Staff Report dated 04/22/99 CUP and Preliminary PlatFlathead e onal Development Office
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 758-5980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
April 22, 1999
Al Thelen, Interim City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: Chokecherry Ridge Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit
Dear Al:
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board held a public hearing at their regular meeting of April
13, 1999 to consider a request by Unicore Development on behalf of John and Brenda Lee Vincent
for a conditional use permit and preliminary plat approval to allow for the construction of a 10 unit
residential cluster development. These applications had been before the Kalispell Planning Board
previously and the Board had recommended denial based on public comment, safety,
incompatibility to the neighborhood and insufficient design to meet preliminary plat approval. At
the Kalispell City Council public hearing to consider these applications Unicore Development
submitted a revised site plan and the council returned the applications to the Planning Board for
public hearing and recommendations.
Tom Jentz, with the Flathead Regional Development Office, described the proposal stating that
with the conditions for approval, as listed in the staff reports, the staff was recommending approval
of the preliminary plat and conditional use permit. Jentz stated that in order to comply with the
fourteen (14) conditions in the conditional use permit and the thirteen (13) conditions in the
preliminary plat approval some design changes would be required.
At the public hearing Max Battle, representing the developers, gave a presentation and rebuttal.
He stated that the opposition to this project because of bank stability, traffic density and safety
issues are without standing because the developers have addressed those issues in the revised site
plan. Battle cited that in regard to neighborhood compatibility this project fits the neighborhood
and the opposition just doesn't want this project to go through. Four people spoke in favor of the
project noting that this project has come a long way and that the current design is in keeping with
the neighborhood and density for the area. Fifteen people spoke against the project citing bank
instability, neighborhood incompatibility, safety, increased traffic and detriment to the
environment of the area as their main concerns.
The Board discussed the applications and considered public testimony. Motions were made and
each passed on votes of 7-2 in favor to recommend approval of the conditional use permit and
preliminary plat approval.
Please schedule this matter for the next regular city council meeting. Please contact this board or
Narda Wilson at the Flathead Regional Development Office if you have any questions regarding this
matter.
ncerely,
lispell -C y Planning Board
can Joh on,
President
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish •
Unicore Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit
April 22, 1999
Page 2 of 6
JJ/NW/tl
Attachments: Attachment A
FRDO Reports #KCU-99-1 and KPP-99- IA
Draft Minutes for the April 13, 1999 planning board meeting
c w/Att: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk
c: John and Brenda Lee Vincent, Unicore Development Inc.,
PO Box 2270, Kalispell, MT 59903
Jackola Engineering, PO Box 1134, Kalispell, MT 59903
H: \... \TRANSMIT\KALISPEL\99\KCU9902
Unicore Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit
April 22, 1999
Page 3 of 6
ATTACHMENT A
CHOKECHERRY RIDGE
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS
KPP-99- IA AND KCU-99-1
APRIL 13, 1999
PRELIMINARY PLAT CONDITIONS:
1. The condominium subdivision shall comply with the Montana Unit Ownership Act.
2. Redesign the site plan to comply with a 20 foot setback for primary and attached
primary structures such as garages to protect slope stability and to provide some
degree or margin of safety in the event of slope failure. (Note: The parking
requirements of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance at 25 spaces and the proposed
20' building setback from the top of the bank (i.e., measured from the edge of
slopes exceeding 30%) may necessitate a reduction in the number of dwelling
units to meet the design parameters of this site to meet this condition.)
3. As requested by the fire chief provide a minimum 10 foot setback for all decks, roof
overhangs and other structures that would inhibit free access to the rear of the lots
for fire fighting access. The 20' setback area from the top of the slope shall be shown
on the revised site plan.
4. Prior to building construction and revised preliminary plat approval, obtain a
geotechnical assessment prepared by a licensed professional engineer finding that
the site and proposed improvements would pose no significant slope stability hazard
nor other geological hazard to the development nor to neighboring properties. Any
design and construction measures recommended in the assessment shall be
implemented as requirements of building permit approval and shall be noted on the
revised preliminary plat.
5. The lands within 50 feet of mean high water of the Stillwater River slough channel
and extending to the top of the bank (sloped area exceeding 30%) shall be retained
in a natural state with no new structures, roadway, excavation, fill, or significant
removal of healthy vegetation, except for immediate bank stabilization measures. In
addition, the area within 10 feet of the top of the bank shall be left substantially
in -tact to maintain a healthy vegetative cover to inhibit immediate bank erosion.
These areas shall be shown, and the restriction shall be noted, on the revised
preliminary plat.
6. The subdivision shall comply with the Kalispell Design and Construction Standards,
as approved by the Public Works Department. Preliminary and final design
standards shall be submitted to and approved by the Public works department prior
to construction of said improvements.
a) Install detached sidewalk on the north side of California St. abutting the
entire length of the subdivision ownership.
Unicore Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit
April 22, 1999
Page 4 of 6
b) Prepare and implement plans for drainage, erosion control, and revegetation.
Provide adequate space for snow storage in locations that are taken into
consideration in the drainage plan.
c) Sewer and water facilities shall meet design and improvements standards.
Extend individual sewer and water service lines from California St. to each
unit, rather than sewer and water mains.
d) Provide individual trash removal service to each unit, rather than a common
dumpster site.
7. The proposed park shall be dedicated to the City of Kalispell prior to revised
preliminary plat approval. Execute an easement or place a note on the revised
preliminary plat allowing the City access through the development site to the
proposed park.
8. A landscape plan showing the proposed planting of trees and shrubs on the
development site shall be approved by the City Parks Director and implemented.
The plan shall include plantings to moderately screen the development site from the
neighboring properties to the south and west, a perimeter landscape strip at least 10
feet in width, and of all disturbed area.
9. Install street trees along the north side of California St. adjacent to the site, in
accordance with a plan approved by the City Parks Director.
10. To avoid confusion in providing emergency access, the proposed access roadway
shall not be named and the addresses to the units shall be on California St.
11. Provide hydrants, access, and other improvements as necessary to comply with the
Uniform Fire Code as approved by the Kalispell Fire Chief.
12. The following notes shall be placed on the revised preliminary plat and implemented:
a) All house numbers shall be placed to be visible from the road, either at the
driveway entrance or on the building.
b) New utilities shall be installed underground.
13. The preliminary plat shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of
approval.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS:
1. The proposal will be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan and
application materials, except as modified by conditions herein. All conditions shall
be met prior to occupancy of the buildings.
2. Redesign the site plan to comply with a 20 foot setback for primary and attached
primary structures such as garages to protect slope stability and to provide some
degree or margin of safety in the event of slope failure. (Note: The parking
requirements of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance at 25 spaces and the proposed
20' building setback from the top of the bank (i.e., measured from the edge of
Unicore Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit
April 22, 1999
Page 5 of 6
slopes exceeding 30%) may necessitate a reduction in the number of dwelling
units to meet the design parameters of this site to meet this condition.)
3. As requested by the fire chief provide a minimum 10 foot setback for all decks, roof
overhangs and other structures that would inhibit free access to the rear of the lots
for fire fighting access. The 20 foot setback area from the top of the slope shall be
shown on the revised site plan.
4. Prior to building construction, obtain a geotechnical assessment prepared by a
licensed professional engineer finding that the site and proposed improvements
would pose no significant slope stability hazard nor other geological hazard to the
development nor to neighboring properties. Any design and construction measures
recommended in the assessment shall be implemented as requirements of building
permit approval.
5. The lands within 50 feet of mean high water of the Stillwater River slough channel
and extending to the top of the bank (sloped area exceeding 30%) shall be retained
in a natural state with no new structures, roadway, excavation, fill, or significant
removal of healthy vegetation, except for immediate bank stabilization measures. In
addition, the area within 10 feet of the top of the bank shall be left substantially
in -tact to maintain a healthy vegetative cover to inhibit immediate bank erosion.
This area shall be shown and the restriction shall be noted on the revised site
plan.
6. The subdivision shall comply with the Kalispell Design and Construction Standards,
as approved by the Public Works Department. Preliminary and final design
standards shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department prior
to construction of said improvements.
a) Install detached sidewalk on the north side of California St. abutting the
entire length of the subdivision ownership.
b) Prepare and implement plans for drainage, erosion control, and revegetation.
Provide adequate space for snow storage in locations that are taken into
consideration in the drainage plan.
c) Sewer and water facilities shall meet design and improvements standards.
Extend individual sewer and water service lines from California St. to each
unit, rather than sewer and water mains.
d) Provide individual trash removal service to each unit, rather than a common
dumpster site.
7. The proposed park shall be dedicated to the City of Kalispell prior to building
occupancy. Execute an easement or place a note on the revised preliminary plat
allowing the City access through the development site to the proposed park.
8. A landscape plan showing the proposed planting of trees and shrubs on the
development site shall be approved by the City Parks Director and implemented.
The plan shall include plantings to moderately screen the development site from the
neighboring properties to the south and west, a perimeter landscape strip at least 10
feet in width, and of all disturbed area.
Unicore Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit
April 22, 1999
Page 6 of 6
9. Install street trees along the entire north side of California St. adjacent to the site, in
accordance with a plan approved by the City Parks Director.
10. To avoid confusion in providing emergency access, the proposed access roadway
shall not be named and the addresses to the units shall be on California St.
11. Provide hydrants, access, and other improvements as necessary to comply with the
Uniform Fire Code as approved by the Kalispell Fire Chief.
12. The proposed sign shall comply with the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The sign shall
not exceed a maximum size of 20 square feet per face and maximum height of six
feet.
13. Comply with the conditional use standards for cluster developments in the Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance. Submit covenants or unit ownership papers showing provision
for perpetual maintenance of all common facilities.
14. The conditional use permit shall be tied to and remain valid as long as the
preliminary plat for Chokecherry Ridge Condo's remains valid. (Note a conditional
use permit is typically valid for only 18 months but because of the relationship
between preliminary plat and conditional use permit, the longer time is reasonable.)
UNICORE
• . RKCU-99-1-
APRIL
• 1999
A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Kalispell City Council regarding a
request for a conditional use permit to construct a 10 residential unit cluster development. A
hearing has been scheduled before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board for April 13,
1999, in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The Planning Board will forward a
recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Petitioner: John J. and Brenda Lee Vincent
Unicore Development, Inc.
P O Box 2270
Kalispell MT 59901
B. Size and Location ofProperty: The 2.6 acres of land is located on the north side of
California St. between 5th and 6th Av. E.N. The property is described as a portion of
Assessors Tract 23A in Section 8, T28N, R21W, P.M., M., Flathead County, Montana.
C. Summary of Request: The request is for a conditional use permit to construct a 10
residential unit cluster development. The application proposes the following: a
building configuration of two five-plexes, a new paved, private roadway, 24' wide
with curb and gutter; planting of trees and shrubs to ease the effect on neighbors; a
decorative sign; and two-story buildings set back at least 10 feet from the top of the
river bank; and dedication of 0.847 acres to the City of Kalispell as a park.
Simultaneous applications have been received for annexation, a zone change to R-3,
Residential in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, and preliminary plat approval to
address the condominium development aspect of the project. Note: this project was
heard by the Kalispell City -County Planning Board on February 9th and forwarded
to the City Council for final action with a recommendation to deny. At the City
Council meeting, the applicants submitted a revised site plan showing two five-
plex units setback from 7 - 10 feet from the existing top of slope instead of two
four-plexes and a duplex set back 20 feet from the slope. Because of the design
changes, the Council directed the Planning Board to readvertise and rehear the
preliminary plat and conditional use permit applications.
D. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning: The general land use character of the area is
single-family residential to the south and west, and undeveloped riparian area to the
north and east.
North: Stillwater River, undeveloped County R-1 zoning
South: California St. single-family residential, Kalispell R-3 zoning
East: Undeveloped remainder site, County R-1 zoning
West: Single-family residential and Lawrence Park,
Kalispell R-3 and P-1 zoning
E. Proposed Availability of Utilities/Services:
Sewer service:
City of Kalispell
Water service:
City of Kalispell
Solid Waste:
City of Kalispell
Gas:
Montana Power Company
Electric:
Pacific Power/Flathead Electric
Phone:
CenturyTel
Police: City of Kalispell
Fire: Kalispell Fire Department
Schools: School District #5, Kalispell
F. Master Plan Designation: The Kalispell City County Master Plan Map designates this
area as urban residential, open space, and the transition area in between. The map
boundaries are generalized. The proposed project is in substantial compliance with
the land use designation of the master plan map and furthers the goals of the master
plan by providing for a diversity of housing needs in the community.
• s s
The application is reviewed in accordance with the conditional use review criteria in the
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.
1. Site Suitability:
a. Adequate Useable Space: The site has approximately .66 acres of usable,
developable land within the 2.6 acre tract proposed. The remainder of the site
consists of steeply sloping lands (50% slopes) or river bottom wetlands. Staff is
recommending a 20 foot setback from the edge of the existing slope for two
primary reasons one of which is further emphasized below under environmental
constraints, that is to alleviate the problem of slope failure and to provide a
certain level of safety should erosion or slope failure occur. Secondly, the site
boundaries of the property are extremely visible on this property. In terms of
providing neighborhood compatibility, the surrounding neighborhood is held to
a 20 foot rear yard setback, this property should be as well.
It should be understood that with the parking requirements and the 20 foot
setback, there does not appear to be adequate space to accommodate the
current 10 unit design configuration. The number of dwelling units may have to
be reduced to meet these requirements.
b. Adequate Access: The proposed development has adequate access by California
Street, a paved city street with curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the south side.
See further discussion below on streets.
C. Environmental Constraints: The site includes a steep bank (a vertical rise of
approximately 40' at a 50-80% slope), subject to risks of slope instability and
erosion. The site also includes 100-year floodplain of the Stillwater River at the
bottom of the bank. The application proposes that buildings would be setback
7 - 10 feet from the edge of the existing slope and after removal of the top 2
vertical feet of the western portion of the site to an elevation of 2,968
approximately 10 feet from the new established grade. A letter received from
the Flathead Conservation District (1/25/99) states as follows:
"The Planning Office should consider requiring a professional engineer to
analyze the stability of the slope as well as the loading by the construction of
the condos on the top of the bank. Quick calculations show that the condos
vary from 13 to 20 feet back from the top of the bank (this was based on the
February design, setbacks are now 7 - 10'.) This could place a heavy load
on the soils, possibly causing slumping of the banks. With the increase in
impervious surfaces (pavement, roofs), the problem could be magnified.
