Current traffic flow on Meridian Road makes it almost impossible to access Meridian Road from J 3`d Street. Consequently, we have to use the alley to 2°d or 4t' Street to take advantage of the 4-way stops. Meridian Road is already over -burdened with current traffic. Please consider what the traffic from the proposed additional 600-plus homes will do to this situation. d) Additional traffic onto Appleway Drive, which appears to be an access point to the proposed subdivision, will create one of the most hazardous intersections in Kalispell. 2) Peterson School will be totally overwhelmed by the number of students this development will create. The current residents, as taxpayers, will have to remedy this situation, not the developer. 3) Lot size will be extremely important. At about 0.2 acre per lot, less street, alley and set backs will leave a lot of about 5200 square feet. With a 900 square foot house and a two car garage, there will be a very minimal useable yard space. The proposed housing density would result in very crowded living conditions with little green space. We request that before reaching a decision on the proposed development request and annexation to the city of Kalispell that you take a look at Empire Estates and its related problems. We expect this project will be more of the same. Two wrongs don't make a right! Respectfully submitted, 46, U sew l Lri trlJ — /10 William N. and Barbara J. Chilton 1220 3`d Street West Kalispell MT 59901 03/29/2007- 09:-54 7605725142 PILOT KNOB RV RESORT PAGE 02 F'RY ' J1:11 r.'H:L,7,Yq 01 : 40SE--_7.22Z'3 Arr, Q2C,07 YU41a ;V, April 2 2007 KaU &pcil Pla=iug- Rioard 31.1 First Avtmue Fasi KA11"11 W, .59901 Dev Metzibers of tho PlarmiM Board., 'X'i; iLTe ivdtizg. to protest the anrlexatQri of the, fom-& Q"Seif mill PrOPOMI to thr city of KAliWil for tEti fallawiug reasons; 1) 'The_pras mv infrastructure -i's madeTuate.:for the prm-nr use. - we-live-st 1*.?12().*316'stceetwiA.wcsrof.- Meridian Rund; ('wrmidy, dus ama is alrmxly su ject ra mmy problems such a!5 !1) The water, :;vSim-is total i -Insiftqiiata; tanstzintJy jiAitlg4 *Ud'ax timesthe waterprevsurc Alinostnon-exist=t. b) IlZe SUVe jS QTW COIR.fiTAl16US TQW 4) 1* Patohosi d= to wulcr Emill cucbiug :fna to , for -Whicil Wo P&A, wa-, never wrlplettd. There iq.noth. "thst a dilc� U710 Acrw,1,,,driv*Nvnk-R and alicy'kt therefort; after a Tairi.lwza pondszrt f6rrned at the intm-=viaxls with the street. enr xraf>'�ic flow on meridian Road inakcs it alwost-inprj%sib1r,.tC- MC=SS MClidiiin RCHid- txCffl : . al most "$treat. C'0ftWj11tMdy,.We-h61yC tO 4SC T4. OT41' ftectTo tA-t ad antw� of the the iraLffia'&omific proposed addiiinrtal 6.00 _.phLs home.q Will do to &is situation, d) Additional traffic onto AITIOWKY DnN4P,*'hiCh *PP=S'tb he �U a=CXP4Aflt W the PrCVMed will areako one (& the Pcturor qohool will be, .0twIv ovenvhelfiled-by lbentunber:ol 'students this CL-velopmeat will crew. Ttiv Currell, residc-rits. as mvzygrs, will hav: to M-Mc& 6is'itliftti-on, not the dovelover al Lq impotutit. Al lt>0419.2 atrepOlOtle." street, Allcy and Setbacks Will leRV6 2 Yot of about 5200 squarr. fmc With a NY) square: frwot h0USC Md: a two car garage, there will tx-;i v0n, gme" spate.. Wo-requto the baf6rr.,ran chjng i% decision on th(,, prop . -oaed*velo0niitt anneu-tion.to the f Kalispell that you take a look. at Emp;Te E,,t*es %Ud. itt; (�hjted pgthl eims we. expecttbigpjiNwil I I he inc)'re -,If tbe.=o. T\vc.t wmm8s don't make ario., J: William N.'=d5tobaraf (10,= 1220,3'1� -strewtv0st - Kalispell tiff 39901 [ED Kalil ell Planning Board nD !nu APR Q 9 2007 _! 17 2n Street East Kalispell, Montana 59901 KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT Re: Purposed Willow Creek Subdivision Annexation of the former O'Neil mill property to the City of Kalispell Dear Members of the Planning Board: We are writing to protest the massive size of the purposed Willow Creek Subdivision and the request by the Turners to have the former O'Neil mill property annexed to the City of Kalispell. Reasons: Asubdivision of this size would GREATLY impact our already over -crowded city road: system with the shear number of cars that a subdivision of this size would generate. Extreme traffic hazards will be the norm on Foy's Lake Road, and the purposed exit onto Highway 2 and Appleway Drive. What about the purposed South end Highway 93 By- pass scheduled to be built soon? Why is this subdivision even being considered when C� we all know that the 93 By-pass will be passing through right where the Turners want