Loading...
Opposition to KGPA 24-01 etc Public Comment from Ming MunzingAimee Brunckhorst From: Ming Lovejoy <minglovejoy1 @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 6:35 PM To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment Subject: EXTERNAL Opposition to KGPA 24-01 etc. Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, We are writing to flesh out additional concerns regarding the proposed amendments to our city's growth policy, specifically related to the Tronstad Meadows / Whitetail Crossing development. These issues impact the immediate area but also set a concerning precedent for our community's development strategy. Make it Make Sense We listened intently to the staff report presented at the May 20th and the June 3rd city council meetings and looked at the packet included for your consideration. It states in the staff report argument in favor of amending the growth policy to accommodate what actually appears to be an island of 110.5 acres that "the area is becoming increasingly residential in nature and includes commercial, agricultural, and light industrial use." Also that "the area is becoming increasingly urban in nature," citing a list of approved, developing and developed subdivisions like Silverbrook Estates, Quail Meadows, Eagle Valley to the South, Stillwater Village to the south, Dusty Acres, and the Farm District on Hwy 93 at Church Drive. While this "broad brush stroke" report sounds compelling and maybe even convincing that the city is just growing in this direction and amending the current growth policy to spot zone this 110.5 acre island, makes sense, We'd like to give another perspective and paint another, perhaps more detailed and accurate picture - one that points out the omissions in the staff report and which is perhaps more in line with the feedback you've been receiving from residents who have expressed many valid concerns over real problems that no one-- not the city nor the applicant, have been able to adequately address with definitive solutions at this time. Consider this: Despite a year of city -developer collaboration and extensive efforts over the past 5 weeks to address public concerns from letters, comments, phone calls, and a petition supported by over 600 signatures, the issues raised have not been resolved satisfactorily. The preliminary plat and recent five -week push by city staff and applicants have yet to yield definitive, trustworthy long-term solutions. Do you think maybe more time is needed to conduct thorough investigations of points that have beenn repeatedly raised in order to get a true perspective that would enable the city of Kalispell to proceed wisely, judiciously, and to avoid any potential legal pitfalls? The reasons outlined above strongly suggest that the city might consider adopting a more deliberate and thorough approach instead of hastily approving a fragmented annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat for a single developer. This caution is particularly warranted given the city's apparent vested interest in acquiring a significant water resource, the impact of which could pose serious risks to neighboring wells. To date, the safety and implications of this water resource have not been adequately investigated nor understood. This perspective offers a more accurate reflection of the current land use and issues associated with the proposed 110.5-acre development. Additionally, the well planned community developments referenced in the staff report's argument for annexation are NOT contiguous in any way nor will they ever be (with the exception of 75' of the back of one of the lots in Quail Meadows, yet which offers ZERO assets, access, egress, etc. whatsoever, and is no way a convincing argument in favor of annexation of the proposed 110.5 acres. The developments mentioned in the staff report substantially differ from the proposed subdivision in the following ways: 1. They are planned communities -NOT just an island cluster of lots The subdivisions cited in the staff report to support annexation are well -established, planned communities developed by local entities familiar with our community's needs in mind. In contrast, the proposed Tronstad Meadows / Whitetail Crossing consists merely of a preliminary plat map, offering lots intended for individual sale. Claims of providing "affordable" housing suitable for service members have proven misleading and should not justify project approval. Moreover, the development raises significant concerns about traffic management on Hwy 93, the adequacy of Tronstad Road for increased traffic, and overall safety. It lacks the infrastructure necessary for a walkable-bikeable community and the upgrades required for Whitefish Stage Road to function as a "major collector." Community feedback reflects profound doubts about the developer's ability to positively transform this area or address these critical issues effectively. 2. The Subdivisions Mentioned as Argument for Amending and Annexing Have adequate access and egress - Tronstad Meadows / Whitetail Crossing Does Not The subdivisions referenced in the staff report all feature well -designed infrastructure that adequately supports access and egress, including connections to major highways capable of handling increased traffic volumes. In stark contrast, Tronstad Meadows / Whitetail Crossing relies solely on an unimproved county road for access and egress. This road is plagued by three blind hills, winter drifting issues, deep roadside ditches, and weight restrictions, which collectively pose significant safety risks. Additionally, this development would complicate jurisdictional responsibility over a one -mile stretch of Tronstad Road, creating an inefficient mix of city and county oversight that has yet to be satisfactorily addressed. Literally, from Hwy 93, Tronstad rd will be: city -county -city -county -city -county. Crucially, there are no clear solutions or timelines for necessary traffic safety improvements at Hwy 93 or for the proposed long-term enhancements to Whitefish Stage Road, raising serious concerns about the feasibility and safety of the project. 