Placement of plowed snow could have a significant negative impact. Our soil
scientist noted this is the same parent material as the soils along the
Whitefish River. You will recall the same material caused several homes to
slump towards the river, just south of Highway 40, approximately two years
2
ago. An engineering review could ensure this is addressed before a decision
is made for approval/denial of the project. In addition, the engineering
report should reveal if there is a perched water table along this bank. There
is a high likelihood that this would occur in the area. In addition, if this
project is approved, we recommend that the contractor and the condo
association be required to retain all the vegetative cover on the banks, to
help stabilize the soils."
A subdivision was reviewed in 1998, Hillcrest Unit 8, on a similar bench above
the Whitefish River approximately 1/2 mile north of this site, and the
geotechnical engineer's assessment submitted with the preliminary plat
recommended a 35' building setback from top of the slope to ensure slope
stability, to ensure the safety of the proposed building sites and to protect
downslope properties and water quality.
The applicants hired Billmayer engineering to conduct 5 boring samples on the
site. The report, attached to this packet and entitled "Proposal, March 15,
1999, provides information that a portion of the site was previously filled and
offers 3 recommendations. The report indicates that the east half of the site
from the existing ice house and extending 150 or so northerly (typically,
building site 6 -9) was subject to fill with road base quality material. Please
note that the report gave only a soil profile and did not address density or
compaction of the soils. The report states that the banks all appear to be well
vegetated and show no significant slope failures. The 3 recommendation are as
follows:
1. For normal construction of 2 story buildings, the frost footings maintain a
setback from the slope crest (elevation 2968) of 10 feet. This is basically the
UBC setback requirement of 1/3 of the slope height.
2. In the silt loan materials on the west side of the site foundations bearing
pressures not exceed 1000 psf.
3. In the granular fill on the east side of the site, the foundation pressures not
exceed 1,500 psf.
This past week, Dick Ammerman, Assistant Public Works Director for the City
observed a large crack developing in the site along the westerly side. The crack
extended 15 or more feet running parallel to and 15 feet back from the edge of the
bank. Mr. Ammerman estimated the crack was at least 3 feet deep. This crack would
run through portions of proposed units 1 and 2. Mr. Ammerman stated that evidence
of such a crack raises serious concerns of slope stability and potential failure.
Staff recommends the following:
Prior to building construction and revised preliminary plat approval, obtain a
geotechnical assessment prepared by a licensed professional engineer finding that
the site and proposed improvements would pose no significant slope stability
hazard nor other geological hazard to the development nor to neighboring
properties. Any design and construction measures recommended in the
assessment shall be noted on the revised preliminary plat and implemented as
requirements of building permit approval.
The 20' building setback area from the top of the bank (i.e., the sloped area
exceeding 30%) shall be shown on the revised preliminary plat and implemented as
a requirement of building permit approval. The 20 foot setback shall be limited to
primary structures and attached accessory structures such as garages. Roof
overhangs, all decks, and any other obstructions would be allowed to extend to
within 10 feet of the edge of the slope per the fire chiefs recommendation.
3
® The lands within 50' of mean high water of the Stillwater River slough channel and
extending to the top of the bank (sloped area exceeding 30%) shall be retained in a
natural state with no new structures, roadway, excavation, fill, or significant
removal of healthy vegetation, except for bank stabilization measures. This area
shall be shown and the restriction shall be noted on the revised preliminary plat.
2. Appropriateness of Design:
a. Parking and site circulation: Zoning regulations require 25 parking spaces for
the proposed 10 dwellings. The site plan shows 25 spaces, including 10 in
single car garages, 6 parked in front of the garage doors and 9 on separate
pads throughout the entrance road. Please note that the parking design is very
convenient for entering each parking space however there is significant
inconvenience for exiting the 2 northerly parking spaces necessitating backing
up 50 - 60 feet before a turn around can be achieved. The situation will be
exacerbated if units 4, 5 and 6 park in front of their garages as the design may
encourage. Greater thought should be given to traffic circulation.
b. Open Space: The site plan proposes dedication of 0.847 acres of land to the
City as park, which amply meets subdivision requirements for parkland
dedication. Recommendations are also discussed above to retain the steep
bank and slough below as natural area.
The proposed park has no public road access and is close to, but does not abut,
Lawrence Park. Parks Director Mike Baker commented the proposed park is a
wetland area and is not anticipated to be a developed recreation area, so the
need for access would be rare. He added that dedication of the wetland area
north of the property by McElroy 8s Wilkin is contemplated, which would
connect the proposed park here to Lawrence Park. To ensure necessary access
in the meantime, Baker agreed that an easement or note on the revised
preliminary plat should be required allowing the City of Kalispell access
through the development site to the proposed park.
C. Fencing/Screening/Landscaping: The application proposes that trees and
shrubs will be planted on the site as screening to ease the effect on neighbors.
Staff recommends the following:
A landscape plan showing the proposed planting of trees and shrubs on
the development site shall be approved by the City Parks Director. The
plan shall include plantings to moderately screen the development site
from the neighboring properties to the south and west, as well as
revegetation of all disturbed area.
Install street trees along the north side of California St. adjacent to the
site, in accordance with plans approved by the City Parks Director.
d. Signs: An entrance sign is proposed but sign plans have not yet been
submitted. Zoning regulations limit subdivision signs in the R-3 district to
maximum size of 20 square feet per face and maximum height of six feet.
3. Availability of Public Services/Facilities:
a. Schools: This site is within School District #5. Gary Rose from the district
commented that students would attend Edgerton or Russell Schools, and that
bus service may be provided on a first come, first served basis. Staff estimates
that an additional five students would reside at the site.
M
b. Parks and Recreation: As discussed above, Lawrence Park is nearly adjacent to
the site.
C. Police: Police protection will be provided by the Kalispell Police Department.
No unusual impacts or needs are anticipated from the proposed residential
development.
d. Fire Protection: Fire protection will be provided by the Kalispell Fire
Department. No unusual impacts or needs are anticipated from the proposed
residential development. Fire Chief Ted Waggoner recommended that, to avoid
confusion in providing emergency access, the proposed access roadway shall
not be named and the addresses to the units shall be on California St. In
addition Chief Waggonner requested that a minimum 10 foot area be
maintained completely open and unobstructed between the edge of the bank
and any deck, structure or barrier so that his fireman can adequately get
around behind the units in emergency situations.
e. Water and sewer: The project would hook up to municipal water and sewer
service. Assistant City Engineer Dick Ammerman has again recommended that
individual sewer and water service lines be extended from California St. to each
unit, rather than sewer and water mains.
f. Solid Waste: Solid waste pick-up will be provided by the City. Public Works
Director Jim Hansz recommended that individual trash removal service be
provided to each unit, rather than a common dumpster site.
g. Streets: Traffic generation from the development is estimated at 50 average
daily trips, based on estimates for condominium housing in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers trip generation manual. The proposed development
has adequate access by California Street, a paved city street with curb, gutter,
and sidewalk on the south side. Zoning standards require that the private
driving aisle accessing the units have 24' paved width and meet curve radius
standards and that the condominium association be responsible for
maintenance of the street and other common property, including snow removal.
City Standards for Design and Construction require implementation of plans for
the private roadway addressing drainage, revegetation, and erosion control.
Subdivision regulations require installation of a sidewalk on the development
side of California St. adjacent to the site. Two other street issues are apparent.
First, staff recommends provision of adequate space for snow storage in
locations that are taken into consideration in the drainage plan. The Public
Works Department does not support placement of the snow storage area as
designated on the March, 1999 site plan. The plan show a location on the west
side of the site where snow would be dumped into a draw; as this is an
unstable area and the increased water flow and snow melt could have negative
impacts on slope and vegetative stability. Second, to mitigate neighborhood
impacts of the multi -family density and provide for standard street
improvements which are part of the city's design standards, staff recommends
installation of street trees on California St. adjacent to the site, in accordance
with plans approved by the Kalispell Parks Director.
4. Neighborhood Impacts:
Development impacts of the proposal under an R-3 density are anticipated to be
typical of an urban density neighborhood. The extension of R-3 zoning beyond the
building site area at the top of the slope to include the perimeter bank would allow for
clustering multifamily housing onto a smaller site, in comparison to surrounding
single-family housing density. The visual effects of that clustering are mitigated to a
degree by improved building design with private entrances, pitched roofs, and 1 1/2
A
story height as proposed by the applicant and by recommended landscaping features.
In addition to the applicants plans, staff recommends the installing street trees along
the entire north side of California St. and the development of the 10 foot landscape
buffer as further screening. This is offset by the fact that the applicants are proposing
two five-plex structures which in scale and number are greatly out of scale, design and
density with the existing neighborhood. The environmental impacts (e.g., slope
stability, drainage, erosion) are discussed above.
Traffic generation from the development is estimated at 50 average daily trips, a
moderate increase in an urban density neighborhood. Except during construction, no
significant unusual impacts are anticipated from noise, vibration, or dust. The zoning
regulations (27.26.030.6) require that outdoor lighting in the parking area be arranged
to reflect light away from neighboring residential properties and public right-of-way is
proposed on the parking lot. No impact from smoke, fumes, gas, odors, or
inappropriate hours of operation are anticipated beyond the norm of an urban density
neighborhood.
At the February 9th public hearing, approximately 20 members of the public spoke in
opposition. Please refer to your planing board minutes of that meeting. A notice of
public hearing was again mailed to property owners within 150 feet of the site
approximately 15 days prior to the hearing. Comments have been received in
opposition from neighbors Steve Cheman, Mary Cheman, Sue Ellen Anderson and
Clara Anderson and have submitted letters of opposition. Concerns expressed include
the proposed density is incompatible with the quiet, single-family neighborhood; too
much density is proposed on an environmentally sensitive site; and property values
may decline.
S. Consideration of Historical Use Patterns and Recent Changes:
The surrounding land use character is one and two story single-family housing with
substantial open space to the north. The proposed density is inconsistent with this
established character. As noted above, the extension of R-3 zoning beyond the
building site area would allow for clustering multifamily housing onto a smaller site, in
comparison to surrounding single-family housing density. On the other hand, small
infill projects of multi -family housing have become common in Kalispell, in response to
changing housing demand. Nearly half of the housing constructed in Kalispell in the
mid-1990's was multi -family housing. The visual effects on compatibility are
substantially mitigated by the relatively small project size and several design
characteristics. The environmental impacts could be substantially mitigated by
providing comparable 20 foot building setbacks from the top of the slope as the rest of
the neighborhood now utilizes from their rear property lines and by using landscaping
techniques and construction design standards recommended above. Comments have
been received in opposition from neighbors Steve Cheman, Sue Ellyn Anderson and
Clara Anderson with concerns that the proposed density is incompatible with the
quiet, single-family neighborhood; too much density is proposed on an
environmentally sensitive site; and property values may decline.
6. Effects on property values:
Annexation and development of the site to an R-3 density is orderly growth, which is
anticipated to conserve property values in the vicinity. Neighbors have expressed
concern, however, about the compatibility of the specific multi -family development
proposed on the site and the concern that if units are built too close to the slopes and
there is a failure, this will place a cloud over the neighborhood and the damage may
not be rectified as has been the case in other areas of the valley along the Whitefish
and Stillwater Rivers.
G
. j.
RECOMMENDATION SWA?0 &- all,_
Staff recommends that the planning board adopt the staff report KCU-99- IA as findings of
fact and recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following
conditions:
1. The proposal will be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan and
application materials, except as modified by conditions herein. All conditions shall be
met prior to occupancy of the buildings.
2. Redesign the site plan to comply with a 20 foot setback for primary and attached
primary structures such as garages to protect slope stability and to provide some
degree or margin of safety in the event of slope failure. (Note: The parking
requirements of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance at 25 spaces and the proposed
20' building setback from the top of the bank (i.e., measured from the edge of
slopes exceeding 30%) may necessitate a reduction in the number of dwelling
units to meet the design parameters of this site to meet this condition.)
3. As requested by the fire chief provide a minimum 10 foot setback for all decks, roof
overhangs and other structures that would inhibit free access to the rear of the lots for
fire fighting access. The 20 foot setback area from the top of the slope shall be shown
on the revised site plan.
4. Prior to building construction, obtain a geotechnical assessment prepared by a
licensed professional engineer finding that the site and proposed improvements would
pose no significant slope stability hazard nor other geological hazard to the
development nor to neighboring properties. Any design and construction measures
recommended in the assessment shall be implemented as requirements of building
permit approval.
5. The lands within 50 feet of mean high water of the Stillwater River slough channel and
extending to the top of the bank (sloped area exceeding 30%) shall be retained in a
natural state with no new structures, roadway, excavation, fill, or significant removal
of healthy vegetation, except for immediate bank stabilization measures. In addition,
the area within 10 feet of the top of the bank shall be left substantially in -tact to
maintain a healthy vegetative cover to inhibit immediate bank erosion. This area
shall be shown and the restriction shall be noted on the revised site plan.
6. The subdivision shall comply with the Kalispell Design and Construction Standards,
as approved by the Public Works Department. Preliminary and final design standards
shall be submitted to and approved by the Public Works Department prior to
construction of said improvements.
® Install detached sidewalk on the north side of California St. abutting the entire
length of the subdivision ownership.
® Prepare and implement plans for drainage, erosion control, and revegetation.
Provide adequate space for snow storage in locations that are taken into
consideration in the drainage plan.
® Sewer and water facilities shall meet design and improvements standards.
Extend individual sewer and water service lines from California St. to each unit,
rather than sewer and water mains.
® Provide individual trash removal service to each unit, rather than a common
dumpster site.