to build this subdivision? What about the "Impact Fees" for new development that haven't been put into place yet? If the planning board and City Council vote to let the Turners proceed with the subdivision before "fees" are in place, we, as the City of Kalispell will be taking quite a lose on revenue from that subdivision. According to Tom 3entz, city planning director, who pointed out recently in the Daily Inter Lake, any project that applies for a building permit before approval of a roads -impact fee would be EXEMPT. Peterson School will be totally overwhelmed by the number of students this development will create. The current residents, as taxpayers, will have to remedy this situation, not the developer. Lot sizes of the purposed subdivision would result in very crowded living conditions with little green space, and definitely do not match the surrounding areas of current housing such as the Stone Ridge area or even across Foy's Lake road to the south. Do we, the City of Kalispell, really want another "Empire Estates" and its related problems??? We do not! ! We know that growth and annexation of county land is inevitable in the future. We are asking that the Kalispell Planning Board and the City Council take a look at Turner's Empire Estates and the problems it has already. We, as the City of Kalispell, will have another depressing mess on our lands if Willow Creek Subdivision is allowed to proceed. Respec+fialty slibrutted: Max and Mary Ann Whitington, 1322 4h Street West, Kalispell, Montana ��! G L•�(„�'�Ci;;�' �.. .._. / � I ii.i. ! t. %}L1'l__ a..% � �L� ..��lt i'^'"�-�.1._.-... ra �-- , % Fa D, I APR 0 9 2007 KAUSPELL PUMNINIG DEPARTMENT i APR 052007 I'ALISPLELIL PLMIPaING 0EPAA 6_i-.iT 490 N. Meridian Road Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 752-5501 FAX (406) 257-0349 4/44/2007 REF:MD015-07.doc Sean Conrad City of Kalispell Planning Department 17 Second St. East Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mr. Conrad, I have met with CTA and the proponent of the Willow Creek Subdivision a number of times in recent weeks and appreciate the time and effort they have put into discussions and proposed modifications to their original proposal. In a March 22, 2007 letter, CTA on behalf of the proponent listed additional modifications including planting. a 100 foot corridor along the creek throughout the project area with.a native shrub and tree mix and moving development at sites No. 1 and No. 9 further away from the stream (sites noted on plan view -map provided by CTA-inan email„which I have attached to this letter). These measures are valuable improvements and will help reduce the risk of water, quality and habitat degradation. I certainly encourage the proponent to pursue these mitigation measures. There also may be additional mitigation opportunities. Others at Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and I are willing to meet and discuss these issues at your request. I commented on the original subdivision proposal in two letters dated 10/9/2006 and 2/22/2007. In these letters I listed a number of fish and wildlife habitat and water quality concerns associated with the proposal. These concerns are still relevant. For these reasons, I recommended a 200 foot building setback (measured as a horizontal distance from the annual high water mark) with a riparian vegetated buffer width of 75 feet, which consisted of vegetation that is not fertilized or mowed and includes shrub and tree species. With the March 22, 2007 letter from CTA, I received a plan view map noting nine locations where the proposed development encroached within 150 feet of the stream bank, distances ranging from 81.6 to 141.6 feet: There is another location that was not noted between sites No. 5 and No. 6 where four lots (lots 367 to 37M and associated roadway encroach beyond 150 feet. Besides these ten sites, I counted six multiunit condos, 23 lofts, and 7 sections of roads that also (-� encroached within the recommended 200 foot distance. Therefore, the most recent proposal shows development encroaching on the 200 foot width over the majority of the project. Recognizing this, the proponent has proposed mitigation by increasing the riparian buffer width. If the City approves a narrower building setback in some of the project, I recommend a minimum building setback of 150 feet with an increased vegetated buffer width of 125 feet in these areas. This would allow 25 feet; preferably the 25 feet furthest from the stream, to be developed into a pathway and allow for lawn or