Loading...
Citizen Letters of Protest550 4th Ave. E.N. Kalispell, MT 59901 28 Apr 99 City of Kalispell -City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: Chokecherry Ridge Development Dear Mayor and City Council Members: This letter is in opposition to the above development. Since this will be the second time this project has been presented, you have heard many objections including traffic problems, bank instability, potential contamination of the wetlands, parking, and adequacy of existing water sewer lines to mention a few. These are all concerns that need to be evaluated carefully as to their merits. The one concern that has dominated the three previous public meetings on this project is the incompatibility of these units with the rest of neighborhood. To cram ten units into so small a space is totally out of character with the surrounding housing. To approve this development in its current form will set an undesirable precedent. The last planning board meeting approved this project provided that they adhered to a 20 foot setback from the edge of the bank. If this requirement is met, ten units will be unfeasible.The developers propose to dig down into the bank creating walkin basements thus gaining the 20 foot setback due the bank slope. To disturb the bank in this manner is to risk creating an unstable situation. Neither the owners or the developers will live on this site, thus they have no vested interest in the neighborhood or the impact this development will have. Six units on this site would seem to be the most that would comfortably fit and still be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. Again I would ask that this project be denied in its present form. Thank you for your consideration. Respectful , J Robley rr April 27, 1999 City of Kalispell -City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT. 59903 Re: Choke Cherry Ridge annexation, zone change Dear City Council, I am writing this letter in opposition to the Choke Cherry Ridge project. It is proposed for the North side of East California Street, at the end of 5Tn and 6 h Ave E.N. I have been very concerned with this project since its appearance before the Planning Board. In reviewing all of the pros and cons, that Board ruled against the project due to the neighborhood impact and the change that is not in keeping with the current uses, the fact that it could not fit on the parcel of land that is provided, there was not adequate snow storage area, and certain questions on how stable that steep slope is. As I understand it, they were able to present it to the City Council, and your body sent it back to the Planning Board for consideration of certain changes. When it appeared before the Planning Board, the project had changed to move to only ten feet from the bank instead of the twenty feet from the bank, and the buildings were two five plexes instead of the two four plexes and a duplex. It appears that the project is less in compliance with the Planning Boards wishes than before. There has been a great deal of opposition to this project, yet it keeps coming back, and coming back. I believe that everyone has stated the negative impacts that this development will create, so I won't repeat what has been said. Please put an end to this by voting against the Choke Cherry Ridge development on East California Street. Sincerely, Florence Tigges 502 East California Kalispell, MT. 59901 s 484 Sth Avenue East North Kalispell, Montana 59901 April 28, 1999 Mayor Boharsk, Mr. Al Thielen, and Members of the Kalispell City Council Kalispell City Hall Kalispell, Montana 59901 Gentlemen: This is my second letter to you regarding the proposed Choke Cherry Ridge condominium project by Unicore Development Inc. and the Vincents for the property on California Street between Fifth and Sixth Avenues East North. As co-owner of the home at 476 5th Avenue East North I again wish to go on record urging the denial of this project t as proposed. ® There will be increased traffic. Entry on to Oregon (an east/west connection between High- ways 93 and 2, and major east/west thoroughfare to and from Whitefish Stage) is extremely difficult to access now. With an estimated twenty cars at two round trips per day, an additional forty to eighty vehicles will pass in this neighborhood daily. This is a significant increase in traffic. . ® A two -thirds -acre building site is inadequate for the proposed development. The rest of the acreage is sloped, unsuitable for development, and part of the natural, protected water and wildlife habitat adjacent to Lawrence Park on the Stillwater River. The Vincents' "generous" gift to the city for park land tranfers ownership and eliminates taxes. Visual perception of Lawrence Park will remain the same no matter who owns it. ® Stability of the land is in question. Mr. Jean Johnson, a member on the Flathead County City Planning Board has stated that the soil structure here is similar to that of other areas where considerable sloughing has already occurred. Mr. Steve Kountz, former member of the Planning Board, also told me that test holes had been dug and there were indications of fill. Having lived here in this neighborhood since 1946, I have seen the changes that have taken place through the years: fill, small fissures, and sliding shrubs, etc. It would seem most appropriate and not unreasonable to require additional testing the site by uali .ed engineer who represents neither the developers nor those of us who are against this development The engi- neer hired by the Vincents and Unicore Development, Inc., Mr. Guditis, says the five test holes show stabil- ity, yet three of those holes contain fill. How unthinkable it would be for innocent purchasers to find their property structurally weakened by sloughing through an unforseen act of nature. Mr. Guditis, when ques- tioned at the Planning Board