7. The proposed park shall be dedicated to the City of Kalispell prior to building
occupancy. Execute an easement or place a note on the revised preliminary plat
allowing the City access through the development site to the proposed park.
7
8. A landscape plan showing the proposed planting of trees and shrubs on the
development site shall be approved by the City Parks Director and implemented. The
plan shall include plantings to moderately screen the development site from the
neighboring properties to the south and west, a perimeter landscape strip at least 10
feet in width, and of all disturbed area.
9. Install street trees along the entire north side of California St. adjacent to the site, in
accordance with a plan approved by the City Parks Director.
10. To avoid confusion in providing emergency access, the proposed access roadway shall
not be named and the addresses to the units shall be on California St.
11. Provide hydrants, access, and other improvements as necessary to comply with the
Uniform Fire Code as approved by the Kalispell Fire Chief.
12. The proposed sign shall comply with the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The sign shall
not exceed a maximum size of 20 square feet per face and maximum height of six feet.
13. Comply with the conditional use standards for cluster developments in the Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance. Submit covenants or unit ownership papers showing provision for
perpetual maintenance of all common facilities.
14. The conditional use permit shall be tied to and remain valid as long as the preliminary
plat for Chokecherry Ridge Condo's remains valid. (Note a conditional use permit is
typically valid for only 18 months but because of the relationship between preliminary
plat and conditional use permit, the longer time is reasonable.)
H: \... \KCU 1 99 \KCU99-1 B
Kalispell,Flathead Regional Development Off -ice
• •
Phone: (406)758-5980 Fax: (406)758-5781
PLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERNMATION
CITY OF ISPEL]t
PROPOSED U
OWNER(S) OF RECORD:
Name:
Mailing Address
10, Q • 7-'2--7 0
City/State/Zip: A.44=5P-,-L1. , vn-7 S'4iiy ,�L
i
)AN I I ) 'A
a 4
�1'Z�"C-1ZZ
PERSON(S) AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE OWNER(S) AND TO WHOM ALL
CORRESPONDENCE IS TO BE SENT:
Name
M
r
City/State/Zip: s' ��'Lt ; do % -�
Phone:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Refer to Property Records):
_C9�13
Street
Sec.
Town-
26
Range
2-
Address: ��✓ /�� ' c-
No. G
ship
No.
Subdivision z
Tract
Lot
Block
Name:
No(s).
No(s). -a
No. >- l
1. Zoning District and Zoning Classification in which use is proposed:
2. Attach a plan of the affected lot which identifies the following items:
a. Surrounding land uses.
b. Dimensions and shape of lot. j
C. Topographic features of lot. t
d. Size(s) and location(s) of existing buildings
e. Size(s) and location(s) of proposed buildings.s _
f. Existing use(s) of structures and open areas.
g. Proposed use(s) of structures and open areas.
1
3. On a separate sheet of paper, discuss the following topics relative to the
proposed use:
a. Traffic flow and control.
b. Access to and circulation within the property. T� S
C. Off-street parking and loading.
d. Refuse and service areas.�-
e. Utilities.
f. Screening and buffering.
g. Signs, yards and other open spaces. J
h. Height, bulk and location of structures. ;
i. Location of proposed open space uses. -
j. Hours and manner of operation.
k. Noise, light, dust, odors, fumes and vibration.
4. Attach supplemental information for proposed uses that have additional
requirements (consult Planner).
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury and the laws of the State of Montana that the
information submitted herein, on all other submitted forms, documents, plans or any
other information submitted as a part of this application, to be true, complete, and
accurate to the best of my knowledge. Should any information or representation
submitted in connection with this application be incorrect or untrue, I understand
that any approval based thereon may be rescinded, and other appropriate action
taken. The signing of this application signifies approval for the F.R.D.O. staff to be
present on the property for routine monitoring and inspection during the approval
and development pr cess.
licant Signature
Revised 10/30/971s
Date
2
a. California Street will provide adequate traffic flow, as it is a wide,
unobstructed street.
b. Access to thee property is provided by a 24' wide paved road with curb
& gutter on both sides.
c. There will be 25 parking pads on site for land owners and guest parking
d. 2 refuse sites will be available with easy access for the City of Kalispell.
e. All utilities will be underground (power, cable, telephone, water, sewer)
The drainage will be retained along the site.
f. Trees and shrubs will be planted to ease the effect on the neighbors.
g. A decorative sign will be located in the center of the property. There will
be adequate open space and yards provided.
h. The structures will be within the 30-ft height allowed by the City of
Kalispell building department. The buildings will be set back 20' from
the embankment as per your request.
i. Open spaces will be provided behind each unit and in the center of the
driveway.
j. There will be no commercial allowed on the property.
k. None of these would be out of the ordinary residential standards.
l . There will be a Condo Association formed called Choke Cherry Ridge
Condo Association according to Montana Law before the sale of any
lots and every buyer must become a member.
2. The association will be responsible for any and all liability insurance,
Common area maintenance, and payment for waste material removal.
3. Any change to the agreement shall be done according to Montana
State Law.
2�
cv`_
,,-
o
�*
,�
o_ �
- =
tp
�0
--��
Z
-R
Z
�_
i
�L1
�- �
-Tol�l�k�o�-� '�erotUr.��,
w APR ® 5 1999
484 8th Avenue East North
Kalispell, Montana 59901
April 3, 1999
Mr. Tom Jenz
Members of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission:
This is my response to your letter of notification for the meeting April 13, 1999, regarding the
proposed Choke Cherry Ridge condominium project by Unicore Development Inc. According to this notifi-
cation, it states that the request before you is for a conditional use permit and preliminary plat approval for a
10-dwelling condominium project on East California Street between 5th and 6th Avenues East North. This
notification also states that the property in question is zoned R-3. When we met with you the first time, as
well as when we met with the City Council, there were three petitions: one for annexation into the city, one
for reclassification from R-1 to R-3, and one for a conditional use permit and preliminary plat approval.
Attorney Battle said "all three or nothing." It was nothing! This notification states that the property is zoned
R-3. Has this property already been annexed and rezoned? If so, when were these changes made? If these
changes were decided without our knowledge, we, indeed, have reason to feel violated!
I wrote a lengthy letter to you dated February 9, 1999, stating reasons why I opposed Unicore's
original project --two four-plexes and one duplex. I do not wish to take up your valuable time to review those
objections. Please refer to that letter. I assume you still have all the neighbors' letters in your file.
Unicore Developers must think we are lacking in intelligence. 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! Instead of a twenty -foot setback, they are now propos-
ing a ten -foot setback. Mr. Jean Johnson, himself, even stated that the soil structure was similar to that of
other areas where considerable sloughing has already occurred.
I urge all of you to visit this site and then make a realistic decision based on the following neigh-
borhood concerns:
® In all subdivisions adjacent to and annexed into the city of Kalispell, lot size requirements are a
half acre or more and classified as single family residential dwellings. R-1 Suburban Residential property
must have a 1-acre minimum and be a single family residence. The building surface for this proposed devel-
opment site is only .66 or 2/3 of an acre. If the above mentioned size requirements are necessary, how then
can a ten -unit condominium project be crowded into an area this small?
• The remaining land is sloped or part of the natural, protected water and wildlife habitat adjacent to
Lawrence Park on the Stillwater River. Their "generous" gift for park land to the city sounds great, but it is
unfit for development and would only tranfer ownership from county to city. Who pays the present taxation
on this "waste" land? Visual perception of Lawrence Park will remain the same no matter who owns it.
® This neighborhood is made up entirely of single family homes. I believe it is safe to say all are
older than thirty years. One home within a block of this proposed project site is on the National Historical
Register. This project is nonconforming to this neighborhood.
® Assuming two or more cars per unit, we can project at least an additional twenty cars will be
trafficking Fifth and Sixth Avenues and California Street at various times during the day. Increased traffic
will make for even more difficult access on to Oregon Street which is now often impossible during commut-
ing hours to and from work and schools. California is not designed to be a through street. Adding visitor
vehicles will also contribute to heavier traffic than what should be in this neighborhood. The Developers
have said they have made provision for 25 parking spaces. As I read the new draft, only sixteen are shown.
Take a look at the new Re/Max parking lot down town. There are twenty-two spaces in it. Transplant this
sized parking lot to the proposed site and observe that adequate building space is further diminished.
® Snow removal, if moved to their designated snow storage area, will further add to the weight on
this unstable site. Please do not let the Developers convince you that this is solid ground for building.
Contrary to what they say, there are test holes that do reveal fill! The winter of 1996/1997, with its enormous
snowfall, was a challenge to all of us in this neighborhood as we tried to maneuver through cars and snowpiles
on the streets. Emergency vehicles would have had difficulty navigating through the driving lanes. We must
remember that winters with more snowfall than we have seen in these past two are entirely possible.
• We live where there are known faults, some major. What would an earthquake of any magnitude
do to these complexes? The weight of the buildings, plus stockpiled snow could be a major threat and should
be of concern. Should the ground be saturated with moisture, an earthquake could trigger a slide.
• What about fire protection? A personal check revealed the closest hydrants are located on the
southeast corners of 5th and 6th Avenues E.N. (1-1/2 blocks away) and 3rd Ave. E.N. on California (2-1/2
blocks away). A hydrant on the Johnson property on California was removed and never replaced. Why?
® I enclose hp otos that show sins of sloughing. These locations are situated along the slopes
overlooking the Stillwater River. Their locations and descriptions are written on the backs of the photos. As
you can see in one, the property owner has taken some measures to stabilize the land at the back of his garage.
Other are on Whitefish Stage between McElroy and Wilkins near the city limit sign. This erosion has not
occurred overnight. It is a process that has taken place over the years. Last year one home at the end of
Fourth Avenue East North could have lost part of a new landscaping project. The owners were out of town
and had left a drip hose running. Neighbors, upon checking the property, found two to three-inch cracks in
the soil. Had they not discovered and shut off the water, the owner may have come home to find his back yard
"gone". A friend of mine lives in the home across from Mild Fence Company on Whitefish Stage. Her
property overlooks this same natural area on land of similar composition. The land at the back of her garage
sloughed off a year ago making use of her existing garage unsafe. She built a new garage out in the open, a
considerable distance from the surrounding banks. This development, if permitted, has no guarantee to the
prospective Buyers. Erosion is an ongoing process and no one can predict when a falling away will occur.
Should it happen within the years to follow, who will be the losers? It won't be the developers. They will be
gone and with no liability or accountability attached. It will be the Buyers who will suffer the losses.
® At the meeting with the City Council, Brenda Vincent made it very clear that the development of
this project was indeed monetary. This would be their retirement income. She wasn't interested in what was
compliant or best for our neighborhood. She pleaded with us to come up with suggestions. Also, a Realtor
spoke in favor of this project. Representing a prospective client, she is looking at personal gain-- a double
sale --one of these units and the client's home! We were given no o1212ortunily to respond to her pleas.
® I hope that every board member has visited or will this site. Envision ten complexes cramped into
this 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? This should be of major concern, 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.
We were offended by the derogatory remark that was made about the doublewide across the street
from this project. A photo of that neat and very well maintained home --a neighborhood asset --is enclosed.
Until the City Council meeting, none of us had seen drawings of this condo project. It was tasteful
and quite attractive, but placing it on this small parcel does not conform to the character of this neighborhood.
As co-owner of the home at 476 5th Avenue East North, I submit the picture taken from the window in the
living room at the front of the house. As you can see, I am not speaking out because my view will be blocked!
None of us are against development. We just want appropriate development. We have suggested that the
building of two or three single family homes would be conforming and acceptable to this nice, quiet neigh-
borhood. Isn't the purpose of zoning to protect the integrity of a neighborhood? We surely hope so. As one
of the property owners, I strongly urge that this development be denied. Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
4.
April5, 1999 F.
Mr. Tom Jentz
Members of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission
Once again I am writing to you to voice my opposition to the proposed Choke Cherry Ridge project that is
being brought before you by Mr. and Mrs. Vincent and their developer Unicore Development, Inc.
I am familiar with the process that is before you and respect you for your time and your expertise in
dealing with the above proposal. I hope that as you listen to the Developer present the proposal, you will
also listen to the concerns of the neighbors affected by this new 10-unit cluster development.
Development is great if done in conformity with the neighborhood. I am not opposed to development
since I work with new housing starts. I work for Glacier Bank and do all the disbursals for both
residential and commercial construction projects. I am excited to see all the new development that is
taking place in the valley and am eager to see more begin. However, not if it going to have a negative
impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Kalispell does need some good lower priced single family
homes, but it does not need to develop where the impact again will be negative. The parcel in question
would be an ideal location for two or three single family homes in the $100,000 to $115,000 price range
not a 10-unit cluster development.
I understand that the main purpose for this development is for a monetary purpose. The Vincent's want
retirement money and I can understand that. Who doesn't want to have a good retirement. But at what
cost?
I do not live in this neighborhood, but have spent many hours at my grandparents home on 5th Avenue
East North. Hours spent outside in the yard both working and relaxing and I would hate to see the
neighborhood change from an entirely single family dwelling neighborhood to a cluster development.
Please listen to the neighbors and their concerns as well as to the concerns that I have regarding this
project. Some of the main concerns I have are listed below:
® The original plan as presented by Unicore Development, Inc. was to have a 10-unit cluster
development consisting of two four plexes and a duplex which would equal the 10 proposed units.
Now they are proposing only two buildings consisting of five dwelling units in each building. No
matter how I calculate, it still equals 10-units. The original plan was to allow for a 20-foot setback
from the bank, and the new proposal allows for 10-foot setbacks. What happened to the other
10-feet? After the first City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission meeting, I believe that
one of the commission's members even stated that he thought that it should be a 35-foot setback.
What is happening to these additional set -back feet?
e There have been many comments made as to what the soil is made up of. I spoke with an engineer
that wouldn't give me too much detail since he had done the test holes but he told me to look at a
copy of the report that had been submitted to the Flathead Regional Development Office along with
other information by Unicore. I saw a copy of that report at the March 15th City Council meeting
and in three of the five test holes there was fill dirt in the results. How can one say that this is not
true. The test hole may have consisted of other components, but it still has a make up of fill dirt
which is considered not stable. The soil composition from what I have been told is very similar to
that of the Twin Bridges area in Whitefish that slumped two years ago due to the vast amounts of
moisture and water run off. What is to say that this will not happen here?