other maintained vegetation near the buildings. Thus reducing the recommended building setback from 200 to 150 feet over the majority of the project would be mitigated in those areas by increasing the vegetated buffer from 75 to 125 feet. This would still require additional modifications to the most recent proposal at the ten sites encroaching within 150 feet. The proposed planting of the first 100 feet in shrub and tree mix remains a good mitigation action to improve the filtering capacity of the narrower setback and improve wildlife habitat throughout the project. Thank you for allowing our participation in your planning effort. If there are any questions or additional information needs, please feel free to contact me. dce Mark Deleray 'Fisheries Biologist Cc: Wayne Freeman, CTA LandWorks N01 FOKUUNNIKU-IIUIN TURNER gmv SUBDIVISION ALISP-QT T , MT PROJECT: Willow Creek DATE: April 9, 2007 TO: Tom Juentz FROM: Wayne Freeman, CTA LandWorks RE: Raparian Corridor Mitigation Proposal With regard to the attached letter from Mark Deleray, with Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks, and comment number 31 in the staff report we would like to make the following proposal: Our client is in agreement that they will plant the additional 25' foot corridor above and beyond the 100' recommended by CTA with native vegetation along the entire length of Ashley Creek through the Willow Creek property. This will serve as mitigation for the development encroaching within the 200' buffer zone requested by Fish Wildlife & Parks. Our client also recognizes the concern raised by Fish Wildlife and Parks that the project creates several "pinch points" in this buffer zone. Our client is willing to sit with the city and Fish Wildlife and Parks to discuss potential additional mitigation that could occur off -site. Through our work with Mark Deleray, it is our understanding of a desire within the environmental community to create a GIS database of critical stream riparian corridors within the city of Kalispell and Flathead County. This database could then be utilized to be proactive in acquisition of fee simple title on these identified Ocorriclors or conservation easements within these identified corridors. Given that this particular corridor is somewhat degraded having been a lumber operation for many years, we believe that this section of creek is not necessarily pristine. However, our client seeks a solution to the perceived impact of the project as well as wishing to provide a jump-start to the above effort. The project impacts roughly 1 "/ acre of the 150' section identified within Mark Deleray's report. If we value land in the Kalispell area as approximately $50,000/acre, our client suggests that we propose mitigation funds equal to this value of land. 0 Proposal Our client proposes to contribute $75,000 at the completion of phase one of the Willow Creek project to the city of Kalispell to be utilized in creating this GIS database, or to be used as- acquisition funds for fee simple title or conservation easements along sections of critical riparian corridors within the city of Kalispell or Flathead County. The city can either implement the projects or offer to a third party such as Flathead Valley Land Trust to implement the project. We request the planning board to give the planning staff the authority to waive condition number 31 of the planning report in favor of this approach. 10180 Cottonwood Road LBozeman, MT 59718 0^ 877.423.5018 E406.556.7100 EYax: 406.585.3031 lvmv.ctaaroun.com ^inicYd;ctaeroun.com To Whom It May Concern: We are writing in reference to the approval of the Willow creek subdivision proposal. While we are not opposed to growth or a subdivision in that area, we do have some concerns. We live in Lake Hills Subdivision and already have significant traffic that goes by. We feel that to increase traffic on this road by 1400 cars per day would be irresponsible. One only has to drive the road at 8:00, 3:30 and 5:00 to see why. As the traffic stands now on Foys Lake Road, unless you widen and make them put turning lanes in it will be a nightmare. When you allowed the other one across the street in without making a turning lane you already have made a mess on that corner waiting for that traffic to turn. Not only will the increase in traffic affect our everyday living, but it will also decrease the value of our residential property. We are zoned residential and we don't want commercial size traffic down Foys Lake Road. Please have the developer reconfigure the subdivision so