3. Local Developers with a Stake in Our Community vs. Out of State Developers who have no Real Connection to our Community While Tronstad Meadows / Whitetail Crossing utilizes two local representatives as the public faces of the project, the primary financial backing comes from CAE Properties and Elcan & Associates, firms based in Mobile, Alabama. This large national company has a history of extensive developments across the country. The plan to develop 380 lots on just 110.5 acres seems to prioritize rapid financial returns over genuine community integration or long-term investment in our area. Critics of the project have described it as a "hit and run" strategy by an out-of-state developer more interested in quick profits than in contributing positively to our community's growth and cohesion. 4. Lack of Transparency & Ulterior motives Many neighbors and community members have observed an eager push by the city of Kalispell, which seems to have been collaborating closely with the developer behind closed doors for nearly a year. Despite repeated inquiries about the development of the 110.5-acre parcel, local officials maintained there were no plans in place, assuring us repeatedly that "nothing was on the books." Interestingly, within weeks of such denials, neighborhood residents received notices about a planning board meeting for the proposed subdivision. This pattern of secrecy, culminating in a sudden invitation to a planning board meeting with only two weeks' notice, raises serious questions about transparency. Adding to the concerns, I had a direct conversation with the developer, Dan Elcan, who indicated that the city's interest in acquiring a water resource on the property might be driving their keen support of the project. This apparent ulterior motive for fast -tracking the development, despite substantial safety, traffic, water rights. Water safety, and infrastructure concerns, suggests that the city's decision -making process might not be fully aligned with community welfare or transparency. Could it be that this ulterior motive may be a driver for the city staff to lack transparency even at the inquiry of multiple neighbors and to promote and push this project so heavily and rapidly despite many contraindications of safety, traffic, access/egress, emergency services/maintenance access in winter months, traffic light at 93 and lack of development of Whitefish Stage as has been stated could be 5-10 years off? Consider This - Questioning the Rush to Rezone Please reflect on this: Surrounding the proposed Tronstad Meadows / Whitetail Crossing are properties zoned largely as SAG 5, SAG 10, some SAG 2.5, and commercial, each with its distinct land use and regulations. Simply because these areas are designated as residential, agricultural, and commercial does not automatically validate the placement of 380 lots on a mere 110 acres, creating a fragmented, spot -zoned landscape. This development requires extensive research and viable solutions for substantial concerns before any approval. The sole access to this proposed subdivision is via Tronstad Road, a narrow, unimproved county road notorious for heavy snow drifts, three blind hills, and seasonal weight restrictions. Proceeding with the development under current conditions could significantly disrupt traffic flow, escalating risks on a road that transitions from city to county jurisdiction multiple times within just a mile. Such an arrangement would likely result in a complicated, unmanageable mix of responsibilities that has yet to be thoroughly planned or addressed. Voting yes to these proposals today on Tronstad Rd alone will create a patchwork of city (93 intersection) - county (road from 93 to Quail Meadows) -city (Quail Meadows) -county (between Quail Meadows and proposed subdivision) -city (proposed Tronstad Meadows/Whitetail Crossing) -county (the remaining 'i2 mile of Tronstad Rood to WHitefish Stage Rd.) Before voting on these proposals, can the city of Kalispell say absolutely and exactly who will be responsible for and who will actually maintain this patchwork of 3 unconnected sections of city road and 3 unconnected sections of county road on Tronstad? Do you think it would be wise to have this and a host of other legitimate and problematic questions answered before you proceed? We'd like to bring it to your attention that the citing of other subdivisions in the vicinity that are not contiguous to this proposed site as a way to validate amending, annnexing, rezoning, and approving a preliminary plat that is full of errors and omissions, may appear on the surface to create a smooth argument, but it leaves out significant realities that must be factored in if you are looking to make a comprehensive, strategic and wise decision. Also, we urge you to look at other motives that may increase the city's eagerness to annex: namely to get access to an abundant known water source. Please consider a wise path forward that includes a focused look into the effect of the city drilling its own well and potentially impacting and impinging on neighboring wells and neighbors' water rights before voting yes on any of this. The truth is, that there is absolutely no contiguous city property with the exception of 75' along the back fence of the Quail Meadows subdivision —offering no assets at all and no potential for access or egress. It's difficult to find any sense at all in the current proposal given all the other issues and problems that are at play. The entirety of the proposed 110.5 acre site is bordered to the north by SAG 10, SAG 5 and some 2.5., with no access or egress or additional property to be annexed. To the east, SAG 5,170 acres belonging to Robert Koenig, who has made it clear (cf statements on record also made by Tim Koenig) that the family intends to maintain its SAG 5 zoning, divide the land among family members, with no interest in selling it off or being annexed into the city. To the south of Tronstad Rd, is