® Neighborhood Impact: A 10-unit cluster development is not compatible with the rest of the
neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood use is comprised of single family, older homes (some
have been remodeled in the past 10-15 years), and range in size from 900 sgft to 2,000 sgft. This
complex even if each unit were in the 900-1,500 square foot range would look out of character with
the neighborhood. It would look as if someone was trying to fit too much into too little space. Two
five plexes do not conform with the single family home neighborhood.
® At the March 15th City Council meeting Mrs. Vincent said that the increase in traffic would not be a
result of this development. Traffic was already a problem. I agree that traffic is already a problem.
By adding 20+ parking spaces, and the 20+ cars to fill those spaces as it is proposed, traffic is going
to be increased adding to the already congested traffic flow.
® The proposal states that there would be no on -street parking. Where are they planning to put all the
resident vehicles? Is thereto be two car garage storage or one car garage storage? The average
family has 2 cars. Where do any additional vehicles park? Sooner or later there will be on the street
parking because of the following:
1) lack of snow removal
2) Visitors/Guests
3) Multiple cars
4) RV/Recreational Vehicles
Who is going to monitor and make sure that there is no ran -street parking? Who is
going to suffer? The neighborhood will suffer along with all of its neighbors.
Maintenance and upkeep: Those of us who live in this neighborhood take pride in our single family
homes and do the best that we can to maintain our yards and general maintenance on our homes. At
the first City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission meeting a comment was made by a
woman in opposition to anything that Unicore Development, Inc. was involved in. She spoke in
regards to the lack of maintenance and poor quality workmanship that went into a previous Umcore
Development project. She stated that they were involved in a lawsuit due to the poor maintenance
and construction of the units. Who will be there to make sure that these proposed 10-units will be
well maintained? Who will be there when Unicore Development and the Vincent's are gone? We
take pride in our neighborhood, those who have their home on the National Historic Register to those
who own the well kept double wide also known as a Manufactured home directly across the street
from the subject. Not once have these yards been left unattended. Not once have these homes been
allowed to deteriorate. We are a proud neighborhood and we all like the feeling of a job well done,
and spending the time to keep our properties looking nice gives each of us that satisfaction. We don't
want something in there that is not going to reflect that same pride in ownership.
I do not feel that Unicore Development, Inc.'s proposal for Choke Cherry Ridge has given sufficient
thought to the above mentioned issues and the concerns of the neighborhood and its neighbors.
Please consider the opposition of the neighbors affected by the proposed Choke Cherry Ridge project and
its impact on the neighborhood by denying this proposal as it is presented before you.
Thank you for your time and your consideration.
Sincerely,
2Sue Ellyn An erson
484 8th Avenue East North
Kalispell, Montana 59901
494 5Th Avenue E.N. PttEIVED
Kalispell, MT 59901
March 29, 1999 AR 0 1999
Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commiss' rpltAD ke
CIO Flathead Regional Development Office 6fO"+�.
723 5th Avenue East -Room 414
a
Kalispell, MT 59901
This letter is to express my concern and oppposition to the conditional
use permit and preliminary plat approval to construct a 10-dwelling
condominium project known as Chokecherry Ridge. This request was made by
Unicore Development, Inc., on behalf of John J. and Brenda Lee Vincent.
Several factors make this proposed project unfeasible. First, the
neighborhood, located in the area around East California Street and the
adjoining avenues, is comprised almost exclusively of single family homes, and
the proposed 10-unit condominium complex would sharply contrast with this
setting. In addition to not conforming with the neighborhood homes, this
type of project would most likely lead to greatly reduced property values for
the current homeowners in this area.
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. None 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 trips per day would definitely increase
the probability of accidents. There are very few sidewalks in this area, and
anyone who chooses to walk, jog, 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, not the 10-foot distance
as shown on the map included with the announcement. This bank, according
to long-time residents, has altered considerably over the years, occasionally
sloughing off large chunks of soil to the area below. The small area means
that nearly the entire lot will be covered with the condiminium units and
parking spaces. There will be no yard space, no 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, 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 can
understand that, of course. They even made a plea for an alternative plan, if
this 10-unit condominium 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 problems would be kept at a minimum, and the
instability of the bank would not be such a factor.
I invite members of the Planning Board to personally come to look at
the site of this proposed development to see for yourselves the nature of our
neighborhood and to see why this planned 10-unit condominium 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 compatible to this proposed
project already exist.
I urge the Planning Board members not to approve the conditional use
permit and preliminary plat request as it is presented. It does not meet the
original recommendations of the Planning Board (as outlined at the February
9, 1999, Planning Board meeting), and, in fact, seems to have taken a new
direction altogether, by asking for smaller setbacks from the bank, and even
more room to be allotted for parking spaces on an already overcrowded area.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration in this important matter.
Yours truly,
Y)&X,P. y
Mary J. Cheman
47-
From: Steve Cheman March 29, 1999
494 5th Ave. E.N.
Kalispell, MT 59901
To: Kalispell City -County Plamming Board and Zoning Commission
Dear Board members:
I wish to take this opportunity to strongly express my opposition to the
proposed Chokecherry Ridge ten -unit condominium project planned for construction
on the north side of California St. between 5th and 6th Ave. E.N. in Kalispell.
My main concern with this project is that it is entirely incompatible with the
existing neighborhood community which is made up almost entirely of single family
homes extending along the bluff from 6th Ave. E.N. westward to the entrances of
Lawrence Park and the Buffalo Hills Golf Course. These existing single family homes
are inhabited by both older long-time residents whose continuous occupancy in some
cases, dates back to the 1930's, as well as younger shorter -term residents with young
children.
I need to say that I am not opposed to development. The parcel of land where
the proposed condo project will be built is a very good development site for one or
two large single family homes or at most, one or two large duplexes. If this proposed
condo project were to become a reality, I am convinced that it would result in lower
not higher property values for the adjacent community, additionally, the project's
proposed 23-25 new parking places to accomodate the condo owners and tennants
will result in horrendous traffic problems on California St. and nearby avenues,
especially during the early morning and early evening rush hours. Further, while the
developer claims that this project will be located on 2.6 acres of land, in actual fact,
there is only about .66 or 2/3 of an acre of available buildable flat land where
construction is even feasible. The remaining two acres are comprised of steep sloping
hillsides and lower elevation wet -lands which are largely under water throughout the
year.
In conclusion, I ask the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission to reject this development project and proposed zoning change and
require the developer to propose a project that complies with the existing community
of single family homes.
Respectfully,
Steve Cheman
CERTIFICATION
APPLICANT: CHOKECHERRY RIDGE & UNICORE DEVELOPMENT INC
FRDO FILE #: KPP-99-1 KCU-99-1
I, the undersigned certify that I did this date mail via certified or registered mail a copy
of the attached notice to the following list of landowner"d-ioinin2 the vroperty lines
of the property that is to be subdivided.
Date:T
Assessor's S-T-R Lot/Tract Property Owner
No. No. & Mail Address
SEE ATTACHED LIST
OWNER OF RECORD
JOHN J & BRENDA L VINCENT
UNICORE DEV
PO BOX 2270
KALISPELL MT 59903
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
EARL MCPEEK
305 KELLY ROAD #23
KALISPELL MT 59901
TECHNICAL PARTICIPANT
JACKOLA ENGINEERING
PO BOX 1134
KALISPELL MT 59903
FLATHEAD LAND CONSULTANTS
PO BOX 572
KALISPELL MT 59903
Traci A Assessor #
x�
800 S. Main
Lot 10
0724651
Cheryl O Stebbins aiispe
82
PO Box 8274 APPROVED
Kalispell MT 5990t
Lot 11
75-0484050
William J Johnson
PO Box 261
Lakeside MT 59922
Lot 12
75-0166600
Robert L. Cornell, Revocable Living Trust
82.
495 7th Avenue East North
,.
Kalispell MT 59901
Block 3
City of Kalispell
895D
R o 8o X le? 97
T 52 903
Block 3
0104150
den e vie ve S �' Rr D • Baum �r,.m,
333 South Mountain View Drive
Kalispell MT 59901
Block 3
75-0722610
Raymond and Patricia Ovel
474 7th Avenue East North
Kalispell MT 59901
Flock 3
75-0455670 zo
Steven and Loma Avery
PO Box 746
•'
Bozeman MT 59771
Block 3
75-0573925 L�
, Richardson
7Linda
645 Conrad Drive Trailer #12
°
Kalispell MT 59901
Block 3
75-0687750 La
Lester Trust
15827 East Richwood Avenue
Fountain Hills AZ 85268
Block 4
75-0821123
Daniel Grob
�unc.rdd.
478 6th Avenue North East
Kalispell MT 59901
Block 4
75-0198379 z t
Dennis Dorr �4 An4 F, Dorr
0, 1
484 6th Avenue North East
Kalispell MT 59901
Block 4 -- -- —
_ __
75-0_ _848425__
_
1.
Brett & Sandi Swain
492 6th Avenue North East
Kalispell MT 59901
Block 4
75-0505400
10. Gary & Shantell Montgomery
477 5th Avenue North East
Kalispell MT 59901
Block 4
75-0914613 L,f
Jon & Sylvia Heselwood
785 North Main
Kalispell MT 59901
Block 4
75-0867350 4--tAZ
Florence Tigges
502 East California Avenue
Kalispell MT59901
Block 5
'75-0365740
pau,C,,"SR
Steven & Mary Cheman
Ea ---1 82-' of
494 5th Avenue North East
pots �'
Kalispell MT 59901
IMISPULN
B',ock 5
J Will, Family Trust
Dunc�45 AdQ,'ara-
CG'esf G0�of
494 E. S. +,-ee;t
Gofs /jr ;2 -
Kalispell MT 59901
Block 5
75-0156150
Helen Collins & Clara Anderson
d(xnC44us ,gdd;,L n
740 Clairmont?'Apt #121 C
aiis ell MT 59901
24A 8 a a-3r)
05-0974671
Edgar A. & Margaret L. White
135 Birch Drive
Whitefish MT 59937
4
05-0409100
Albert & Loretta Johnson
467 East California Street
Kalispell MT 59901
5 .,
05-0787850
McElroy & Wilken
PO Box 35
Kalispell MT 59903
58A
05-0455500
McElroy & Wilken .zi,-a
PO Box 35
Kalispell MT 59903
`5B
05-0455500
McElroy & Wilken =v--
PO Box 35
Kalispell MT 59904
23BA
05-0981309
Peter & Vivian Sprunge -
653 Whitefish Stage Road
Kalispell MT 59901
23B
05-03((.600 -
Peter & Vivian Sprunge+r
653 Whitefish Stage Road
Kalispell MT 59901
238B
05-0981515
Callen & Joyce McDonald
HCR 80 Box 775
Camdenton MO 65020
23K
05-0888051
Callen & Joyce McDonald
HCR 80 Box 775
Camdenton MO 65020
23KA
75-0981516
Peter & Vivian Sprwl er
road
653 Whitefish Stage
Kalispell MT 59901
�3
05-088eoSa
6,e//en.D.JrY"yce,4-114cDonald
Hc,e So Box ��s
GcLrn R'Err f'On Axle GSO�O
23C
0� E000/<a�j
�12f�'i.ec��Coc.�n-�
0 76,2 Si5/
n��� l � /tit . /1 a"z zo
of9"4 86 Ave- EN
clav-vt'e"llek-L 17I��Pi/50h
Dw+,c 3 pdo/;�r'ox
Z48eV 8yti eve Ems(
4-4(iSVe4(, 1-n7- SZJ90l
TRACT #
ASSESSOR
ADDRESS
L�o7'3,
.s /4ddw
75-011&6sd
/Lti/ton A. 4 Hete+ 8.84,e�c,e
C.- es R4*i-a (rS740-fi c r
C r�s{�,. , m T S49o2
dot/z, a x E
D s ,9rd
i Tr 70
75-09337Y.0
,�d6e/�l>. r Dor;na tit,
495' 4/!L4 4v.- Env 9
94 (: sloe U � M7- 59901
Oa,n � s g,�4d�It
i Tr7u,-2 -c 4
i5-O(�f�$'90
,�°d''� �: Gvat/e�te
�s �f _ Av e,. Eiv f
e�AilS d j M7— �9%01
L4;4/o ,81,E E
Dune ,s
7` �Dcf 9//7S
r Ah (1(lP 41 8re lda Ge e C�a.-,ems
6w
/v1 T S99D r
NOTICEOF PU13LIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit for Kalispell Senior Housing Project
®T Communication Tower
Chokecherry Ridge Condominiums
Andrew Parris Zone Change from SAG-10 and R-1 to R-3
River Place Subdivision and Zone Change in Evergreen
The regular meeting of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission is
scheduled for Tuesday, April 13, 1999, beginning at 7:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council
Chambers, Kalispell City Hall, 312 First Avenue East, Kalispell. During this regularly
scheduled meeting, the board will hold public hearings or take public comments on the
following agenda items and will make recommendations to the City Council or the Board of
County Commissioners, who will take final action:
To the Kalispell City Council:
1. A request by Kalispell Senior Housing Association for a conditional use permit to allow a
24 unit senior citizen independent living facility proposed to be located at the northwest
end of Corporate Way. The property is located approximately 1,200 feet north of
Highway 2 West on the west side of Corporate Way in Kalispell. The property is zoned
RA-1, a Low Density Residential Apartment, district which lists multi -family dwellings as
a conditionally permitted use. The property contains approximately 1.81 acres and is
currently vacant. The property where the project is proposed can be described as
Assessor's Tract 7AD located in Section 12, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.,M
Flathead County, Montana.