that there are not as many stops and curves within the subdivision itself and also stay with the bigger lots of 1 acre or more that is esthetically better and the same as surrounding areas. Have them make it a straight shot in and out of the subdivision as to give residents an incentive to keep the extra traffic in their neighborhood and the highways. We also would request that the lots not be annexed into the city and if they are that the current standard that the community has for lot size would still apply. To put it in simple terms, 628 homes on 0.2 acre lots will make the area look trashy and look to urban for this area. Knowing that growth is just a part of where we live, we feel that we still have a responsibility to our kids to preserve the heritage of Kalispell. Growth and beauty in Kalispell can co -exist! We are asking that responsible growth take place... Please don't let the greed of the contractor overshadow what is best for this area. He will make plenty of money with 1 acre minimum lots. We do not need or want that many lots going in! It is ridiculous for this area. O Thank you for taking the time to read and reflect on our concerns. I hope that you will be able to not only look at this from a planning board aspect, but put yourself in the place of the homeowners around the area that this subdivision will affect negatively. Sincerely, David and Gretchen Harrington 752-8517 340 Lake Hills Dr. Page 1 of 1 ' ) Michelle Anderson From: Jenifer Hanson [fer@bresnan.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:07 PM To: manderson@kalispell.com Subject: Willow Creek To Whom It May Concern: We are writing in reference to the approval of the Willow Creek subdivision proposal. While we are not opposed to growth or a subdivision in that area, we do have some concerns. We live on Meridian Rd and already have significant traffic that goes by. We feel that to increase traffic on this road by 1400 cars per day would be irresponsible. One only has to drive the road at 8:00, 3:30 and 5:00 to see why. As the traffic stands now it already makes it a challenge to get out of our driveway in a timely manner. We know that we made the choice to live on a relatively busy street. As house prices have risen in our valley we had to make the hard decision to compromise and live on a busy street or move else where. We chose to stay, but certainly do not want a momentous amount of traffic increase by our home. Not only will the increase in traffic affect our everyday living, but it will also decrease the value of our residential property. We are zoned residential and we don't want commercial size traffic down our road. Please have the developer reconfigure the subdivision so that there are not as many stops and curves within the subdivision itself. Have them make it a straight shot in and out of the subdivision as to give residents an incentive to keep the extra traffic in their neighborhood and the highways. We also would request that the lots not be annexed into the city and if they are that the current standard that the community has for lot size would still apply. To put it bluntly, 628 homes on 0.2 acre lots will make the area look trashy. We are in the electrical contracting business so growth is part of our livelihood, but we implore you to do it Oresponsibly. Our family has a significant amount of heritage in Kalispell. Logan pass was named after my great, great, great uncle (he served as the 1 st supervisor of Glacier National Park), Logan state park was name after my great, great grandfather and my great,. great, great, great Uncle Tool was the first governor of Montana. Not only that, my great, great grandmother served in the place of the First Lady until uncle tool was married in 1890. As you can see, our family has served and lived in this community and state for generations. We have three small children of our own. Knowing that growth is just a part of where we live, we feel that we still have a responsibility to our kids to preserve the heritage that our family has whole heartedly invested in. Growth and beauty in Kalispell can coexist! We are asking that responsible growth take place not greed for money on the part of the contractor. We do not want that many lots going in! Thank you for taking the time to read and reflect on our concerns. I hope that you will be able to not only look at this from a planning board aspect, but put yourself in the place of the homeowners around the area that this subdivision will affect negatively. Sincerely, Lance & Jenifer Hanson concerns for Foy's Lake Rd development Page 1 of 1 Michelle Anderson From: Grout, Amy [agrout@mt.