Loading...
02-09-99KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MEETING February 9, 1999 CALL TO ORDER AND The meeting was called to order by Jean Johnson at approximately ROLL CALL 7:05 p.m. Members present were: Joe Brenneman, Donald Garberg, Rob Heinecke, Greg Stevens, Jean Johnson, Don Hines, Keith Brian Sipe, and Don Mann. The Flathead Regional Development Office was represented by Tom Jentz and Narda Wilson. There were approximately 69 people.in the audience. APPROVAL OF On a motion by Keith Brian Sipe and seconded by Don Mann, the MINUTES minutes of the meeting of January 12, 1999 were approved as submitted. On a roll call vote all members present voted Aye, the motion passed unanimously. APPOINTMENT OF On a motion by Don Garberg, seconded by Don Hines, this agenda MEMBER -AT -LARGE item was postponed to the New Business section of the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. FARRIS ZONE CHANGE On a motion by Rob Heinecke, seconded by Don Mann, the Farris petition for a zone change, was postponed indefinitely as per Mr. Andrew Farris' request by letter dated January 27, 1999. On a roll call vote all members voted Aye, the motion passed unanimously. FOUTS TRUST ZONE A petition by the Theodore D. Fouts Trust for a zone change from CHANGE B-3 and B-2 to R-5 on 1.325 acres for property in Evergreen was introduced. STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, Senior Planner at the Flathead Regional Development Office, presented - Staff ' Report #KZC-99-2, recommending that the planning board and zoning commission adopt FRDO staff report #FZC-99-2 as findings of fact and recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the requested zone change from B-2 and B-3 to R-5 be granted. PUBLIC HEARING: The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the proposed zone change. PROPONENTS Andy Hyde, of Carver Engineering, spoke in favor of the petition on behalf of the owner. The request is in anticipation of expanding the existing mobile home park. OPPONENTS The hearing was opened to those who wished to speak in opposition of the petition. Randy Winter, 11 Meadowlark Drive, spoke in opposition to the expansion of the mobile home park, citing concern over the increased traffic and belief that the land has previously been designated for a children's park area Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999 Page 1 of 12 Delphine Johnson, 15 Meadowlark Drive, spoke against the expansion and cited her belief was that this area was supposed to be designated for a park, and that this would take away her view, and she agreed with the previous speaker's opposition. C No one else wished to speak in opposition and the public hearing was closed. BOARD DISCUSSION Heinecke asked about park designation, Wilson explained that that had been done so long ago that there had been no subdivision filed, and this land now has new owners. Wilson explained that this petition is for a zone change only, though the owner has stated that he has plans, if the zone change goes through, to come in with a preliminary plat for subdivision for an expansion of the mobile home park, that it is not under issue now. MOTION Brenneman moved and Stevens seconded that the planning board and zoning commission adopt FRDO staff report #FZC-99-2 as findings of fact and recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the requested zone change from B-2 and B-3 to R-5 be granted. The motion passed unanimously on a vote of 8-0 in favor. GARDNER A request by Todd and Davar Gardner for preliminary plat PRELIMINARY PLAT approval of the Amended Plat of Lot 1, Ashley Business Park, APPROVAL FOR proposing two industrial lots. The property is located on the west ASHLEY PARK side of Highway 93 south of Kalispell, approximately 0.6 miles south of the 4-Corners intersection. STAFF REPORT Tom Jentz presented Staff Report #FPP-98-13. Staff recommends approval of the application, subject to the 10 conditions as listed in the report. He cited that this would allow for an orderly progression of the Hwy 93 Bypass project. PUBIC HEARING: The public hearing was opened to those in favor. PROPONENTS Chuck Marquardt spoke in favor, as the current tenant of the property he explained that negotiations are ongoing for the purchase of right-of-way for the bypass project by the Montana Highway Department. Todd Gardner spoke in favor and cited that it is a win -win situation for everyone involved and agreed with the previous speaker. OPPONENTS No one spoke in opposition. BOARD DISCUSSION Gardner answered, when asked by Brenneman, that they were comfortable with the conditions in the staff report. MOTION Heinecke moved to amend condition #3, to include "and rear" and #9 changed to "all street addresses", Stevens seconded the motion. Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999 Page 2 of 12 On a roll call vote: Greg Stevens, Keith Brian Sipe, and Rob Heinecke voted Aye; Don Mann, Joe Brenneman, Jean Johnson, Don Hines and Don Garberg voted No. The motion to amend the conditions failed on a vote of 5-3 against. Sipe moved and Stevens seconded to adopt staff report FPP-98-13 as findings of fact and recommend that the Flathead County Commissioners approve the Amended Plat of Lot 1, Ashley Business Park, subject to the 10 conditions as listed in the report. On a roll call vote all members voted Aye. None opposed. The motion passed on 8-0 in favor. WATERFORD A request by the Waterford of Flathead Valley, LLC, represented by ANNEXATION & ZONE Joseph Billig, for annexation, initial zoning of R-4, Two Family CHANGE Residential, and RA-1, Low Density Apartment Residential and a planned unit development on 22.91 for the purpose of developing a 292 unit senior housing facility. STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, Senior Planner, gave a detailed presentation of staff reports #KA-99-1 and #KPUD-99-1 in which staff recommends that the Board adopt the reports as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that upon annexation the property be zoned R-4 and RA-1 with a PUD overlay subject to 20 conditions as outlined in the report. Staff recommends that in condition #6 MT Dept. of Transportation be stricken and leave in Flathead County Road Department. Heinecke asked about extension of services, and Wilson explained that through condition #2, there is flexibility by the Public Works Department to adopt a design that works. Johnson asked about the need for 2 zone designations and Wilson explained that R-4 was chosen for the duplex area of the project to better match the proposed development. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak in favor of the application. PROPONENTS Mark Fisher, representing Waterford, gave a presentation of the planned development, explaining that the Waterford is a Congregate Care Retirement Community, and that this is for the journey of aging for the elderly within a community, complete with a special care unit, (Alzheimer's unit). They have chosen this area because of it's proximity to the college and. the ball parks as well as being within a quiet community. The PUD will not create a lot of traffic or increase the number of children in the neighborhood. They, after a year of research, believe that this is the best area of the city to build this community. The Waterford feels very strongly that this needs to be a gated secure road, because of the residents' needs for a secure area with limited traffic, and for the neighborhood's desire to not have this become a connector road. Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999 Page 3 of 12 They provide transportation internally, there is no need for county buses, Eagle transportation would only be used secondarily. The plans are for a very nice rock front building, with a small area exceeding the 44 foot height and the problem will be mitigated by the excavation for grade taking off about 10 feet of grade. They put the buildings in an area that would not restrict views of glacier, but will only be seen by homes that are currently only seeing the hill and sky, and those will now only see their roof and highest floors. They are working toward being a good neighbor. They are aware of the potential run off problems and have made and continue to plan for the best solution to the problem. The "what ifs" (in regard to the run of) are being addressed by their engineers and they want to find the best possible solution within their abilities. Dan Eigeman, CPA representing the property owners, spoke in favor of the project. He explained that he has seen the Waterford development in Helena and it is an excellent facility. The owners, as well as himself, are in favor of the proposed planned development and do not believe the closed road would cause any traffic problems for the community. His home is in the area and he isn't concerned over the height of the development because between the trees and a few homes he can't see the top of the hill anyway. Believes they will be a wonderful neighbor. Jay Billmayer, project engineer for Waterford, spoke as a proponent of the project. He addressed the issues of the conditions, and the PUD concept by putting the zoning, annexation and PUD all in one application. The 292 units is care for individual units not dwelling units, therefore he feels they fall well within the density requirements. The Planned Unit Development gives the specifics of this plan in advance, so that the community knows what the outcome will be. The phases then give an up front plan as well, so there are no surprises later. Waterford has concerns over being burdened with a more than fair share portion of the extension of services and roadways. In going over the conditions separately, it was requested that it be determined how much the Waterford is impacting the roadway and services and how much is due to the cities venture in the ball parks, by generating a study to determine a prorated share of cost. The privatizing of the road will give more security and less impact to the communities, and the elimination of solicitors that cause the elderly a number of problems. The Waterford asks for the following condition changes: #6 Eliminate the Dept. of Transportation. #8 Eliminate the condition in its entirety. #9 Modify to a prorated share after a traffic study is completed. # 14 Eliminate, because it is within the plan in condition # 12 and they, based on studies and experience, would not have a use for an internal park area. #2 Change to include more latitude in conjunction with #9 and a prorate of cost. Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999 Page 4 of 12 John King, 134 N. Haven Drive, spoke for the proposal stating that this would be an improvement to Kalispell, with no impact to the schools, and that he believes that it would be less of an impact \, than other potential projects. Johnson gave a 5 minute break and the meeting reopened at 9:15. Wayne Worthington, 365 Summit Ridge Drive, voiced several concerns over drainage, water and building height but his main concern is over the roadways. He does not want any kind of OPPONENTS connection between 4 mile drive and Summit Ridge Road, or extending Sherry Lane into North Haven Drive, and does not want the sporting event traffic coming through the communities, but would not have a problem with a gated road for development use or emergency traffic only. Carol Burt, resident on Summit Ridge Drive, has 4 major areas of concern. Concurs with Worthington's assessment of the roads and traffic and wants improvements to 4 Mile Drive first and then have a gated road open to emergency traffic only within the development. She does not understand the residential zoning (rather than commercial) for a development this extensive and with this density and that will make $600,000 per year, and that will exceed the zoning height by 21 feet. Water run off -'extreme concerns over the run off, leaving too little open space to pile snow, and with the buildings and asphalt there will be no place for the water to go except to flood the lower communities. Continuity the very size and location of their complex discredits the Waterford's statement that they wish to blend into the community. Only with the 35 foot height limitation and modifications to their current plan could their impact to the community be minimized. She asks that Waterford be held to the same landscaping requirements as the homeowners in the same area. Lori Smithwick-Hann, 435 Summit Ridge Drive, agrees with the previous speakers against the proposal. She feels the community was bulldozed by the Waterford Company because they were notified such a short period of time before the meeting, even if the legalities were followed. Cited regulations about the mile and one half distance of the development from the fire station, causing regulatory problems as well as serious safety issues. Wants to see a specific site proposal. And stated concerns for the need for such a facility, and the possibility that the facility would not be able to fill to capacity based on the high costs of staying at the facility. Devaluation of property, and the lowering of the quality of life in the community were other concerns. Sandy Streit, 340 Summit Ridge Drive, (gave out a letter, attached), spoke against the Waterford Development and for children in the area and their safety. There are no sidewalks in the area and the increased traffic will be a serious safety concern. Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999 Page 5 of 12 Wants children's safety issue to be heard loud and clear. Gloria Marin, 121 N. Haven Drive, had concern over the impact on wildlife in the area, construction problems, and asking that the zone change be denied based on MCA 76-2-304 Purposes of Zoning, with regards to item 1, to prevent overcrowding of land and to avoid undue concentration of population, and all of item 2 in the above code. She believes the proposal is contrary to the comprehensive plan for the area, and oppose the road from 4 Mile Drive to Summit Ridge Drive, and wonders about the other 70 acres and the potential congestion that would come with a zone change. Anthony Abeson, North Haven Subdivision, spoke against the proposal, and noted that he was not contacted by the Waterford Company. He is opposed to the development and did not envision traffic, street lights, storm water retention ponds, etc. when he purchased his home 6 years prior. Concern over the height of the structure. Luman Metcalf, Country Estates, concern for the need for the facility and cost at Waterford, market research should be done, no guarantees that the facility won't go bankrupt due to the inability to fill the facility. Scott Williams, 1 week in the area, concern over being annexed in conjunction with the project which would increase the taxes and devalue the property. His biggest concerns are traffic and density, and that Waterford does not fit within the Master Plan of the area. He does not want the area of his home annexed into the city, does not want the Waterford project to go through. Dale Luman, 169 Trail Ridge Road in Country Estates, agrees with those previous to him. Entered a letter signed by the 7 members of the Country Estates Homeowners Association in opposition to the proposal. Main topics were visual impact, and that the zoning request is marginal in compliance and this facility would be best located in a different area. No one else spoke against the project and applications. BOARD DISCUSSION Garberg asked Billmayer about conditions 6 and 9, and it was explained that the Waterford project wants a traffic study a fair prorate of the financial burden to the 4 Mile Drive improvements. Wants the city to pay their fair share of the improvements. Mann asked about the height regulations and