2. A request by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDOT) for a conditional use
permit to construct an approximately 100 foot tall communications tower in conjunction
with their maintenance building in Kalispell. The property where the MDOT tower would
be located is at 85 Fifth Avenue E.N. The tower would be placed atop a building located
generally in the northwest portion of the property. The property can be described as
Assessor's Tracts 30-10 and 30-20 in Section 8, Township 28 North, Range 21 West,
P.M.M., Flathead County.
3. A request by Unicore Development, Inc., on behalf of John J. and Brenda Lee Vincent,
for a conditional use permit and preliminary plat approval to construct a 10 dwelling
condominium project known as Chokecherry Ridge. The project area is zoned R-3
single-family residential and is proposed as a cluster development. It consists of two
complexes, each containing 5 condominium units located within 10 feet of the edge of
the steep slopes which mark the edge of the buildable area. The site contains
approximately 2.60 acres with approximately .66 acres devoted to the development,
approximately 0.85 acres to be dedicated to the City as an addition to Lawrence Park
and the remaining 1.09 acres which are bottomlands next to the Stillwater River as
undeveloped lands. The location of the property is on the north side of California Street
between Fifth Avenue E.N. and Sixth Avenue E.N. in Kalispell. The property can be
described as Assessor's Tract 23A located in Section 12, Township 28 North, Range 21
West, P.M.,M, Flathead County, Montana. Note: The Kalispell City Council returned
this project to the Planning Board at their March 15th meeting for re -hearing because of
substantive changes proposed at the Council meeting which did not comply with the
Planning Board record.
To the Board of County Commissioners:
5. A request by Andrew Farris for a zone change in the Evergreen and Vicinity Zoning
District from SAG-10, Suburban Agricultural, a district with a ten acre minimum lot
size, on approximately 15.7 acres and R-1, Suburban Residential, one acre minimum lot
size, on approximately 2.2 acres, to R-3, Limited One Family Residential. The proposed
R-3 zoning would provide for single-family residential lots with minimum lot area of
10,000 square feet (approximately 1/4 acre). The property is located on the north side of
East Reserve Drive and east of LaSalle Road (Highway 2) approximately 2,000 feet. The
property can be described as Assessor's Tract 7 located in Section 28, Township 29
North, Range 21 West, P.M.,M, Flathead County, Montana and as further described in
attached Exhibit A.
6. A request by Al Sylling d.b.a. Arico for a zone change for property in the Evergreen and
Vicinity Zoning District from R-1, Suburban Residential, a residential zone requiring a
minimum one acre lot size, to R-3, Limited One Family Residential, a residential zone
requiring a minimum 10,000 square foot lot size (approximately 1/4 acre). Both
residential zones allow double -wide manufactured homes on a permanent foundation,
but do not allow single -wide manufactured homes. The area proposed for rezoning
contains approximately 54.4 acres and is filed in conjunction with River Place
Subdivision. The property is located on the east side of River Road approximately 1,200
feet north of Highway 2 West in Evergreen. The property can be described as Assessor's
Tracts 11, 11AA, 11AB, 1AD, 11BA, 11B, 11AC, 11AAA, 3A and 3RE located in Section
4, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M. M., Flathead County, Montana. The property
is more specifically described in attached Exhibit B.
7. A request by Al Sylling d.b.a. Arico for preliminary plat approval of River Place
Subdivision, a 144 lot residential subdivision located in the Evergreen and Vicinity
Zoning District. A zone change from R-1, Suburban Residential, a residential zone
requiring a minimum one acre lot size, to R-3, Limited One Family Residential, a
residential zone requiring a minimum 10,000 square foot lot size, has been filed in
conjunction with the subdivision. The area proposed for subdivision contains
approximately 54.4 acres with most lots in the subdivision containing approximately
10,000 square feet. The property is located on the east side of River Road approximately
1,200 feet north of Highway 2 West in Evergreen. The property can be described as
Assessor's Tracts 11, 11AA, 11AB, 1AD, 11BA, 11B, 11AC, IlAAA, 3A and 3RE located
in Section 4, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M. M., Flathead County, Montana.
Documents pertaining to these agenda items are on file for public inspection in the Flathead
Regional Development Office, 723 Fifth Avenue East, Room 414, Kalispell, MT 59901, and are
available for public review during regular office hours. Flathead County Zoning Regulations
are also on file for public inspection at the Office of the Clerk and Recorder, Flathead County
Courthouse, Kalispell, MT, in Permanent File No. 16137.
Interested persons are encouraged to attend the hearings and make their views and concerns
known to the Board. Comments in writing may be submitted to the Flathead Regional
Development Office at the above address prior to the date of the hearing.
�1
F
Thomas R. Jentz
Planning Director
RIDGECHOKECHERRY t` t •S / UNICORE DEVELOPMENT,
FLATHEAD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
SUBDIVISION • ' s
••
A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Kalispell City Council regarding
a request for preliminary plat approval for a 10-unit condominium subdivision. A hearing
has been scheduled before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board for April 13, 1999, in
the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The Planning Board will forward a recommendation
to the Kalispell City Council for final action.
A. Petitioner: John J. and Brenda Lee Vincent
Unicore Development Inc.
P.O. Box 2270
Kalispell, MT 59901
Technical assistance: Jackola Engineering
PO Box 1134
Kalispell, MT 59903
B. Location of Property: The site is located on the north side of California St.
between 5th and 6th Av. E.N. The property is described as a portion of Assessors
Tract 23A in Section 8, T28N, R21W, P.M., M., Flathead County, Montana.
C. Size:
Total area: 2.63 acres
Condominium site area: 0.66 acres
Open space 1.12 acres
Dedicated city park area: 0.85 acres
D. Summary of bequest: The request is for preliminary plat approval to construct
Chokecherry Ridge Condos, a 10-unit condominium subdivision on 2.6 acres. The
application proposes the following: a building configuration of two five-plexes, a
new paved, private roadway, 24' wide with curb and gutter; planting of trees and
shrubs to ease the effect on neighbors; a decorative sign; and two-story buildings
set back at least 10 feet from the top of the river bank; and dedication of 0.847
acres to the City of Kalispell as a park. Simultaneous applications have been
received for annexation, a zone change to R-3 Residential in the Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance, and a conditional use permit to construct a residential cluster
development. Note: this project was heard by the Kalispell City -County
Planning Board on February 9th and forwarded to the City Council for final
action with a recommendation to deny. At the City Council meeting, the
applicants submitted a revised site plan showing two five-plex units setback
from 7 - 10 feet from the existing top of slope instead of two four-plexes and a
duplex set back 20 feet from the slope. Because of the design changes, the
Council directed the Planning Board to readvertise and rehear the preliminary
plat and conditional use permit applications.
E. E2dsting Land Use and Zoning: The site includes a building historically used as a
commercial ice house, which is proposed to be removed. The existing zoning is
County R-1, Suburban Residential. The proposed zoning is City R-3, Residential.
F. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning: The general land use character of the area is
single-family residential to the south and west, and undeveloped riparian area to
the north and east.
North: Stillwater River, undeveloped, County R-1 zoning
South: California St. single-family residential, Kalispell R-3 zoning
East: Undeveloped remainder site, County R-1 zoning
West: Single family residential and Lawrence Park,
Kalispell R-3 and P-1 zoning
G. Proposed Availability of Utilities/Services:
Sewer service: City of Kalispell
Water service: City of Kalispell
Solid Waste:
City of Kalispell
Gas:
Montana Power Company
Electric:
Pacific Power/Flathead Electric
Phone:
CenturyTel
Police:
City of Kalispell
Fire:
Kalispell Fire Department
Schools:
School District #5, Kalispell
� s f
This application is reviewed as a major subdivision in accordance with State statutory
review criteria and the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations.
A. Compliance with the Flathead County Zoning Regulations:
As noted above, the proposed zoning is City R-3 Residential. This is a single family
zone with minimum lot sizes of 7,000 sq. feet. The subdivision as proposed requires
a conditional use permit under the cluster provisions of the zoning ordinance in
order to establish zoning conformity in terms of density, lot width, building setback
and other requirements of the R-3 district. It is noted that the 10 foot landscape
strip along California and the 20 foot setback is provided as required. The
subdivision complies with the minimum parking requirements of the zoning
ordinance by providing 25 parking spaces for the proposed 10 dwellings with a
space within each of the 10 single car garages and 15 others placed either in front
of the garages or in front of the units. Please note that the parking design is very
convenient for entering each parking space, however there is significant
inconvenience for exiting the two northerly parking spaces, necessitating backing
up 50 - 60 feet before a turn around can be achieved. The situation will be
exacerbated if units 4, 5 and 6 park in front of their garages as the design may
encourage.
2
19
COA
The subdivision substantially complies with the Kalispell City -County Master Plan.
The plan map designates this area as urban residential, open space, and the
transition area in between. The site is along a boundary between more intensive
and less intensive land use designations, and the map boundaries are generalized.
The proposed zoning would also further the goal in the master plan of providing for
a diversity of housing needs in the community.
Effects on Health and Safety:
Topography, soils, and flooding: The site includes a steep bank (a vertical rise of
approximately 40' at a 50-80% slope), subject to risks of slope instability and
erosion. The site also includes 100-year floodplain of the Stillwater River at the
bottom of the bank. The applicants are proposing to place the buildings 7 - 10 feet
from the top of the existing bank stating that this is adequate to mitigate slope
issues. They state that when site work is complete, they will lower the westerly
portion of the site to the elevation of 2,898 feet, taking 2 feet and the associated
vegetation off of the site. This will achieve a 10 foot setback from the edge of the
slope. The building site area is not mapped in the Soil Survey.
Subdivision regulations require the following: that the design and development of
subdivisions contain suitable building sites which are properly related to
topography and shall preserve the natural terrain, natural drainage, existing
topsoil, trees, natural vegetation, and wildlife and fish habitats to the greatest
extent feasible (3.02); and that a drainage easement be placed along a watercourse
extending at least 50 feet from high water and having sufficient width to allow for
maintenance and stream bank preservation (3.18.D).
The applicants hired Billmayer engineering to conduct 5 boring samples on the site.
The report, attached to this packet and entitled "Proposal, March 15, 1999, provides
information that the site was previously filled and offers 3 recommendations. The
report indicates that the east half of the site from the existing ice house and
extending 150 or so northerly (typically, building site 6 -9) was subject to fill with
road base quality material. The report states that the banks all appear to be well
vegetated and show no significant slope failures. The three recommendation are as
follows:
1. For normal construction of 2 story buildings, the frost footings maintain a
setback from the slope crest (elevation 2968) of 10 feet. This is basically the
UBC setback requirement of 1/3 of the slope height.
2. In the silt loan materials on the west side of the site foundations bearing
pressures not exceed 1000 psf.
3. In the granular fill on the east side of the site, the foundation pressures not
exceed 1,500 psf.
Dick Ammerman, assistant public works Director for the City, observed a large
crack developing in the site along the westerly side. The crack extended 15 or more
feet running parallel to and 15 feet back from the edge of the bank. Mr. Ammerman
estimated the crack was at least 3 feet deep. This crack would run through
3
portions of units 1 and 2. Mr. Ammerman stated that evidence of such a crack
raises serious concerns of slope stability and potential failure.
A letter received from the Flathead Conservation District (1/25/99) states as
follows:
"The Planning Office should consider requiring a professional engineer to analyze
the stability of the slope as well as the loading by the construction of the condos on
the top of the bank. Quick calculations show that the condos vary from 13 to 20
(this was based on the February applicant submittal) feet back from the top of the
bank. This could place a heavy load on the soils, possibly causing slumping of the
banks. With the increase �n impervious surfaces (pavement, roofs), the problem
could be magnified. Placement of plowed snow could have a significant negative
impact. Our soil scientist noted this is the same parent material as the soils along
the Whitefish River. You will recall the same material caused several homes to
slump towards the river, just south of Highway 40, approximately two years ago.
An engineering review could ensure this is addressed before a decision is made for
approval/denial of the project. In addition, the engineering report should reveal if
there is a perched water table along this bank. There is a high likelihood that this
would occur in the area. In addition, if this project is approved, we recommend that
the contractor and the condo association be required to retain all the vegetative
cover on the banks, to help stabilize the soils."
A subdivision was reviewed in 1998, Hillcrest Unit 8, on a similar bench above the
Whitefish River approximately 1/2 mile north of this site, and the geotechnical
engineer's assessment submitted with the preliminary plat recommended a 35'
building setback from top of the slope to ensure slope stability. To ensure the
safety of the proposed building sites and protect downslope properties and water
quality, staff recommends the following:
Prior to building construction and revised preliminary plat approval, obtain a
geotechnical assessment prepared by a licensed professional engineer finding
that the site and proposed improvements would pose no significant slope
stability hazard nor other geological hazard to the development nor to
neighboring properties. Any design and construction measures
recommended in the assessment shall be noted on the revised preliminary
plat and implemented as requirements of building permit approval.
A 20 foot building setback area from the top of the bank (i.e., the sloped area
exceeding 30%) shall be shown on the revised preliminary plat and
implemented as a requirement of building permit approval.
Because of the steep slopes and the difficulty in maintaining vegetative cover
on such slopes once disturbed, no slopes in excess of 30% shall be removed
or altered. A minimum 10 foot vegetative area along the east, north and west
sides of the site immediately adjacent to slopes in excess of 30% shall be
maintained intact so as to protect the edge of the bank from surface erosion.
No structure including decks or roof overhangs shall be allowed to encroach
into this 10 foot area.
Fire and emergency access: The site is in an urbanized area and would be served
by the Kalispell Fire Department. The subdivision is approximately one mile from
the fire station and police station. The subdivision has suitable access via California
St., a paved city, street. The fire chief has requested that a 10 foot area along the
0
back (slope side) of all of the units be left unobstructed from the ground up,
including all decks and roof overhangs so that he can properly address fire issues.
Note that the applicants schematic house designs show decks and roof overhangs
into this area.
Remainder parcel: The subdivision proposes a remainder parcel approximately six
acres in size. A remainder is land intended to be retained by the subdivider,
generally being where the subdivider resides, has a business, uses for agriculture,
or intends to use for future phases of continued subdivision. The proposed
remainder is unsuitable because the subdivider has no existing use established
there and the land contains no suitable building site for future construction.