meeting, admitted that he had had occasions where nature and he failed to agree. y I am commited to speak out against this condo project: Long time family friends built their home and garage on land across from Mild Fence Company on Whitefish Stage in the late forties or early fifties. They built a road at the back of the property that allowed traffic to circle the garage and home. The road is no longer there due to sloughing and erosion. The property was purchased by its present owner less than ten years ago. In a recent conversation with the new owner, I learned that twenty feet of the land at the back of the gee had sloughed off a year ago after the "bia" snow making use of the existing garage unsafe. That explained why the new garage sits out in the middle of the property! Heavy equipment opera- tors have declared the land unsafe because of the instability of the land. A contractor recently suggested that the owner move the house, but at this time, that is not an option due to the high cost involved. Estimates indicate there might be fifteen years before the house will have to be moved. Incidentally, this property looks across to the proposed condo site, overlooks the same natural area, and sits on land of similar composition to the proposed site! Several other neighboring property owners are fighting similar land erosion. My friend Tom would never have built his home and garage where he did had he had even the slightest suspicion that the banks were so unstable. He would have set his house further in, away from the banks. Now it is his successor, also my friend, who is left with these uncertain and costly repairs. Sloughing might never happen on the proposed condo site, but that possibility does exist. Should such sloughing occur sometime in the future, who will be held accountable? It won't be the Vincents or the developers. They will have taken their profits and be gone. Is the city prepared to assume this liability and be held accountable? You, as members of the City Council, have the power to okay or deny this project or at least require a significant downsizing of said project. The most important part of any construction is the foundation on which it is built. Though "appearing" safe now, what about twenty, thirty, or forty years from now? ® Other concerns: Snow removal, earthquakes, fire protection (the nearest hydrants are 1 1/2 blocks away), and safety to pedestrians and children. ® At our meeting with the City Council on March 15th, Brenda Vincent made it very clear that the development of this project was indeed monetary. This would be their retirement income. She wasn't inter- ested in what was compliant or best for our neighborhood. She lep aded with us to come up with suggestions. We did! We suggested sted two, three, or four single family dwellings that would be in compliance with this existing, neighborhood. They didn't even hear us! Also, a Realtor spoke in favor of this project. Representing a prospective client, she,too, looks at personal gain: two sales -- one of these units and the client's home! We were instructed to speak to the council during our opportunity to voice our opinions for or against this project. Mrs. Vincent addressed us. We were allowed three minutes; she was given more. We had no p ortunity to respond. Obviously, ten units will generate much more revenue than will two, three, or four single family homes. ® Site visitation by every board member is encouraged. Envision ten complexes cramped into this small triangular space, add two cars to each unit, place boats, recreational vehicles, trailers, whatever. Visualize the congestion. Where is the "greenspace"? Water will run off. Where? Into the street or polluting the river below? These are questions that should be major concerns, not only to us, but to you who dictate planning and zoning that makes and keeps our city and county residential areas attractive, uncluttered, and undefiled. To be totally objective, the site must be visited by every voting member in order to arrive at a for or against decision. Anything can look good on paper, but the actual project, once completed, is long term reality. The developers and the Vincents have claimed that we are unfair and do not care. It is because we do care that we are involved in this matter of preserving the character and integrity of our neighborhood. We would be dishonest if we did not readily admit that we would like the parcel of land to remain as is, but we know this will never happen. We know there will be development and we are not opposed to development as long as the development is appropriate and compliant with what is already existing. Zoning is necessary to preserve and protect what is already there. Nowhere in all of the East North part of Kalispell is there a project such as this. The nearest multi -family unit is a "low income" rental four -plea at the corner of Oregon and Seventh Avenue East North. Our neighborhood is composed of older single family dwellings. Signed peti- tions, with approximately 100 neighborhood signatures against this condo project, were previously submit- ted. This should tell you how we feel about this project. No matter how it figures -- 4+4+2 or 5+5 -- both development proposals total 10, a number we feel is entirely too dense and most inappropriate for this small building site in this single family neighborhood. They have not improved their development proposal; they have only changed the configuration! I submit the picture taken from the window in the living room at the front of my house. As you can see, I am not speaking out because my view will be blocked! I reheat, none of us are against development. We just want appropriate development. We have suggested sted that the building of two, three, or four single family homes would be conforming and acceptable. Please protect our single family neighborhood by denying this ten -unit condominium project. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, 494 5th Avenue East North Kalispell, MT 59901 April 26, 1999 City of Kalispell City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Dear Mayor Boharski, City Manager Thelen, and City Council Members: This letter Is to express my concern and opposition to the conditional use permit and preliminary plat approval for construction of a 10-unit condominium project known as Chokecherry Ridge, located on the north side of East California Street between 5th and 6th Avenues East North. Several factors make this proposed project unfeasible. The main problem is that this type of unit--2 5-unit condominiums, or rowhouses, is very definitely NOT compatible with this neighborhood of single family homes. Nowhere in this area do any residences even closely resembling this proposed project exist. The introduction of these units will definitely have a negative impact on the value of our neighborhood properties. Second, the increased traffic flow on East California Street and other East North streets and avenues would introduce a very dangerous situation in this quiet neighborhood. Not one of the intersections on East California uses stop signs, and we residents continually play "intersection roulette" as we make our way into and out of this section of Kalispell. Introducing an additional estimated minimum of 100 vehicle trips per day from the project would definitely increase the probability of accidents. There are very few sidewalks in this area, and anyone who chooses to walk, jog, or ride a bicycle- -activities which many local residents are currently free to enjoy --will no longer be an option because of this increased danger. Third, the proposed project is to be located on .66 acres. The conditions required by the Flathead Regional Development Office include a minimum 20-foot setback from the edge of the bank. This small area means that nearly the entire lot will be covered with condominium units and parking spaces. There will be no yard space, or green space, or room for anything else. This is a far cry from the yards of the neighborhood residents, who can and do have plenty of room for flower and vegetable gardens, fruit and shade trees, and play and picnic areas for children and guests. The current owners of the property wish to make a substantial profit from their investment to help provide for their retirement years. We ca n Understand that, of course. They even made a plea for an alternative plan, if this 10-unit project were to be unfeasible. 2 or 3 single family homes would be an appropriate addition to our neighborhood and would fit nicely on that property. There would be plenty of space for yard activities as well as parking. The traffic safety problems would be minimized, and compatibility with surrounding homes would be established. We in this area are not opposed to development, nor do we wish the current owners not to profit from the sale of their property. However, we do feel that the proposal will not work here. Another factor I am curious about is the tactic used by the attorney -for the developer of the project, At the last City Council meeting where the project was discussed (March 15, 1999), he was allowed much more than the prescribed 3 minutes for his presentation, a presentation which differed substantially from the one shown at the Planning Board meeting of February 9 and which had not yet been shown to the public. Again, at the Planning Board meeting of April 13, he was very adamant about getting the lion's share of presentation and rebuttal time, a share that he apparently felt was his right, and was not going to be stopped by anyone, including the Chairman of the Planning Board. As basically a novice in the world of civic proceedings, I wonder if this is the accepted way this business is accomplished. If verbal threats and bullying are the strategies used to push this project through, we in the neighborhood who felt we were protected by zoning laws and conditional use provisions may be forced to concede. I personally invite Council Members to view the site of this proposed development to see for yourselves the nature of our neighborhood and to see why this planned 10-unit condom inium/rowhouse project does not fit here. This is the type of project that may more appropriately be built at the south edge of Kalispell where other buildings comparable to the proposed project already exist. I strongly urge the City Council Members NOT to approve the conditional use permit and preliminary plat request as it is presented. It does not appear to be able to fit on the small lot and definitely does not fit in this neighborhood. It is way too much project on way too little land area. Mary, J. heman April27, 1999 476 5th Avenue East North Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mayor Boharski, City Manager. Al Thielan and Members of the City Council: I am writing this to address my concerns and my opposition to the proposed annexation, R-3 zoning, preliminary plat and conditional use permit approval for the 10 unit Chokecherry Ridge project requested by Unicore Development, Inc., on behalf of John J. and Brenda Lee Vincent. The above proposed changes concern the land located on the north side of East California Street between 5th and 6th Avenues East North. I strongly urge that you give consideration to the recommendations that were made by the City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission and to the strong opposition of the entire neighborhood. I ask that each of you drive by this site, try to envision the two 5-unit complexes with 20-foot set- backs, the extra guest parking and the green area. It is impossible to even consider placing this number of units, with parking, due to the the size of the site, only .66 of an acre of buildable space. If you take the time to do