Wilson explained that the height limit in that zoning district is 35 feet. The 44 feet as proposed does not include the chimneys, so there would be 9 feet over the current zone regulations. It was noted that the Board l should look at this under a Planned Unit Development, and Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999 Page 6 of 12 therefore there is more flexibility for uses, and height, and should look at this very specific development, and make recommendations about the project specifically. C^ When asked Staff explained that the numbers on density marginally comply with master plan, and the impact associated with this type of plan are in reasonable compliance with the plan. Stevens liked the project, believes the problems could be solved by gating the roadway. Understands opposition, but feels this is a good project. Believes that the board can rely on the public works department to deal with the drainage problem. Heinecke spoke in support of the project, believing the cluster development does mitigate the increase in density, and believes it will help the lower subdivisions on storm water drainage rather than causing more problems, and noted # 14 on the landscaping issues. On the fire issue he believes that the fire suppression system within the building would mitigate the possibility of fire being an issue. Brenneman is not in favor of the proposed project as he sees it as failing to meet 6 of the criteria as submitted and in light of the community opposition. Brenneman moved to adopt staff reports #KA-99-1 and #KPUD-99- 1 as findings of fact and recommend that the Zone R-4 and RA-1 and PUD overlay be denied. The motion failed for lack of a second. The Board went over the conditions and made amendments as follows, based on the public input and the requests of the Waterford Company and staff recommendations: #2 The extension of all services and facilities be done in accordance with plans approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department. #6 include "and the City of Kalispell"; "and source of traffic generation and that appropriate share of cost and upgrade be determined prior to construction"; and delete "Montana Department of Transportation". #8 Change to: That the proposed new roadway be private and gated to use as an emergency access route only with sole access from 4 Mile Drive, and upon completion be signed in accordance with City standards. #9 Include "and that a prorated cost be shared based on the results of the traffic study and agreed upon by all parties identified". # 14 Change to: "The park area designated as the courtyard on the site plan be developed which provides amenities such as tables, walkways, landscaping and trees. MOTION Garberg moved and Hines seconded to adopt staff reports #KA-99- C_ > 1 and #KPUD-99-1 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999 Page 7 of 12 Kalispell City Council that upon annexation the property be zoned R-4 and RA-1 with a Planned Unit Development overlay, subject to the conditions as amended. On a roll call vote: Don Mann, Jean C Johnson, Don Hines, Greg Stevens, Keith Brian Sipe, Don Garber and Rob Heinecke voted Aye. Joe Brenneman voted No. The motion passed on a 7-1 vote. 5 minute break at 10:38 and resumed 10:45. UNICORE ANNEXATION Request by John & Brenda Vincent for annexation and initial & ZONE CHANGE, zoning of 2.6 acres located on the north side of California Street CONDITIONAL USE AND between 5th and 6th Ave. E.N. PRELIMINARY PLAT STAFF REPORT Tom Jentz gave a thorough presentation of staff reports #KA-99-2, #KCU-99-1, and #KPP-99-1. The staff recommends that the Kalispell City -County Planning board and Zoning Commission adopt the staff report and recommend to the Kalispell City Council to adopt P-1 zoning on the land proposed for dedication as a city park and R-3, single family, with 7000 square foot minimum lot size, zoning on the remainder of the site, as described in Exhibit B. In addition, he recommended approval of the conditional use permit and preliminary plat to allow 10 condominium units to be constructed on the site. Jentz noted however, that parking was deficient as 25 spaces were required, but only 18 met zoning standards. He stated that to meet the staff conditions the site plan will have to be re -drawn which could result in the loss of at least one to two units. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the application. PROPONENTS Max Battle, representing Unicore and the current property owners, spoke in favor of the proposals. He reported that because of the concern raised about the stability of the banks some test holes have been dug and engineers will be completing borings and soil analysis and they have no opposition to having experts determine the setbacks but that they want to be allowed less than a 20 ft. setback if the engineers sign off on less. They are willing to have an agreement with the city for access to the park area but want it noted that it is the one area where there is marginal instability in the adjoining slopes. There will be approximately 60% less pervious surface, (water perk area) therefore moisture will be directed into a drainage system maintaining the integrity of the subsurface soil. The loading on the site will be at or below the current rate based on the removal of ground versus construction of the buildings. The staff report mentions having separate water and sewer lines off of California, and we want a trunk line that goes in and feathers to the individual units. In conclusion we believe this project makes the best use of a difficult site. OPPONENTS No one else spoke in favor of the proposals. Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999 Page 8 of 12 Ed White, owner of an adjacent lot, spoke in strong opposition to this proposal, noting that this would have an adverse affect on their newly designed home. Believes the area should stay as single family homes, and believes this project would be out of character for the area. Cary Colburn, presented and read a petition, (attached), citing that the project is inconsistent with the character of single family homes in the area, and does not go with the integrity of the area. Steve Cheman, agrees with the previous speakers, and believes that from 11 years of experience in the area, the ground on the one side of the proposed plan is not stable, and the proposal is not in character with the area, believes it will devalue his property, and would rather see two lots with very nice homes. Don Anderson, whose mother lives in the area, he is voicing their opposition to the proposals, it does not follow the character of the area and is too dense and believes two homes would be worth more than this proposal, and agrees with the previous proponents. Matt Montgomery, agreed with the previous speakers, and believes that this is on the fringe of compliance and it would be a major impact on the environment and the wildlife, and would be problematic on the traffic especially in winter conditions, and believes their quality of life would be drastically altered. Georgia Staub spoke against the proposal primarily around the issues of safety, and traffic flow, and would like to see the city buy the land and put a park on that property as there isn't one in the immediate area. The area is single family homes with a nice mix of young and old, and she believes this would disrupt the quality of the community. John Valentino, agrees with the previous speakers. Asks that the board strongly consider the views of the community. Lori Fisher, agrees with previous speakers, believes the bank is eroding, and is concerned about the ecological impact on Lawrence Park, and addressed the issue of increased traffic. Jerry Anderson, wants the area to remain a single family home neighborhood, and agrees with the previous speakers. Sue Ellen Anderson spoke in opposition wants the property to remain with 1 or 2 single family homes. And spoke of concerns about traffic and child safety. Clara Ellen Anderson, spoke in opposition, she has lived in the area since 1946 and wants the area to remain single family in nature. This is not an affluent community but it is a strong and secure neighborhood. Spoke of extreme concern over parking especially in bad winter conditions, and extreme concerns over soil Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999 Page 9 of 12 stability. This is the only quarter of Kalispell with no park, would like to see the city put a city park on this property. Wants to see a neutral engineering firm do the testing on the property. Want the board to take the public comment into consideration, and deny the petitions. Richard Cole, is opposed to the project and does not believe that this is a transitional area since the property behind it is open area, and will continue to be. Agrees with the previous speakers. Believes this would be the worst use of a desirable site Dave Ebert, agreed with the previous opposition. Lance Stodd, spoke of concerns about it not fitting with the area and has extreme concern over building on slopes of this type and on unstable soil. He can feel instability in the ground from traffic in the surrounding area. Extreme opposition to the petitions, and would like to see a city park there. John McCarter, spoke in opposition to the area and was in agreement with the previous speakers. He had concerns over traffic, wants to see the area remain for single family and have a park there for his family. Larry Farrow, spoke in opposition to the development, and in favor with the previous speakers, the nature and character of the area make this development incompatible. Glenda Simmons, though she doesn't live in the area, believes that there will be problems with the developer based on her experience with him through her ownership in a condominium built development by him in another part of Kalispell. Marla Culver, concerns over the historical value of the area. She agreed with the previous speakers. Don Clapper, on behalf of his mother in law, spoke in opposition to the proposed petitions. He had concerns over the banks and children's safety in the area. Agrees with the previous speakers. Madeline Sardinas, spoke against the proposals, agreeing with the previous speakers, and voiced concerns over fire safety and children's safety. Tammy Valentino, agreed with the previous speakers, wants the historical values in the area to be considered. Also wants to speak for some of the older neighbors in the area, some who could not be there, that do not want to see the petitions go forward. Want the board to seriously consider the child safety issues. - No one else spoke against the proposals. Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999 Page 10 of 12 BOARD DISCUSSION Brenneman excused himself due to the proximity of this project to his family. The Board discussed the report at length. Garberg spoke against the project citing his concerns for the soils and the stability of the site and stating that the design was not compatible with the single family nature of the neighborhood. There was general board discussion about the fact that the site plan did not show adequate parking and the parking as designated did not work. Johnson asked if there was any test data available to the board and was told that there is no test data available at that time. In response to a question'from'the audience as to whether or not the project engineer, Jakola, was an owner, Mr. Battle noted that Mr. Jakola has no interest in the project, he is totally independent. Parking and snow removal will have to be dealt with on the final plat and by the eventual owners. This is a condominium project, all grounds will be maintained by a condominium association. He concluded by stating they could live with the conditions proposed by staff. Jentz was asked how much flat land was available on the site and how many traditional single family lots that could hold. Jentz said approximately .6 acre of th 2.9 acre site was flat. This site could accommodate 4 traditional 7,000 sq. ft. R-3 single family lots, however, he cautioned that an applicant could propose a single family lot configuration that allowed portions of the lot to extend out over the bluffs. Several Board members felt that and it should be zoned R-3. request that if the board was ni package, they did not want tc example annexation and zonin€ Montana Annexation statutes, t the site should be inside the city Jentz re -iterated the applicants A prepared to approve the entire receive a partial approval, for only. Jentz stated that under he City could not forcibly annex the property unless the owner consented, and in this case the owner is not consenting unless the condo project approval is included. MOTIONS Stevens moved and Heinecke seconded to adopt staff report #KCU- 99-1 as findings of fact and recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions. Roll call vote: Greg Stevens and Rob Heinecke voted Aye. Don Hines, Don Mann, Keith Brian Sipe, Jean Johnson and Don Garberg voted No. The motion failed on a vote of 2 in favor, 5 against and 1 excused. Jentz stressed the importance of board actions with findings and the need to express them so there is a basis for the negative recommendation. Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999 Page 11 of 12 Garberg moved that the board deny the applications #KA-99-2 Annexation and Zoning, #KCU-99-1 Conditional Use Permit and #KPP-99-1 Preliminary Plat Approval based on public comments, C safety, incompatibility to the single family neighborhood, and insufficient design to meet preliminary plat criteria. Don Mann seconded. On a roll call vote: Don Mann, Don Garberg, Jean Johnson, and Don Hines voted Aye. Rob Heinecke, Keith Brian Sipe, and Greg Stevens voted No. The motion passed to deny the applications on a vote of 4 in favor, 3 against and 1 excused. Brenneman returned to the board. NEW BUSINESS Jentz reported that the previous nomination for member -at -large had been denied and asked for nominations to the member -at - large board position. It was questioned, and explained, that the new board (the board seated in January) has to nominate the member -at -large position as well as the new council and commissioners voting on acceptance. Brenneman nominated Richard Kuhl and Stevens nominated Michael Frazier. The board voted 4 in favor and 4 against for each nomination. The Board agreed to send a slate of both nominations, Richard Kuhl and Michael Frazier, for the City Council to choose one. OLD BUSINESS The Board scheduled 5:30 to 6:30 p.m., Thursday, February 18th, for a work session to review master plan revisions. The meeting will be held at the Kalispell City Council Chambers. Johnson asked that the board members to please return their agenda packets to the recording secretary unless they wished to keep them. ;NT) The meeting was adjourned at approximately 1:30a.m. can Jo ins n, President -Tr`icia Las ecording Secretary Approved as submitt dew/ o � °/ / 99 Corrections: Page 11 - Unicore-- Board Discussion - Comments made by Jean Johnson "There was no technical information available as to the bore holes and it had to be available to make a determination on setbacks. The board had reviewed a similar sub- division with similar soils and minimum setbacks based on analyses was 35', therefore, that would negate their proposal. It.is physically impossible to back a car out of the parking areas (as shown on the—p-r-e-l-iminary plat) without hitting someone. They have (7)z.onsite drain system,design that wouldtotally undermine the formation and it is 0tally unacceptable in his mind. Kalispell City County Planning Board Motion for approval.. made by Stevens/ Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999 seconded by Mann. 3/9/99 Page 12 of 12