Virtually all of the site is either slough and wetland, 100-year floodplain, very steep
bank down to the floodplain, and perimeter building setback area. Staff
recommends as follows:
All of Assessors Tract 23A (Section 8, T28N, R21W) shall be included on the
final plat with no remainder. The additional land area may be shown as park
or common area.
r;ff re -VT , W . I t I tm 1111, . .
The site is in an urbanized area and is not mapped by the Montana Department of
Fish, Wildlife and Parks as significant riparian or big game habitat. The
channel/wetland area on the site, however, is anticipated to provide habitat for a
variety of birds and other species, including a bull moose that has been in the
vicinity since last summer. No development is proposed in the river bottom portion
of the site.
E. Effects on the Natural Environment:
River and bank area: As discussed above, the site includes a steep bank (a vertical
rise of approximately 40 feet at a 50-80% slope), subject to risks of slope instability
and erosion. The site also includes a slough channel of the Stillwater River at the
bottom of the bank, as well as 100-year floodplain. The application proposes that
primary buildings be set back 7 - 10 feet from the existing edge of slope and at the
same time propose to remove two feet of the top of the slope along the west side
dropping the top of slope two vertical feet thus allowing the new edge of slope to be
10 feet back. Decks and roof overhangs would protrude into this area. Subdivision
regulations also require a drainage easement be placed along a watercourse
extending at least 50 feet from high water and having sufficient width to allow for
maintenance and stream bank preservation. To comply with these provisions,
reduce erosion, protect wildlife, and contribute to the slope stability of the bank,
staff recommends the following:
The lands within 50' feetof mean high water of the Stillwater River slough
channel and extending to the top of the bank (sloped area exceeding 30%) shall
be retained in a natural state with no new structures, roadway, excavation, fill
or significant removal of healthy vegetation, except for bank stabilization
measures. This area shall be shown and the restriction shall be noted on the
revised preliminary plat.
5
Other effects on the natural environment: The development is anticipated to
require the removal of several mature trees near California St. The building site
portion of the site is relatively flat, requiring minimal grading. The street is paved,
and the proposed private roadway would be paved, preventing potential road dust
impacts on air quality.
F. Effects on Local Services:
Annexation: Annexation to the city would improve the overall level of public
services to the subdivision, including municipal utilities, a staffed fire
department, substantially more police staffing per capita and size of service area,
and public trash removal service.
Water and sewer: Municipal water and sewer lines are already in place in the
street right-of-way to serve the site. Assistant City Engineer Dick Ammerman
continues to recommend that individual sewer and water service lines be extended
from California St. to each unit, rather than sewer and water mains.
Streets: Traffic generation from the development is estimated at 50 average daily
trips, based on estimates for condominium housing in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers trip generation manual. The proposed development has
adequate access by California St. a city street with 60' right-of-way width,
approximately 30' pavement width, curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the south side.
Zoning standards require that the private driving aisle accessing the units have 24'
paved width and meet curve radius standards and that the condominium
association be responsible for maintenance of the street and other common
property, including snow removal. City Standards for Design and Construction
require implementation of plans for the subdivision addressing drainage,
revegetation, and erosion control. Subdivision regulations require installation of a
sidewalk on the development side of California St. adjacent to the site. Two other
street issues are apparent. First, staff recommends provision of adequate space for
snow storage in locations that are taken into consideration in the drainage plan.
The public works department does not support placement of the snow storage area
as designated on the March 1999 site plan as over the bank as this is an unstable
area and the increased water flow and snow melt could have negative impacts on
slope and vegetative stability. Second, to mitigate neighborhood impacts of the
multi -family density and provide for standard street improvements, staff
recommends installation of street trees on California St. adjacent to the site, in
accordance with plans approved by the Kalispell Parks Director.
Schools: Staff estimates that 5 additional school -age children would reside at the
site with full build -out of the subdivision. The property is located within the
Kalispell School District. Gary Rose from the District commented that students
would attend Edgerton or Russell Schools, and that bus service may be provided on
a first come, first served basis.
Parks: The site plan proposes dedication of 0.847 acres of land to the City as park,
which amply meets subdivision requirements for parkland dedication. The proposed
park has no public road access and is close to, but does not abut, Lawrence Park.
Parks Director Mike Baker commented the proposed park is a wetland area and is
0
not anticipated to be a developed recreation area, so the need for access would be
rare. He added that dedication of the wetland area north of the property by McElroy
&v Wilkin is contemplated, which would connect the proposed park here to Lawrence
Park. To ensure necessary access in the meantime, Baker agreed that an easement
or note on the revised preliminary plat should be required allowing the City of
Kalispell access through the development site to the proposed park.
Police Protection: Police protection will be provided by the Kalispell Police
Department. No unusual impacts or needs are anticipated from the proposed
residential development.
a. Fire Protection: Fire protection will be provided by the Kalispell Fire
Department. No unusual impacts or needs are anticipated from the
proposed residential development. Fire Chief Ted Waggoner recommended
that, to avoid confusion in providing emergency access, the proposed access
roadway shall not be named and the addresses to the units shall be on
California St. A hydrant is proposed, subject to approval by the Fire Chief. In
addition Chief Waggonner requested that a minimum 10 foot area be
maintained completely open and unobstructed between the edge of the bank
and any deck, structure or barrier so that his fireman can adequately get
around behind the units in emergency situations.
Refuse Disposal: Refuse disposal would be provided by the City of Kalispell. The
County Landfill has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional refuse
generated from this subdivision. Public Works Director Jim Hansz recommended
that individual trash removal service be provided to each unit, rather than a
common dumpster site.
Medical Services: Medical services are available at Kalispell Regional Hospital
approximately one road mile from the site.
G. Effects on Agriculture and Agricultural Water User Facilities:
The 2.6-acre site is in urbanized area abutting the city. No significant impact on
agriculture or water user facilities is anticipated.
H. Compliance with the Flathead County Subdivision Regulations:
The proposal complies with subdivision requirements, subject to meeting conditions
that address improvements and design.
The Flathead Regional Development Office recommends that Kalispell City Council adopt
the Staff Report #KPP99- lA as fmdings of fact and grant preliminary plat approval for this
subdivision subject to the following conditions:
1) The condominium subdivision shall comply with the Montana Unit Ownership Act.
2) design the site plan to comply with a 20 foot setback for primary and attached
primary structures such as garages to protect slope stability and to provide some
7
degree or margin of safety in the event of slope failure. (Note: The parking
requirements of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance at 25 spaces and the proposed
20' building setback from the top of the bank (i.e., measured from the edge of
slopes exceeding 30%) may necessitate a reduction in the number of dwelling
units to meet the design parameters of this site to meet this condition.)
s 3) As requested by the fire chief provide a minimum 10 foot setback for all decks, roof
overhangs and other structures that would inhibit free access to the rear of the lots
for fire fighting access. The 20' setback area from the top of the slope shall be
shown on the revised site plan.
4 Prior to building construction and revised preliminary plat approval, obtain a
geotechnical assessment prepared by a licensed professional engineer finding that
the site and proposed improvements would pose no significant slope stability
hazard nor other geological hazard to the development nor to neighboring
properties. Any design and construction measures recommended in the
assessment shall be implemented as requirements of building permit approval and
shall be noted on the revised preliminary plat.
The lands within 50 feet of mean high water of the Stillwater River slough channel
and extending to the top of the bank (sloped area exceeding 30%) shall be retained
in a natural state with no new structures, roadway, excavation, fill, or significant
removal of healthy vegetation, except for immediate bank stabilization measures.
In addition, the area within 10 feet of the top of the bank shall be left
substantially in -tact to maintain a healthy vegetative cover to inhibit immediate
bank erosion. These areas shall be shown, and the restriction shall be noted, on
the revised preliminary plat.
6) The subdivision shall comply with the Kalispell Design and Construction
Standards, as approved by the Public Works Department. Preliminary and final
design standards shall be submitted to and approved by the Public works
department prior to construction of said improvements.
® Install detached sidewalk on the north side of California St. abutting the
entire length of the subdivision ownership.
® Prepare and implement plans for drainage, erosion control, and revegetation.
Provide adequate space for snow storage in locations that are taken into
consideration in the drainage plan.
® Sewer and water facilities shall meet design and improvements standards.
Extend individual sewer and water service lines from California St. to each
unit, rather than sewer and water mains.
0 Provide individual trash removal service to each unit, rather than a common
dumpster site.
7) The proposed park shall be dedicated to the City of Kalispell prior to revised
preliminary plat approval. Execute an easement or place a note on the revised
preliminary plat allowing the City access through the development site to the
proposed park.
8) A landscape plan showing the proposed planting of trees and shrubs on the
development site shall be approved by the City Parks Director and implemented.
The plan shall include plantings to moderately screen the development site from the
neighboring properties to the south and west, a perimeter landscape strip at least
10 feet in width, and of all disturbed area.
9) Install street trees along the north side of California St. adjacent to the site, in
accordance with a plan approved by the City Parks Director.
10) To avoid confusion in providing emergency access, the proposed access roadway
shall not be named and the addresses to the units shall be on California St.
11) Provide hydrants, access, and other improvements as necessary to comply with the
Uniform Fire Code as approved by the Kalispell Fire Chief.
12) The following notes shall be placed on the revised preliminary plat and
implemented:
® All house numbers shall be placed to be visible from the road, either at the
driveway entrance or on the building.
® New utilities shall be installed underground.
13) The preliminary plat shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of
approval.
M
This application shall be submitted, along with all information required by the applicable
Subdivision Regulations and the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, and the
appropriate fee to:
Flathead Regional Development Office, 723 Fifth Avenue East, Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901 - Phone:. (406)758-5980 Fax: (406)758-5781
F 4*5&*iF11 1"J 5A
Major Subdivision......................................................$450 + 10/lot
(6 or more lots)
Condominiums ................................................. ....$450 + 10/unit
(6 or more lots - land is not subdivided) �SPd # f . , L
Mobile Home Parks & Campgrounds ...........................$40 +/space g.
r A P
(6 or more spaces - land is not subdivided)
Amended Preliminary Plat..........................................$200
SUBDIVISION NAME:
O ER(S) OF RECORD:
Name (-C" i,r ylt c.n,- e D'--y'd apmen4 Inc _ Phone 759 6 89 5
Mailing City/ State
Address: P �• �J ��] Q Zip � nael,
TECHNICAL/PROFESSIONAL PARTICIPANTS (Surveyor/Designer/Engineer, etc):
Name & AddressJr,,: k&:6g- ate �o. b�ax 113u S gro3
Name & Address
Name & Address
City/ County
Street Address
Assessor's Tract No. (s) 23 A — Lot No. (s )
1/4 Section 9 Township _ a8 ill Range .2/ ti,/'
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBDIVISION: /D T � o»li»lU4m,
Number of Lots or Rental Spaces to Total Acreage in Subdivision 9`s'
Total Acreage in Lots _Minimum Size of Lots or Spaces 9so-F-/
Total Acreage in Streets or Roads 2S Maximum Size of Lots or Spaces ►zoo �,
Total Acreage in Parks, Open Spaces and/or Common Areas
PROPOSED USE(S) AND NUMBER OF ASSOCIATED LOTS/SPACES:
Single Family Townhouse Mobile Home Park
Duplex Apartment Recreational Vehicle Park
Commercial Industrial Planned Unit Development
Condominium i O Multi-FamilyOther
APPLICABLE ZONING DESIGNATION & DISTRICT R-3
ESTIMATE OF MARKET VALUE BEFORE IMPROVEMENTS
IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED:
Roads: Gravel Paved Curb Gutter Sidewalks Alleys Other
Water System: Individual Multiple user Neighborhood ✓Public Other
Sewer System: Individual Multiple User Neighborhood ✓Public Other
Other Utilities: ✓Cable TV ✓ Telephone _.✓ Electric yGas Other
Solid Waste: Home Pick Up ✓Central Storage Contract Hauler Owner Haul
Mail Delivery: ✓ Central Individual School District:
Fire Protection: ZHydrants Tanker Recharge Fire District:
Drainage System: ,ti 141p cof o—_ Si Scl5 -
PROPOSED EROSION/ SEDIMENTATION CONTROL: 3CZ3�1�.
i /
VARIANCES: ARE ANY VARIANCES REQUESTED?
please complete the information below:
(yes/no) If yes,
1-�-'ROPOSED ALTERNATIVE(S) TO STRICT COMPLIANCES WITH ABOVE
ff-AVIID)! • ►
tr
1. Will the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public health, safety or
general welfare or injurious to other adjoining properties?
2. Will the variance cause a substantial increase in public costs?
3. Will the variance affect, in any manner, the provisions of any adopted zoning
regulations or Master Plan?
4. Are there special circumstances related to the physical characteristics of the
site (topography, shape, etc.) that create the hardship?
5. What other conditions are unique to this property that create the need for a
variance?
3
The subdivider shall submit a complete application addressing items below to the
FRDO Office at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the meeting at which it will be
heard.
1. Preliminary plat application.
2. 16 copies of the preliminary plat.
3. One reproducible set of supplemental information. (See Appendix A -
Flathead County Subdivision Regulations).
4. One reduced copy of the preliminary plat not to exceed 11" x 17" in size.
S. Application fee.
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury and the laws of the State of Montana that the
information submitted herein, on all other submitted forms, documents, plans or any
other information submitted as a part of this application, to be true, complete, and
accurate to the best of my knowledge. Should any information or representation
submitted in connection with this application be untrue, I understand that any
approval based thereon may be rescinded, and other appropriate action taken. The
signing of this application signifies approval for the F.R.D.O. staff to be present on the
property for routine monitoring and inspection during the approval and development
process.