this, you, too, will agree that: 1) This project is too dense and inappropriate for this site; 2) The project is incompatible in a neighborhood that consists of older single family homes and 3) There are safety concerns - bank stability and increased traffic. If you do not take the time to drive by and study this site, how can you make a clear decision on this project? Anyone can make anything look good on paper, but to be able to make the most accurate and concise decision, you must visit this site and take into consideration the many questions and concerns of the neighbors. Next, I urge that you ask yourselves the following questions. Are these engineering tests 100% accurate or is there room for error? According to Mr. Guditis, the developers' engineer, (when asked at the recent planning board meeting if any of his testings had been in error,) agreed that sometimes the tests show that an area is stable but Mother Nature intervenes and dictates otherwise. But what happens when the bank begins to give way and the condos are threatened? The developers and the Vincents are no longer involved. Who is responsible then? Will the stabilizing of the bank then become the city's expense? The answers to the above mentioned questions and concerns have not been addressed. I ask you, clearly, how can a project of this size safely be constructed here? Another concern is the increased traffic. Although the Flathead Regional Development Office did not see this increase in traffic as a concern, it is. Traffic flow will increase on California, 5th and 6th Avenues and eventually Oregon. Oregon has seen a dramatic increase in traffic just this year --not only from neighborhood vehicles but those who use it in their daily commute to and from work. Oregon has become a shortcut to the west from Hwy. 2 and the major street to and from Whitefish Stage. With an assumed 20 extra vehicles, this will make a dramatic increase in the already heavy traffic flow. Will we have to wait for a serious accident to occur before the increase in traffic flow is addressed? I truly believe that the Developers and the Vincents only wish to profit from this project. If this were not true, the project would be scaled down to one that is appropriate for the available .66 of an acre that is there to build on. We are all tired of the battle with this controversial project. We are not against development and we know that at some point development is going to take place, but it must be development that is suitable for the site and be compatible with the existing older single family homes. It has been said numerous times, that we as the neighbors do not care, but we do or we wouldn't be here fighting for a project that will be a perfect match, not only for this unique site but also for our neighborhood. It is my understanding that the purpose for the Planning Board and the City Council meetings is to protect and maintain the integrity and compatibility of a neighborhood. If this understanding is correct, I urge you to consider the strong neighborhood concerns and opposition to the size of the project, our desire for neighborhood continuity and, ultimately, whose responsibility it would be if the bank gives way. The developers have even proposed giving the city about .8 acre of slope, wetland and open space that would become part of Lawrence Park. What benefit is this "gift" to Lawrence Park? Lawrence Park will not change its present makeup in any way. What about the taxes that are currently being paid on this .8 acre? Or is this not important? I again urge you to give consideration to the strong neighborhood opposition, our concerns due to the inappropriate size of the project for this small site, our many safety concerns, and the incompatibility in this neighborhood. Please vote to deny this project. Sincerely, Jeri Anderson City of Kalispell -City, Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, _T.%4T 59903 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: 494 5th Ave. E.N. Kalispell, MT 59901 April 20, 1999 I would like to take this opportunity to express my concern and opposition to the proposed Choke Cherry Ridge 10 unit row -house (condo) plan to be located on the north side of East California St. between 5th and 6th Ave. E.N. Several factors combine to make this proposed row -house project unfeasible: First of all, the neighborhood located along California St. from 6th. Ave. E.N. westward along the river bluff to North in St. across from the golf -course is comprised almost exclusively of older well -kept single-family homes. There is not a single condominium to be found, much less a pair of 145 foot long row -houses which Unicore Development Inc. proposes to build. Secondly, the increased traffic flow on East California St. and adjacent East North streets and avenues would introduce a very dangerous situation during the early morning and early evening rush hours since none of the intersections on East California St. are protected by stop signs. located on a 2.6 acre site, in reality, this site contains only about.66 or 2/3 of an acre of land where development is even possible. The remaining 2.0 acres are comprised of steep sloping hillsides and flooded bottom lands that are under water and therefore unsuited for anything. Since 2/3 of an acre contains about 29000 square feet, in reality what the developer is proposing to build is a pair of 145 foot long row -houses which would contain the 10 condo units. This would assign about 2900 square feet of land for each condo unit, far less than the 7000 square feet required for R-3 zoning. ir 11 1 I �� i iw� 1111i:lillll� 11��Ilr;iri m2murn = in question is a beautiful site, but not for this project. This site would be able to accomodate two or three large single family homes or at most, two or three well designed duplexes which would comfortably fit in with the existing neighborhood. I