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:22 PM To: planning@kalispell.com Subject: concerns for Foy's Lake Rd development Planning Board, I have recently become aware of the extensive new housing development proposed west of Meridian, between Foys Lake Rd and Hwy 2. 1 do realize that the community is growing and new development is necessary to a point; however, I hope the planning board and city council will more closely consider the effects of this new development. As a resident of S. Meridian road, I am very aware of the traffic issues that already exist, and although I applaud the recognition and need for traffic signals, I am still very concerned about the amount of traffic that will be added to S. Meridian. The presence of Peterson Elementary School makes matters worse, as I feel there is way too much traffic now, let alone with over 600 new homes being added. I implore you to reconsider the configuration of this new neighborhood. As I understand it, the road through the new neighborhood, from Foys Lake Road to Hwy 2, is winding, with numerous stop signs. With this configuration, I doubt that it will be inviting to very many of its residents and thus fear most will exit the neighborhood onto Foys Lake Rd and proceed through to Meridian or 7th St, thus creating severe traffic congestion and safety concerns to residents and school kids on S Meridian. I do understand the desires of an aesthetically pleasing neighborhood, however I believe the plan should be amended to make it more inviting to residents of the new development to drive through their own neighborhood and out onto Highway 2. 1 feel by making the road through the neighborhood a straight and more direct route with few stops, residents would be more likely to use it and thus alleviate some congestion on S Meridian Rd. Unfortuneately, I am unable to attend tonight's City Planning Board meeting, but would ask that you re-evaluate this new development plan, focusing more on the traffic congestion this project would present for S. Meridian Road. Thank you for your reconsideration of this plan. Sincerely, Amy Grout Resident of South Meridian Rd. 755-1299 April 7, 2007 City of Kalispell Planning Board Via e-mail Dear Planning Board, I would appreciate your consideration of the following concerns regarding traffic circulation and the Willow Creek project. As you may know, traffic on Meridian Road, south of US Highway 2 is already bad and this project as designed will make it worse. Meridian Road south of Center Street is a residential street that passes Peterson School. It is not an appropriate place for additional traffic. It is possible to make improvements to the Willow Creek project that will minimize the traffic increases on S Meridian Road. Need for New Minor Arterial Street My primary concern is that the proposed north -south route through the project that is proposed to connect Foys Lake Road with US Hwy 2 is a very curvilinear, collector street designed with primarily residential frontage and numerous driveways. Though the application does not specify the locations of stop signs along this road, I can only guess that there will be two or more by the layout of the local streets. Any opportunity for the general public to benefit from another route option to US Highway 2 from Foys Lake Rd is lost by this design. I believe that this project presents the opportunity to IMPROVE the situation on Meridian Road by attracting a portion of the existing Foys Lake Road traffic to use a Foys Lake Road -US Hwy 2 mainly linear, minor arterial, with limited access points to the development along the proposed route. This route would need to be similar to Two Mile Drive or Whitefish Stage in design. I have shown an approximate improved alignment n in the graphic on the next page. r I _:-- - - 1 c, t -� - _ O The goal of developing a minor arterial street thru this development is supported by current Kalispell Growth Policies: Policy 10.4: Discourage routing heavy traffic and through -traffic in residential areas by creating a more thorough grid system when possible. Policy 10.5: Utilize and reserve arterial and collector roads to carry through - traffic. Policy 10.7: Reserve adequate right-of-way for designated arterial and collector roads on lands proposed for new development. In attempting to design an improved roadway system that would include an additional minor arterial street, Policy 10.6 also states: "Provide access to individual