(Applicant)
51
(Date)
Y
APR ® 5 1999
484 8th Avenue East North
Kalispell, Montana 59901
April 3, 1999
Mr. Tom Jenz
Members of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission:
This is my response to your letter of notification for the meeting April 13, 1999, regarding the
proposed Choke Cherry Ridge condominium project by Unicore Development Inc. According to this notifi-
cation, it states that the request before you is for a conditional use permit and preliminary plat approval for a
10-dwelling condominium project on East California Street between 5th and 6th Avenues East North. This
notification also states that the property in question is zoned R-3. When we met with you the first time, as
well as when we met with the City Council, there were three petitions: one for annexation into the city, one
for reclassification from R-1 to R-3, and one for a conditional use permit and preliminary plat approval.
Attorney Battle said "all three or nothing." It was nothing! This notification states that the property is zoned
R-3. Has this property already been annexed and rezoned? If so, when were these changes made? If these
changes were decided without our knowledge, we, indeed, have reason to feel violated!
I wrote a lengthy letter to you dated February 9, 1999, stating reasons why I opposed Unicore's
original project --two four-plexes and one duplex. I do not wish to take up your valuable time to review those
objections. Please refer to that letter. I assume you still have all the neighbors' letters in your file.
Unicore Developers must think we are lacking in intelligence. 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! Instead of a twenty -foot setback, they are now propos-
ing a ten -foot setback. Mr. Jean Johnson, himself, even stated that the soil structure was similar to that of
other areas where considerable sloughing has already occurred.
I urge all of you to visit this site and then make a realistic decision based on the following neigh-
borhood concerns:
® In all subdivisions adjacent to and annexed into the city of Kalispell, lot size requirements are a
half acre or more and classified as single family residential dwellings. R-1 Suburban Residential property
must have a 1-acre minimum and be a single family residence. The building surface for this proposed devel-
opment site is only .66 or 2/3 of an acre. If the above mentioned size requirements are necessary, how then
can a ten -unit condominium project be crowded into an area this small?
® The remaining land is sloped or part of the natural, protected water and wildlife habitat adjacent to
Lawrence Park on the Stillwater River. Their "generous" gift for park land to the city sounds great, but it is
unfit for development and would only tranfer ownership from county to city. Who pays the present taxation
on this "waste" land? Visual perception of Lawrence Park will remain the same no matter who owns it.
® This neighborhood is made up entirely of single family homes. I believe it is safe to say all are
older than thirty years. One home within a block of this proposed project site is on the National Historical
Register. This project is nonconforming to this neighborhood.
® Assuming two or more cars per unit, we can project at least an additional twenty cars will be
trafficking Fifth and Sixth Avenues and California Street at various times during the day. Increased traffic
will make for even more difficult access on to Oregon Street which is now often impossible during commut-
ing hours to and from work and schools. California is not designed to be a through street. Adding visitor
vehicles will also contribute to heavier traffic than what should be in this neighborhood. The Developers
have said they have made provision for 25 parking spaces. As I read the new draft, only sixteen are shown.
Take a look at the new Re/Max parking lot down town. There are twenty-two spaces in it. Transplant this
sized parking lot to the proposed site and observe that adequate building space is further diminished.
• Snow removal, if moved to their designated snow storage area, will further add to the weight on
this unstable site. Please do not let the Developers convince you that this is solid ground for building.
Contrary to what they say, there are test holes that do reveal fill! The winter of 1996/1997, with its enormous
snowfall, was a challenge to all of us in this neighborhood as we tried to maneuver through cars and snowpiles
on the streets. Emergency vehicles would have had difficulty navigating through the driving lanes. We must
remember that winters with more snowfall than we have seen in these past two are entirely possible.
• We live where there are known faults, some major. What would an earthquake of any magnitude
do to these complexes? The weight of the buildings, plus stockpiled snow could be a major threat and should
be of concern. Should the ground be saturated with moisture, an earthquake could trigger a slide.
• What about fire protection? A personal check revealed the closest hydrants are located on the
southeast corners of 5th and 6th Avenues E.N. (1-1/2 blocks away) and 3rd Ave. E.N. on California (2-1/2
blocks away). A hydrant on the Johnson property on California was removed and never replaced. Why?
• I enclose 12hotos that show signs of sloughing. These locations are situated along the slopes
overlooking the Stillwater River. Their locations and descriptions are written on the backs of the photos. As
you can see in one, the property owner has taken some measures to stabilize the land at the back of his garage.
Other are on Whitefish Stage between McElroy and Wilkins near the city limit sign. This erosion has not
occurred overnight. It is a process that has taken place over the years. Last year one home at the end of
Fourth Avenue East North could have lost part of a new landscaping project. The owners were out of town
and had left a drip hose running. Neighbors, upon checking the property, found two to three-inch cracks in
the soil. Had they not discovered and shut off the water, the owner may have come home to find his back yard
"gone". A friend of mine lives in the home across from Mild Fence Company on Whitefish Stage. Her
property overlooks this same natural area on land of similar composition. The land at the back of her garage
sloughed off a year ago making use of her existing garage unsafe. She built a new garage out in the open, a
considerable distance from the surrounding banks. This development, if permitted, has no guarantee to the
prospective Buyers. Erosion is an ongoing process and no one can predict when a falling away will occur.
Should it happen within the years to follow, who will be the losers? It won't be the developers. They will be
gone and with no liability or accountability attached. It will be the Buyers who will suffer the losses.
• At the meeting with the City Council, Brenda Vincent made it very clear that the development of
this project was indeed monetary. This would be their retirement income. She wasn't interested in what was
compliant or best for our neighborhood. She pleaded with us to come up with suggestions. Also, a Realtor
spoke in favor of this project. Representing a prospective client, she is looking at personal gain-- a double
sale --one of these units and the client's home! We were given no opportunity to respond to her pleas.
• I hope that every board member has visited or will this site. Envision ten complexes cramped into
this 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? This should be of major concern, 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.
We were offended by the derogatory remark that was made about the doublewide across the street
from this project. A photo of that neat and very well maintained home --a neighborhood asset --is enclosed.
Until the City Council meeting, none of us had seen drawings of this condo project. It was tasteful
and quite attractive, but placing it on this small parcel does not conform to the character of this neighborhood.
As co-owner of the home at 476 5th Avenue East North, I submit the picture taken from the window in the
living room at the front of the house. As you can see, I am not speaking out because my view will be blocked!
None of us are against development. We just want appropriate development. We have suggested that the
building of two or three single family homes would be conforming and acceptable to this nice. quiet neigh-
borhood. Isn't the purpose of zoning to protect the integrity of a neighborhood? We surely hope so. As one
of the property owners, I strongly urge that this development be denied. Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
APR ° 5 IaQg
i'
Aprils, 1999
F. R. D. O.
Mr. Tom Jentz
Members of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission
Once again I am writing to you to voice my opposition to the proposed Choke Cherry Ridge project that is
being brought before you by Mr. and Mrs. Vincent and their developer Umcore Development, Inc.
I am familiar with the process that is before you and respect you for your time and your expertise in
dealing with the above proposal. I hope that as you listen to the Developer present the proposal, you will
also listen to the concerns of the neighbors affected by this new 10-unit cluster development.
Development is great if done in conformity with the neighborhood. I am not opposed to development
since I work with new housing starts. I work for Glacier Bank and do all the disbursals for both
residential and commercial construction projects. I am excited to see all the new development that is
taking place in the valley and am eager to see more begin. However, not if it going to have a negative
impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Kalispell does need some good lower priced single family
homes, but it does not need to develop where the impact again will be negative. The parcel in question
would be an ideal location for two or three single family homes in the $100,000 to $115,000 price range
not a 10-unit cluster development.
I understand that the main purpose for this development is for a monetary purpose. The Vincent's want
retirement money and I can understand that. Who doesn't want to have a good retirement. But at what
cost?
I do not live in this neighborhood, but have spent many hours at my grandparents home on 5th Avenue
East North. Hours spent outside in the yard both working and relaxing and I would hate to see the
neighborhood change from an entirely single family dwelling neighborhood to a cluster development.
Please listen to the neighbors and their concerns as well as to the concerns that I have regarding this
project. Some of the main concerns I have are listed below:
® The original plan as presented by Unicore Development, Inc. was to have a 10-unit cluster
development consisting of two four plexes and a duplex which would equal the 10 proposed units.
Now they are proposing only two buildings consisting of five dwelling units in each building. No
matter how I calculate, it still equals 10-units. The original plan was to allow for a 20-foot setback
from the bank, and the new proposal allows for 10-foot setbacks. What happened to the other
10-feet? After the first City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission meeting, I believe that
one of the commission's members even stated that he thought that it should be a 35-foot setback.
What is happening to these additional set -back feet?
There have been many comments made as to what the soil is made up of. I spoke with an engineer
that wouldn't give me too much detail since he had done the test holes but he told me to look at a
copy of the report that had been submitted to the Flathead Regional Development Office along with
other information by Umcore. I saw a copy of that report at the March 15th City Council meeting
and in three of the five test holes there was fill dirt in the results. How can one say that this is not
true. The test hole may have consisted of other components, but it still has a make up of fill dirt
which is considered not stable. The soil composition from what I have been told is very similar to
that of the Twin Bridges area in Whitefish that slumped two years ago due to the vast amounts of
moisture and water run off. What is to say that this will not happen here?
® Neighborhood Impact: A 10-unit cluster development is not compatible with the rest of the
neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood use is comprised of single family, older homes (some
have been remodeled in the past 10-15 years), and range in size from 900 sgft to 2,000 sgft. This
complex even if each unit were in the 900-1,500 square foot range would look out of character with
the neighborhood. It would look as if someone was trying to fit too much into too little space. Two
five plexes do not conform with the single family home neighborhood.
® At the March 15th City Council meeting Mrs. Vincent said that the increase in traffic would not be a
result of this development. Traffic was already a problem. I agree that traffic is already a problem.
By adding 20+ parking spaces, and the 20+ cars to fill those spaces as it is proposed, traffic is going
to be increased adding to the already congested traffic flow.
® The proposal states that there would be no on -street parking. Where are they planning to put all the
resident vehicles? Is there to be two car garage storage or one car garage storage? The average
family has 2 cars. Where do any additional vehicles park? Sooner or later there will be on the street
parking because of the following:
1) Lack of snow removal
2) Visitors/Guests
3) Multiple cars
4) RV/Recreational Vehicles
Who is going to monitor and make sure that there is no on -street parking? Who is
going to suffer? The neighborhood will suffer along with all of its neighbors.
Maintenance and upkeep: Those of us who live in this neighborhood take pride in our single family
homes and do the best that we can to maintain our yards and general maintenance on our homes. At
the first City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission meeting a comment was made by a
woman in opposition to anything that Unicore Development, Inc. was involved in. She spoke in
regards to the lack of maintenance and poor quality workmanship that went into a previous Unicore
Development project. She stated that they were involved in a lawsuit due to the poor maintenance
and construction of the units. Who will be there to make sure that these proposed 10-units will be
well maintained? Who will be there when Unicore Development and the Vincent's are gone? We
take pride in our neighborhood, those who have their home on the National Historic Register to those
who own the well kept double wide also known as a Manufactured home directly across the street
from the subject. Not once have these yards been left unattended. Not once have these homes been
allowed to deteriorate. We are a proud neighborhood and we all like the feeling of a job well done,
and spending the time to keep our properties looking nice gives each of us that satisfaction. We don't
want something in there that is not going to reflect that same pride in ownership.
I do not feel that Unicore Development, Inc.'s proposal for Choke Cherry Ridge has given sufficient
thought to the above mentioned issues and the concerns of the neighborhood and its neighbors.
Please consider the opposition of the neighbors affected by the proposed Choke Cherry Ridge project and
its impact on the neighborhood by denying this proposal as it is presented before you.
Thank you for your time and your consideration.
Sincerely,
2Sue Ellyn An erson
484 8th Avenue East North
Kalispell, Montana 59901
494 5Th Avenue E.N. PtrEIYED
Kalispell, MT 59901
March 29, 1999 O 0 1999
ftA
Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commiss' �11eAo R�
C/O Flathead Regional Development Office GlQ a
723 5th Avenue East -Room 414 a�
Kalispell, MT 59901
This letter is to express my concern and oppposition to the conditional
use permit and preliminary plat approval to construct a 10-dwelling
condominium project known as Chokecherry Ridge. This request was made by
Unicore Development, Inc., on behalf of John J. and Brenda Lee Vincent.
Several factors make this proposed project unfeasible. First, the
neighborhood, located in the area around East California Street and the
adjoining avenues, is comprised almost exclusively of single family homes, and
the proposed 10-unit condominium complex would sharply contrast with this
setting. In addition to not conforming with the neighborhood homes, this
type of project would most likely lead to greatly reduced property values for
the current homeowners in this area.
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. None 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 trips per day would definitely increase
the probability of accidents. There are very few sidewalks in this area, and
anyone who chooses to walk, jog, 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, not the 10-foot distance
as shown on the map included with the announcement. This bank, according
to long-time residents, has altered considerably over the years, occasionally
sloughing off large chunks of soil to the area below. The small area means
that nearly the entire lot will be covered with the condiminium units and
parking spaces. There will be no yard space, no 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, 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 can
understand that, of course. They even made a plea for an alternative plan, if
this 10-unit condominium 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 problems would be kept at a minimum, and the
instability of the bank would not be such a factor.
I invite members of the Planning Board to personally come to look at
the site of this proposed development to see for yourselves the nature of our
neighborhood and to see why this planned 10-unit condominium 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 compatible to this proposed
project already exist.
I urge the Planning Board members not to approve the conditional use
permit and preliminary plat request as it is presented. It does not meet the
original recommendations of the Planning Board (as outlined at the February
9, 1999, Planning Board meeting), and, in fact, seems to have taken a new
direction altogether, by asking for smaller setbacks from the bank, and even
more room to be allotted for parking spaces on an already overcrowded area.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration in this important matter.
Yours truly,
Y?&,P . v
Mary J. Cheman
From: Steve Cheman March 29, 1999 «'
494 5th Ave. E.N.
Kalispell, MT 59901
To: Kalispell City -County Plamming Board and Zoning Commission
Dear Board members:
I wish to take this opportunity to strongly express my opposition to the
proposed Chokecherry Ridge ten -unit condominium project planned for construction
on the north side of California St. between 5th and 6th Ave. E.N. in Kalispell.