therefore urge you to reject this condo -row -house project in favor of one that is more compatible with the existing neighborhood. Thank You, CL Steve Cheman 461 E. California Kalispell, MT March 15, 1999 what we are telling you. Please vote in the present homeowner's best interest. When you make your ,tecision, please as yourselves, "Would I vote in favor *f this zone change if this development were next door or across the street from my home? Would I mind the traffic, the noise or loss of view?" a ffm M- 12, Arla & Kerry Culver March 12, 1999 City of Kalispell %Mayor Boharski and City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT. 59903 Re: Unicore Development/Vincent (Council consideration 3/15/99 meeting) * Annexation request * Zoning map amendment * Conditional use permit * Preliminary plat approval Dear Mayor Boharski and City Council Members; This letter is in opposition to the above requests by Unicore Development and the Vincents. This proposed development would be a radical change to the existing neighborhood use. There is not any other developments in this part of the city. The people that live in this neighborhood would see a devalue of their property if this development is approved. The lot itself is too small to fit the units proposed, it sits on questionable fill material, would create a great deal of traffic on a quiet street, and would change the character of this neighborhood forever. Please vote in opposition to this development. TY a k Y9U, i Don Anderson Written for Florence Tigges, my Mother, who lives directly opposite this proposed development dja. (city.let) n Q V) I L 4J i I I 5T- ;P<:k1w- Ap �kl A-L _ rs r'VA n. () rt✓,,rY,aY1A My Ai-: , nA s ;r, I , . -t-t , /'-, \-.: _e ..._ _..,�.� __� �._�, ._ � � m��1__ G.'�...__�.te...._�' �_Ea �(�-.�'1 ✓\_� �.. _ __l_�� t_C?.�.�_._ _ _... �h.`s_� _�. � ..__�E'A1C2.a°1.�'`iS—. Ali __1 ? nC-, C\VAa 7e A, t nCn �- AC3i ;A 1<) r A 1 (A t7P 484 8th Avenue East North Kalispell, Montana 59901 March 10, 1999 Mayor Boharski Members of City Council City Hall - First Avenue East Kalispell, Montana 59901 Dear Mayor Boharski and City Council Members: As a recipient of the letter of notification for the meeting of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission that was held February 9, 1999, regarding the petitions by Unicore Development Inc., I attended that meeting and spoke out against this project. After hearing Tom Jentz's presentation, I was even more convinced that this was not a project for the lot north of California Street between 5th and 6th Avenues East North. I would like to address this same project with you, Mayor Boharski, and members of the City Council. I hope that each of you have had the opportunity to view the proposed site and had time to study the developers' proposed plans. The result of that meeting was a denial and the recommendation from Tom Jentz was that the project should be revised. My opposition to this development is as follows: ® As Tom pointed out, two four-plexes and one duplex was "cramming" too much into too small a space. Cars could not back out of designated parking from one four-plex and the other four-plex at the same time. Ten foot setbacks from California and twenty to thirty-five foot setbacks from the sides and back of the proposed site further diminished the building site size. ® Steve Kountz, a former employee in the City -County Planning office, told me soil samples taken from the site were of the same or similar soil composition as that in the Twin Bridges area where severe slumping has occurred. ® The actual building site space is much less than the 2.6 acres as suggested because a sizeable amount of this acreage lies below the visible portion of this site. • In all subdivisions adjacent to and annexed into the city of Kalispell, lot sizes are generally one-half acre or more in size and are classified as single family dwelling residential. Under its present designation, R-1 Suburban Residential, this property must have a minimum lot size of one acre and be a single dwelling residence, not multi -family. If it is necessary to have these lot size requirements to avoid overcrowding in these situations, how then can ten dwellings be justified in an area as small as this just because it would reside within city limits? ® In an R-3 designation, cluster development dwellings are permitted. I feel multi -dwellings as proposed for this site will create an unpleasant congested appearance as well as cause a heavy traffic flow that will be detrimental to this neighborhood. If one assumes there will be two cars (or more) per unit, and there are ten units, -that will be an additional twenty cars trafficking Fifth and Sixth Avenues and California Street at various times during the day. Is there room allowed for storing boats, trailers, RV's, whatever, and what about snow removal? ® If one takes into consideration the winter of 1996/1997 with its enormous snowfall, there was little more than single lane traffic due to the plowing of only the center of these three roadways. Neighborhood residents could not park on California Street or 5th and 6th avenues without creating hazardous driving conditions. There were times when emergency vehicles could not have gone down these streets if there were cars parked across from each other. The city must recognize that a repeat of that snowfall could happen even though we have not seen anything even close to that in the past two winters. Even if there is designated off street parking for these condominiums, there will be times when there will be on street parking when guests visit. ® If there are resident children, where will they play? In the streets? Definitely unsafe! The report given on local television news coverage following that meeting said neighbors were emphatic that this should be a park. That was mentioned but it was not the