lots by way of local streets to the maximum extent feasible and avoid granting individual access on to collectors and arterials." If this improved alignment was chosen, this would most likely put the back yards of the development along the new minor arterial route like most other developments along minor arterials. Of course, there is also the more attractive option of houses along a local street that is separated from the minor arterial by an open-space/bikeway. TU pat] sire Either way, I think it is important to recognize that a free -flowing minor arterial that offers a good alternative to Meridian Road is needed here. The only way to cause a diversion of some of the current Meridian Road traffic coming from Foys Lake Road is to provide a quicker route to Highway 2 without delays like new unnecessary traffic signals and long waits at stop signs. This idea accomplishes that and gives Foys Canyon traffic (approximately 3,750 cars per day) an alternate to the already crowded S Meridian Rd (5,570 cars per day at Peterson School and 9,680 cars per day along the side of Albertsons). It is also important to consider that this is probably the last opportunity between the arterial roads Meridian Rd, and Dern Rd / W Springcreek Rd (site of another fatal accident last month), where you could construct a new minor arterial boulevard. This potential new minor arterial boulevard, if unimpeded by the "friction" of stop signs and driveways, would most likely have been the route for those involved in that accident as they were going home from the Christian Church on Foys Lake Road. My family does not use Dern Rd because the intersection at Highway 2 is so unsafe. Unfortunately, the next intersection to the west is not much better. You might have the idea that the bypass project will serve in lieu of a minor arterial connector through the project site. While it will help to reduce some of the traffic on Meridian Rd, studies have shown that drivers do not use interstates or expressways to get -on at one ramp, then off at the next, especially when there will be two traffic signals for the ramps at the US 2 / Bypass interchange. Besides, any traffic bound for the Kalispell Hospital area from Foys Lake Road will not benefit from the bypass. The applicant's traffic study also mentions that US 2/Appleway Drive "will fall to LOS F by 2013 regardless of the Willow Creek Subdivision". The proposed mitigation is to restrict westbound left -turns at this location in the future. This will only make the situation for northbound Meridian Rd traffic worse approaching US Highway 2, as those drivers heading west for Kila will be diverted to Meridian Rd. A proposed, linear, minor arterial through the Willow Creek site would do a lot to encourage this type of thru traffic to avoid using Meridian Rd then Appleway Dr to head west. Restricting westbound left -turns at US2/Appleway will only exacerbate problems at US2/Meridian. Criticism of the Traffic Study The trip distribution diagram for the traffic study is shown below. I have included a further breakdown of the percentage of overall trips (shown in pink) on additional segments (those that were missing from the report), the existing daily traffic (2003 data), the existing plus project daily traffic, and the percent change in traffic to various streets (shown in yellow) in the project area. Figure 3 —Trip distributions U.S. HighE•1ay2 al JD 4E 3 West center Street j�,y�7o ZS�P1+Y..IZ. . r(e)6)974, Street west {P1 �T" 4 Street west �/❑ (� i !t Foys Lake Road b55% nV &J .'f -T�Ip P5 (��� Giccs'G�tvc, c�r�s��taw5 Actual current travel patterns would indicate that the amount of project traffic being distributed to 7th St W, 2nd St W, and Center St seems to be high. I believe that a more realistic trip distribution should be used, as follows: O Figure 3 Trip Distributions �.5Yl�`t;t��' U.S. fl1gbway.2 0 AD West Center sheetP��tJC? 2sd Sheet weSt 7 i1'street West ma`__ Toys Lake Road , ,A� r=t 1Y T40 5; E)r- e ctsT)NG CSrtgr{tor' 5 tp)�- S%'5-Of-Q . ir'05--11--C 1 M "iOArcll^ 7Al![ At1 Te ^i rreftle Ar vur x�resrx n. nx aa+►a n In either scenario, the following minimum impacts will be realized at build -out: Road Segment or Intersection Increase in Daily Trips Foys Lake Rd, west of 7 St 65% Meridian Rd, at Peterson School 25% 7 St W, east of Meridian Rd 44% 2" St W, east of Meridian Rd 23% Center St, east of Meridian Rd 10% Meridian Rd, along side Albertsons 4% US Hwy 2, west of Meridian Rd 16% Intersection of US Hwy 2 /Meridian Rd 20% Many of these impacts could be