all rural residential with mixed sized lots from 1 acre to large parcels, including Sirucek Lane and all of the subdivision of Ponderosa Pines. Please note that when city staff report cites that the "area is becoming increasingly residential in nature," please note it's already been residential - rural residential, agricultural, with some commercial. The residents of these rural areas are completely uninterested in being annexed into the city. The western border of the proposed 110.5-acre development site is zoned some rural residential in our neighborhood of Tronstad Drive (in the county), yet largely zoned for commercial and light industrial use (SAG 10) along the western border. In conversations with business owners along this border, including representatives from the Humane Society, Greg Bain, Kettle Care, the First Class Grass Dispensary, Montana Fence, and Montana Digital, a consistent theme emerged: none expressed any interest in being annexed into the city. The feedback ranged from strong rejections such as "No way in Hell" to "Why would I do that? "No thanks" and "Not a chance." Both Eric Wutke of Montana Fence and Chris Galloway of Montana Digital, whose property shares a 1200-foot border and who has an 18' utility easement on the western edge of the proposed project that he mentioned must remain accessible, echoed the above sentiments. Misrepresentation of Contiguious Commercial Interests and Lack of Consultation There is a notable disparity between the positions of these local businesses and commercial properties and the city staff reports regarding annexation. These businesses appreciate their "special commercial" zoning status, which allows them more operational freedom, lower taxes, and fewer restrictions —factors critical for their growth and sustainability. Despite their clear disinterest in annexation, these sentiments appear to be either overlooked or misrepresented by city planning efforts, which have presented the area as ripe for high - density development. This misalignment highlights a lack of genuine consultation and misrepresentation of business interests in the planning process. Spot Zoning Concerns Moreover, the proposed rezoning to accommodate this single, large-scale development project appears to be a clear case of spot zoning, which is typically defined as the application of zoning to a specific parcel of land within a larger zoned area when the rezoning is usually at odds with a city's master plan and existing zoning restrictions. This practice is generally considered exclusionary and unjust, benefiting only a specific entity while disregarding the broader community interests and existing rights of adjacent property owners. Call for a Thorough Reevaluation In conclusion, the proposal to annex the 110.5 acres for the Tronstad Meadows / Whitetail Crossing development significantly diverges from the community's established interests and the principles of sustainable growth, as emphasized by the widespread disapproval from the community, neighbors, local businesses and the potential misalignment with current Growth Policy Amendment Statutes that require amendments to a growth policy integrate communities by creating connectecd walkable-bikeable neighborhoods and don't favor one developer or individual minterests over the greater good of the community. Does the city council have enough information to provide certainty to the public this evening that all of these concerns have been sufficiently addressed? Please see also potential need for compliance with Montana Land Use and Planning Statute 7-2-4325 © if applicable, attached below. The prevailing commercial and light industrial zoning, valued by entities such as the Humane Society, Kettle Care, and Montana Digital for its flexibility and lower tax implications, starkly contrasts with the proposed high density residential development. These businesses, integral to the economic fabric of our area, have largely expressed their opposition to being annexed into the city, highlighting a significant discrepancy between the actual community sentiment and how it is portrayed in city staff reports. This consistent opposition, coupled with concerns about inadequate infrastructure, environmental impacts, and a lack of transparency, underscores the need for a more thoughtful approach to community planning. It is crucial that any development aligns with the genuine needs and growth strategies of the existing community, rather than imposing unsuitable changes that could lead to long-term detrimental effects on both the social and environmental landscape of the area. It is also important that we don't overlook any special interests which could cause the city to have an inherent prejudice that could cause them not to be as circumspect as they might be advisable. Therefore, we urge the City Council to reconsider the proposed amendments, taking into account the substantial community opposition, the strategic misrepresentations by city planning reports, and the need for adherence to state land use statutes that demand a comprehensive and consultative approach to urban development. Let us prioritize a development strategy that truly reflects the best interests of all stakeholders, fostering an environment where both existing businesses and residents can thrive without the undue burden of ill- conceived growth policies. Respectfully and Sincerely, Ming and Dan Munzing 213 Tronstad Rd., Kalispell PS — Please see Montana's 2021 Land Use and Planning Statutes should they be relevant. Thank you. El.. .... .................. ........ . ... ......... ......... ........ ...... ....... ... ........... El.. .... .................. ........ . ... ......... ......... ........ ...... ....... ... ........... El.. .... .................. ........ . ... ......... ......... ........ ...... ....... ... ........... El.. .... .................. ........ . ... ......... ......... ........ ...... ....... ... ........... El.. .... .................. ........ . ... ......... ......... ........ ...... ....... ... ...........