general consensus of the majority, and one speaker strongly stated that a park here would be inappropriate. A park would attract children, and considering the instability of this land and the banks, I think this would be a rather hazardous place for them to play. Fencing would only encourage exploration of the boundaries on the other side. It is true that the East North is the only part of Kalispell that has no park, but I do not feel this is the place for one. ® The immediate area below is a protected natural area, water and wildlife protected. The land has always been deemed unstable by those of us who have lived in this neighborhood twenty years or more. Mr. Jean Johnson on the Planning Board questioned the stability of this land. It has been said that engineers can stabilize the land. I would assume that some of this work would have to be done from below. Wouldn't this work violate this natural area? ® My understanding of planning and zoning is to preserve, not destroy or alter, an existing neighborhood. This East North part of town is primarily made up of older homes. This particular neighborhood is not an affluent neighborhood, but we all live in single family homes and we take pride in our properties. The proposed project is very out of character and would have a negative impact on this neighborhood. I have talked to several neighbors and haven't found anyone who would object to one, two, or three single family homes in this space, but they do object to a multi -family complex such as the proposed condominium units. ® These developers have an investment though they paid much less when they purchased it several years ago than what it would now cost in today's inflated market. The more they can squeeze onto the land, the greater their profit. Once completed and sold, they can move on to something else leaving no protection to the purchasers. If I had all the money in the world, I would not purchase any building built on this site just because of the instability of this land. It is true I would have a nice view, but I could never have a guarantee that inch by inch my yard would not be downsized by a slump. We have already seen bushes "disappear" due to slumping during wet periods. ® In the same telecast as previously mentioned, it was brought out that there had been annual proposals for that site in excess of ten years. All have been denied! That certainly says something. We as neighbors have appreciated the openness of the north end of our streets. We value the views that we have overlooking the river and the mountains and the thrill of seeing deer as they graze at night. However, we know we cannot stand in the way of development, nor would we want to. However, we are proud of our neighborhood, and if there is any development, we would like to see that it conforms to what already exists. As a co-owner of the home at 476 5th Avenue East North, I strongly urge that these petitions be denied and the proposed condominium project be rejected. Thank you for your con- sideration. Very truly yours, ,6'� C1araEllen Anderson March 9, 1999 Mayor Boharski City Council Members City of Kalispell City Hall Kalispell, Montana 59901 Dear Mayor Boharski and Members of the City Council: I am writing to share with you my opposition to the proposed Choke Cherry Ridge project that is being presented to the council at your March 15, 1999 meeting by Unicore Development, Inc. for and on behalf of John and Brenda Lee Vincent. They request four items: proposed annexation, a zone change, a conditional use permit and preliminary plat approval. These four items involve land that is located on the north side of California Street between 5`h Avenue East North and 6'h Avenue East worth here in Kalispell. I am familiar with the process that is before you and respect you for your time and expertise in dealing with the above issue. I hope that as you listen to the proposal brought before you by the Developer, you will listen to the concerns of the neighbors affected by this new 10-unit development that is being proposed. I understand construction and how the building cycle works: i.e., owners hire developers, developers construct dwelling(s), owners and developers profit from the sale of the dwellings. I work with new construction every day, and because of that, I realize and know for a fact that the owners (the Vincent's) of this land and their developer (Unicore Development, Inc.) do not want this project denied because they would not profit from the proposed construction. I am not opposed to progress or new construction. Change is good, if it is done in a fashion most becoming to the surroundings. I am strongly opposed to the proposed Choke Cherry Ridge project for many reasons, a few and the most important, are listed below: 1. The site is to house the proposed 10-unit cluster development is not adequate for several reasons: soil composition, sloughing of the bank at rear of lot, possible set back restrictions, emergency vehicle turn -around space, and proper drainage. 2. It is my understanding that the proposal states that the site is 2.6 acres when in actuality the building area is approximately 2/3 +/- of an acre. That 2/3 +/- of an acre does not include the possible set back restrictions. 3. Neighborhood impact: A 10-unit cluster development is not compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood is comprised of single family, older homes (some remodeled in the past 10-15 years), and range in size from 900 sgft to 2,000 sqft. This complex would look like someone was trying to fit too much into too little space. 4. Property values would be decreased most likely due to this clustering of multiple dwellings. 