reduced by creating the minor arterial boulevard through the project site thereby reducing the traffic from Foys Lake Rd that uses Meridian Rd. While the traffic study does a pretty good job analyzing existing and proposed conditions at most of the above intersections, no analysis, or mention of impacts to the intersection of US 2 / Meridian Rd is made by the study. For this reason, the study is grossly inadequate when you consider that this intersection is currently functioning at Level of Service E in both the morning and afternoon peak traffic periods. The lowest score for Level of Service is F and if no improvements are constructed at this intersection, as a result of this development, the Level of Service will drop to F during both daily periods. This is a nationally recognized unacceptable level of traffic delay and congestion according to the urban planning and engineering profession. As a result of poor level of service at this location, there is a large amount of current diversion to local residential streets like 5th Av W, 2nd St W, and 7th St W. As soon as the traffic signals being required of the development are installed, this additional "un- met" demand will relocate to the most direct route, partially negating the higher capacity of the signalized intersections. Also as a result of the newly signalized intersections, the prevailing traffic speeds along Meridian Rd in front of Peterson School will increase. This is not a safe situation for parents dropping off their kids in the Meridian Rd turn -out or those kids whose parents would still encourage them to walk. Location of Proposed Southeast Development Roadway Connection to Foys Lake Road One simply needs to look at the distance (370 feet) between the intersections of Meridian Rd with Appleway Dr and subsequently Center St to know that the development proposal for the southeast access and Foys Lake Rd is a terrible idea. The proposed southeast access is only 175 feet from the future southbound bypass ramps. It is inevitable that in the next twenty years these ramps will be all -way stops or traffic signal locations. If you have ever driven in any urbanized area where adjacent intersections are too close together and there are heavy turning movements, you will know that this is a bad design. There is no reason why this intersection could not be moved two hundred feet to the west. L� The view looking southbound down Meridian Road from in front of the Finish Line Casino as traffic waits to approach Appleway Drive and Center Streets. It is not unusual for traffic to back-up on a daily basis all the way to the Albertson's parking lot. This location is avoided by many motorists, but in the event improvements are made, additional traffic will return to this location. Traffic trying to turn onto Meridian Rd from Appleway Drive must wait for courteous drivers to let them in. Those that turn left are in an unsafe turning situation as they cannot see traffic coming from their right when southbound traffic allows there though. This is a similar situation to what could be expected if the southeast development access is located too close to the southbound bypass ramps, as is currently proposed. Lack of Review by the Montana Department of Transportation This past Friday, I spoke with Jim Freyholtz, the Traffic Engineer for MDT assigned to review this project. He indicated that he is meeting with other MDT planners in Helena next week to make decisions on the proposed accesses to State Highways. Both US Highway 2 and Foys Lake Rd are State Highways, and therefore, there is no certainty that the north -south route thru the site or the accesses along Foys Lake Rd is acceptable as designed. It is premature to consider this project for approval without any (i approvals for the entire access to the project site. It would also be inappropriate to approve this project for more than 120 units without a condition of approval that would assure the northernmost access connecting to US Highway 2 can be obtained. I am very uncomfortable not knowing what that roadway design may look like. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. I know I am just one member of the public, but I think there is a lot missing in this design. This project is located in a unique position to make much needed improvements. I plan to elaborate on these concerns, as well as architectural and density issues at the hearing on Tuesday. Sincerely, Pete Wessel 121 Rainbow Dr Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 257-3149 �� pete_wessel@hotmail.com