5. Increased traffic flow is and has always been a concern. There are children in this neighborhood that ride their bikes in the street, play ball in the street, walk to Russell School and then return home again. What a tragedy it would be if the traffic would become as heavy as that of East Oregon just one block away. 6. The proposal states that there would be no on -street parking. Where are they planning to put all the resident vehicles? If these units are to have only one car garage storage, where do any additional vehicles park? Sooner or later there will be parking on the street because of snow, visitors, multiple cars and RV/Recreational vehicles. Who is going to suffer? Those who drive down California, 5"h Avenue East North and 6" Avenue East North, will have to pull off to let an on coming car go first. This already happens on 41h Avenue East North. It gets very congested, especially during the winter months. I do not feel that the Unicore, Development Inc's. proposal for Choke Cherry Ridge has given sufficient thought to the above mentioned issues and the concerns of the neighborhood. If any building is to be done, I feel that two, maybe three, single family homes would be a nice addition to the neighborhood, but not a 10-unit cluster development that would be overpowering in this neighborhood. Please consider the opposition of the neighbors affected by the proposed Choke Cherry Ridge project and its impact on the neighborhood and consider the recommendation of the City/County Planning Board and Zoning Commission as presented before you. Thank you for your consideration. Sincere-17y, Sue Ellynnderson 484 8tn Avenue East North Kalispell, Montana 59901 David and ehatiotte Coceg 580 461 lqvenme East North, Xalispell, MT 59901 (406) 25;7- 130-lr 5, 1999 To J ntz, Director Flathe d Regional Development Office 723 5 Avenue East, Room 414 alis ll, MT 59901 Dear Njr. Jentz, We ha e recently heen matte aware that the buyer of the lot located on Califoi nia Street East North between Fifth and Sixth Avenues has applied for an-3 zone classification. This classification would allow the buyer to constnct three two-story condominiums with ten units. The petitioner also plans t supply parking for twenty-three cars. As you know, this parcel is curreni ly zoned R-1, which allows for single-family dwellings to be constn icted at a density of one dwelling per acre. While this Iot totals roughl i nine acres, only about two of the acres are available for construction becau the remaining seven acres fall into marsh and wetlands created by the Stillwater River drainage. As prf rty owners in the neighborhood, we must strongly oppose this effort to buimultiple-family dwellings. Five years ago we were attracted to purch our property in this quiet neighborhood of Kalispell. We also chose to bur home because the surrounding zoning was R-1— single-family dwells. This was important to us because we wished to live in a quiet area withohe noise and traffic that accompany multiple -family dwellings. Our wisheave not changed. Reza ng this one lot R-3 would change the complexion of our quiet neigh orhood. We are aware that this rezoning would provide additional mone3 to the county and city tax coffers and furnish a healthy profit to the perso buying and developing this lot. We also understand that planning co ssioners have a responsibility to the tax -paying citizens who currently reside 'n this area. We have not spoken with one neighbor who favors this rezon' g request. any sidents o 1ar 4eighborhood are of retirement age _ .,nd do not dese to have an intnisive, o-story, m ltiple-family structure in their front c r side yard. Like us, our neighbors purchased their property in good faith, I elieving that no one would seek to change the personality of our neight Drhood. We urge the county planners to honor their responsibility and the re dents of this neighborhood. Make the right decision and deny the reques for rezoning this lot. Sincein ly, .c� cc:, ning .Board embers: Johnson ory Stevens Sipe Hines Garberg renneman Heinecke Mann 550 4th Ave. E.N. KALISPELL, MT 59901 R ��� _ 1999 7 Feb 99 F. R. D. O. Thomas R. Jentz, Planning Director Flathead Regional Development Office 723 5th Avenue East, Room 414 Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: Chokecherry Ridge Condo's Dear Mr. Jentz: This letter is in opposition to the proposed annexation and zoning change from County R-1 Suburban Residential to City R-3 Residential. Please consider the following objections to this development: 1. The East North area of Kalispell consists of single family homes and the construction of ten cluster development dwellings in this area would be a major departure from the current configuration of this residential area. To put such high density housing in such a small area is bound to create parking and storage problems, e.g. automobiles, RVs etc. leading to congestion in front of existing residences. 2. Traffic will become more of a problem than already exists as there is not a smooth access to the major thoroughfares, Whitefish Stage or Idaho Street. From 7:30 A.M. until 8:15 A.M., it is nearly impossible to cross East Oregon Street due to the traffic entering Kalispell from Whitefish Stage. Some of the traffic currently spills over onto East California Street. These residential streets are not designed to move large volumes of traffic and the problem should not be aggravated with high density housing. 3. The water and sewer lines in this part of town are old and only with some improvements in recent years do they adequately serve the existing residences. Construction of this cluster development would likely involve a major sewer and water project at great cost to the city. 4. A construction project of this magnitude has the potential of altering the wetland that lies below the bank. Kalispell is unique in that we have such a wild area within our city limits and the intrusion of so many families on the edge of this area is bound to have a negative impact on the wildlife that lives there. 5. Developments such as Chokecherry Ridge Condo's are built by people who are only interested in the profits they reap from the sales of these units. They have no vested interest in the neighborhood nor concern for the current home owners. These kinds of dwellings are totally out of character to the existing homes. We hope that you will consider these concerns to this development and deny this petition by Unicore Development Inc. We also hope that you will give a great deal of weight to the desires of the people who will be impacted the most by this project, the current residents of the East North Area. incer JC 'Y Robley and Carol Carr F461 E. California E' 3 Kalispell, MT R, D. 10. February 1 , 1999 Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are writing to object to a proposed zoning map arnmendment of land on the North side of California St. between 5th and 6th Avenue E.N. as petitioned by Unicore Development Incorporated on behalf of John and Brenda Vincent. The existing zoning for this site is R-1 Suburban Residential, setting minimum lot sizes to one acre. We are requesting that this zoning remain intact. The proposed zoning is for R-3 Residential, reducing the minimum lot size to 7000 square feet. Please see enclosed legal notice for further details. Our reasons for objection are simple. Our neighbor- hood has no existing condominiums or apartment style housing, which is Unicore's purpose in this request for rezoning. California Street is a very quiet street at this time and we, as residents, do not desire the increase in traffic and noise levels that would come with adding ten more homes in our neighborhood. We are aware of the traffic nightmare on Oregon Avenue and have been thankful for the safe and quiet street in front of our home. Also, when we bought our 90 year -old home five years ago, it was with the security of knowing the existing zoning would protect our neighborhood from this type of development. The previous planner, Mr. Herbaly advised us that "about the only way a person can be certain that a development or business will not come in across the street, is to check out the zoning plan before you buy property." We followed this advice. We realize how lucrative the tax revenue must look to the city of Kalispell. Ten condos priced at $125,000 per unit will bring in a healthy chunk of revenue. And it certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Mr. McPeak and his influential business partners are out to make some easy big time profits for their own pockets. As forthe 0.849 acre park proposed as a dedication to Lawrence Park, I suggest you check out where this land exists! It appears to us, that it is steep hillside or bottom -land that is flooded in the spring time and a mosquito haven the rest of the summer; in other words, useless land for humans and a good tax relief since it is a gift to our city. Chokecherry Estates is being planned in a lowto middle income neighborhood. We do not wish to sit back and watch a complex come in that will affect our quality of life, possibly raise our taxes and block views of the mountains and Lawrence Park. It will only satisfy the financial status of a few business entrepeneurs, but change our neighborhood forever. Remember, this is th;. same team that is pushing the Valley Dome and it another project the people living here are not sold on. The only way to stop this project i s to NOT GRANT THE ZONING CHANGE. You are the board that has the power and the authority to deny this change. Please vote in the present homeowner's best interest. When you make your decision, please ask yourselves, "Would I vote in favor of this zone change if this development were next door or across the street from my home? Would I mind the traffic, the noise or loss of view?" Sincerely, Aria& Kerry Culver City of Kalispell City Council P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: 494 5th Avenue East North Kalispell, MT 59901 March 2, 1999 We wish to express our concern and opposition to the proposed annexation, zoning map amendment, conditional use permit, and preliminary plat approval request by Unicore Development Inc., on behalf of John J. and Brenda Lee Vincent. These proposed changes concern land located on the north side of East California Street between 5th and 6th Avenues East North in Kalispell, and is also known as the Choke Cherry Ridge Plan. While we realize that the owners and developers wish to profit from the sale of their property, we feel that their proposal should not be approved for several reasons: *First, the present-day makeup of the existing neighborhood consists almost exclusively of single family homes, and the proposed 10-unit condominium would sharply clash with this setting. *Second, although the proposal states that it is located on 2.6 acres, the actual building site contains less than 2/3 of an acre, and would be even less with the set -backs required because of considerable soil instability on the site. *Third, the proposed unit would most likely lower the present-day property values of our neighborhood homes. *Fourth, the increased traffic flow on California Street and the other nearby avenues would introduce a very dangerous situation in a historically quiet area. 23 parking spaces and an estimated minimum 100 trips per day by the residents of the unit would make this area hazardous! We feel that this proposal was not given sufficient thought to address the above points and several other factors. Any building that is done on this piece of property needs to conform much more closely to the surrounding neighborhood of single-family homes. That is why, we feel, the zoning here needs to remain as it currently is. Please give consideration to the opposition by the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission and to the opposition of this proposal by our entire neighborhood. Yours truly, Stephe 1.'Cdhema�n Mary J. Cheman