My main concern with this project is that it is entirely incompatible with the
existing neighborhood community which is made up almost entirely of single family
homes extending along the bluff from 6th Ave. E.N. westward to the entrances of
Lawrence Park and the Buffalo Hills Golf Course. These existing single family homes
are inhabited by both older long-time residents whose continuous occupancy in some
cases, dates back to the 1930's, as well as younger shorter -term residents with young
children.
I need to say that I am not opposed to development. The parcel of land where
the proposed condo project will be built is a very good development site for one or
two large single family homes or at most, one or two large duplexes. If this proposed
condo project were to become a reality, I am convinced that it would result in lower
not higher property values for the adjacent community, additionally, the project's
proposed 23-25 new parking places to accomodate the condo owners and tennants
will result in horrendous traffic problems on California St. and nearby avenues,
especially during the early morning and early evening rush hours. Further, while the
developer claims that this project will be located on 2.6 acres of land, in actual fact,
there is only about .66 or 2/3 of an acre of available buildable flat land where
construction is even feasible. The remaining two acres are comprised of steep sloping
hillsides and lower elevation wet -lands which are largely under water throughout the
year.
In conclusion, I ask the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission to reject this development project and proposed zoning change and
require the developer to propose a project that complies with the existing community
of single family homes.
Respectfully,
7
Steve Cheman
KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF MEETING
APRIL 13, 1999
CALL TO ORDER AND The meeting was called to order by Jean Johnson at approximately
ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. Members present were: Donald Garberg, Rob Heinecke,
Greg Stevens, Jean Johnson, Don Hines, Keith Brian Sipe, Joe
Brenneman, Bill Rice, and Don Mann. The Flathead Regional
Development Office was represented by Tom Jentz and Narda
Wilson. There were approximately 41 people in the audience.
SEATING OF MEMBER- The Board welcomed new member -at -large, Bill Rice.
AT -LARGE
APPROVAL OF On a motion by Stevens and seconded by Hines, the minutes of
MINUTES the meeting of March 9, 1999 were approved unanimously on a
vote by acclamation.
SENIOR HOUSING A request by Kalispell Senior Housing Association for a conditional
ASSOC. CONDITIONAL use permit to allow a 24 unit senior citizen apartment complex.
USE PERMIT
STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson of the Flathead Regional Development Office gave a
thorough presentation of staff report KCU-99-3 in which staff
recommends that the Kalispell Planning Board recommend to the
Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved
subject to 8 conditions. Infrastructure in the area is anticipated to
be more than adequate for the development.
PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the petition.
No one wished to speak for or against the petition and the public
hearing was closed.
BOARD DISCUSSION The Board discussed the petition and found that the request did
meet the required criteria.
MOTION Breneman moved and Stevens seconded to adopt staff report KCU-
99-3 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend
to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be
approved subject to the 8 conditions as outlined in the report. On
a roll call vote: All members voted Aye. The motion passed
unanimously on a vote of 9-0 in favor.
UNICORE A request by Unicore Development, Inc. for a conditional use
DEVELOPMENT permit and preliminary plat approval to construct a 10 dwelling
CONDITIONAL USE condominium project known as Chokecherry Ridge.
PERMIT
Board president Johnson asked that the developers give their
presentation first and then have that followed by Tom Jentz with
the staff report.
Kalispell City County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999
Page 1 of 13
Max Battle, attorney for Unicore Development gave a presentation
on the Chokecherry Ridge development project stating that as he
understands the rules for this board he will be allowed time for a
rebuttal after the staff report and the public hearing. He reported
that based on the professional .opinion of the state certified
engineer on the Chokecherry Ridge project the bank stability is
not a concern. Battle stated that he had been unable to find in
codes a setback like that required by staff conditions. The
developers have presented a revised plan which includes a cutting
down of the bank at the back of the buildings that will result in a
20 foot setback to the edge of the buildings but will allow them to
be within 10 feet of the top of bank as it sits now. He noted that
the staff report has considerations where they don't want anything
disturbed within 10 feet of the bank, and if there is a cut down
they would have to disturb within 10 feet of the bank, but stability
is not an issue and they don't want to build anything that is going
to erode or have a problem. They agree to having it either way, a
cut down of the bank for a 20 foot setback, or having a 10 foot set
back to the current bank. In speaking to the issue of storm water
Battle pointed out that all of the water that falls on the lot soaks
into the soil with the exception of the area where the old ice house
is. He said that in redesign of the subdivision plat calls for using
storm drains to take the water all of the way to the bottom of the
bank and put the water out in rip rap. He stated that their
engineer had investigated the reported crack in the bank and he
believed that it followed a gopher burrow and wasn't related to the
bank subsiding or a sloughing of the bank. He stated that there
have been many structures closer to the bank than what this
project proposes and that their independent engineer believes that
the bank is able to tolerate the building load and that there will
not be a problem of bank erosion and sloughing that would put
the finished condominiums at risk. He also spoke on the issue of
character of the neighborhood, which was of great concern to the
neighbors at the previous public hearings, and noted that this
development will enhance, not degrade, the character of the area.
Battle stated that the units in this subdivision will probably sell
for more than what most of the homes in the area are worth. He
noted that the opposition had stated at previous hearing that
these developers should come in and build two $400,000 homes
on that lot. He stated this is a ludicrous statement, that one
would not build that type of home in this neighborhood because it
is not a neighborhood of such homes and it would not support the
investment. He stated that certain members of the opposition is
against this proposal simply due to the desire for the open space
for their view, and those people will not be swayed or convinced by
anything that he or the board might say. On the question of
zoning designation Battle stated that the developers require an R-
3 cluster development zoning. He noted with an R-3 without a
cluster development they could build a boarding house as a
permitted use, which would be considerably less agreeable to the
neighborhood than the condominiums that they are proposing.
Kalispell City County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999
Page 2 of 13
He noted that based on the previous public hearings one would
think that this is a much larger neighborhood than it is. That
many of the opponents are not from the immediate area. He
showed a drawing of the proposed development, noting that the
parking plan is no tighter than the parking in the area or parking
lots in the county. He presented pictures of the area and stated
that this development is in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood and that this development is for clustered one
family dwellings. In summary Battle stated that all the issues
about traffic and bank stability are simply red herrings by people
that don't want the project in their neighborhood. He stated that
they disagree with some of the staff conditions which he has
addressed, such as set backs and disturbance of the bank. He
asked that the Board remember in the end that the staff report
does recommend approval.
Bob Guditis, engineer for the project, spoke in favor of the petition.
In speaking to the bank stability and erosion potential on this
property he stated in his experienced and professional opinion the
property is stable and can support the project as presented.
Pictures of the area and a copy of the new layout blueprint were
presented to the board along with a letter from Mr. Guditis
summarizing the calculations on the weight and the issues of
bank stability.
STAFF REPORT Tom Jentz of the Flathead Regional Development Office gave a
thorough presentation of staff report KPP-99- lA in which staff
recommends that the Board recommend preliminary plat approval
for this subdivision subject to the conditions. He also gave a
presentation of staff report KCU-99- IA in which staff recommends
approval of the conditional use permit subject to 14 conditions.
Jentz noted that at this hearing the board will not be looking at
annexation or zoning designation as there is a general
acknowledgment that they made sense and so do not need to be
gone over again. Jentz explained that in the R-3 an incidental
boarding house with a maximum of 3 adults is a permitted use,
however, this is not the traditional 8 - 40 unit boarding house. R-
3 is a single family zoning that does allow clustering. Jentz also
noted that the subdivision aspect does meet statutory criteria and
the ability to fulfill the infrastructure requirements are expected to
be easily met. Jentz stated that the setback requirement of 20
feet came from many places including the fire department which
wants a level and safe area behind the buildings in case of
emergency. Jentz stated that staff does recommend approval with
the staff conditions as presented. This will require that the project
be redesigned to meet all of the condition requirements. He
presented 7 letters opposed to the project giving the density on
just 2/3 of an acre, increased traffic density, public safety,
setbacks and bank disturbance, bank instability, fire hazard, and
incompatibility with the area as reasons for opposition.
Stevens asked if a 20 foot setback is needed when the project does
Kalispell City County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999
Page 3 of 13
not abut anything and in lieu of the soil analysis is there still a
need for the full 20 foot setback. Jentz stated that the setback
requirement was for several reasons only one of which had been
bank stability, therefore staff continues to include a 20 foot
setback condition.
Johnson asked if the deepest boring was 20 feet and the engineer
answered that there were 5 borings and they were at 30 feet.
PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the petition.
PROPONENTS Earl McPeek, one of the project developers, spoke in favor of the
project noting that this project is being designed to compliment
and blend with the 30-40 year old homes in the area. He stated
that this is a good design and a good project.
Ron Lambert, 57 Summit, Somers, spoke in favor of the project
noting that they have been working with the owners and FRDO
and considered the community input and have come a long way
with the project.
John Vincent, property owner, spoke in favor of the project and
noted that the project is good and he is ready to pass the
stewardship of this property on. He noted that it is appropriate to
the neighborhood and reasonable for them to make money on the
project.
Brenda Vincent, co-owner of the property, spoke in favor of the
project noting that they cannot take care of the property any more
and they want to turn it over to someone that will care for the
property. She stated that they do care about the neighborhood
and that she believed that the board is there not only to protect
the neighbors but also to protect the owners.
OPPONENTS Dave Ebert, 476 4th Ave. E.N., stated that this project is too dense
and asked why there could not be a smaller development.
Jerry Anderson, 476 5th Ave. E.N., concerns over increased traffic
which will run over onto Oregon and concern over this large a
project be on this small a area. Wants this to conform to the
current neighborhood.
Georgia Staub, comer of 3 Ave. E. and Oregon, these dwellings
would not fit character of the neighborhood. She noted that the
engineers report is speculation to some degree. She is unhappy
with the process by the developers and that if they had met the
conditions set by FRDO this project could have passed through
the process already.
Sarah Locey, speaking for her parents, is in opposition to the
project. She spoke against the project as proposed noting that the
Kalispell City County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999
Page 4 of 13
buildable site is 2/3 of an acre and she disagreed with the
engineers report. High density cluster development does not
conform to the single family older neighborhood that currently
exists.
Sue Ellen Anderson, 484 8th Ave. E.N., spoke against the project
stating that she is 3 blocks from the proposed project off of
California Street which will be impacted with higher traffic density.
She listed bank stability and neighborhood integrity as reasons
for opposition.
Ed White, adjoining property owner, spoke against the project
noting that 10 units on that small a piece of property is over
development. He stated extreme concern over bank stability and
noted that this is a single family home neighborhood and there are
no condos in the area. He also spoke on the ecological impact to
the wetlands.
Steve Cheman, lives across from the proposed project and is in
opposition to the project due to property values, traffic congestion,
notes once again that this is being proposed on 2/3 of an acre. He
noted that the cracks in the bank are of concern and are not
gopher trails.
Clara Ellen Anderson, 476 5th Ave. E.N., long time resident of the
valley, spoke against the project noting that this project is not
compatible to the older single family residence neighborhood.
Tammy Valentino, 461 4th Ave. E.N. spoke against the project and
stated that she had the same concerns as the others, but placed
emphasis on the increased traffic and safety issues.
Marge White, 20 4th Ave. East, Fernwell Apartments, spoke in
opposition agreeing with the previous opponents.
Robley Carr, 550 4th Ave. E.N., agrees with previous opponents.
Bob Domrose,376 6th Ave. E.N., spoke against the proposal and
stated he wants a 2nd opinion on the engineering report. He would
rather see the city purchase the property and build a play ground
area as he does not want this site to be developed. No place for
the kids to play this should remain an open area.
Arla Culver, 461 E. California, opposed the development agreeing
with the previous opponents.
Richard Cole, 867 N. Main Street, opposed to the project, noting
that zoning does have a purpose and that this is incompatible to
the single family neighborhood.
Lance Staub, 459 3rd Ave. E.N., noted that the east north area is
special and having people from the whole area shows the
Kalispell City County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999
Page 5 of 13
neighborhood concern.
Jean Johnson suggested that the board discussion take place
before the applicants present their rebuttal, but the applicants
chose to go first. Johnson suggested that the applicant have 2
minutes for their rebuttal and asked if that would be agreeable.
REBUTTAL Battle stated that he would not agree to that, the board could
make him stop at 2 minutes but the board would be making a
legal mistake. He stated that it would be in violation of the board
rules and a denial of due process. Battle stated the staff started
out saying that the 20 foot requirement was in the conditions as a
safety issue and now is calling it a neighborhood compatibility
problem and that staff addresses this in regard to setback from
alleys. Setbacks is a property line issue and this property is more
than 20 feet from adjacent properties. In regard to the safety issue
he pointed out that the only person in the room with an
engineering license was Mr. Guditis and that anyone else giving
opinions on engineering issues is practicing without a license and
are a public nuisance by statute. On the increased traffic issue he
made two points, one that FRDO did not say there was a traffic
issue and secondly if a park is placed in there then it will be a
public place that people will drive to and will cause as much or
more traffic than the proposed development. In respect to the
neighborhood compatibility issue there is a mobile home on a
permanent foundation directly across the street from the
development and that could not be considered an old turn of the
century home so the statements about this not being in character
did not fit. The rules provide for cluster development for sites like
this one and that is what his clients wish to do. A condo
association will be formed so the question on who will deal with
future potential problems. (Johnson requested that Battle
summarize at this point.) Battle objected to Johnson not following
the procedure or the rules of the Planning Board. He then asked if
they were being denied the right to rap up the rebuttal and stated
that if the Chairman was doing that without a board vote then he,
with his clients, would deal with that at a later date. The
members requested that Battle continue with the rebuttal and
requested that he be brief. Battle continued with the issue of
earthquakes as brought up by the opposition and noted that the
homes in the area were not designed to meet any codes as they
didn't exist at the time they were built and added that this project
will meet the current safety codes for earthquake. He stated that
Oregon Street, the main east -west roadway, has multi -family
apartments. He stated that the opponents had changed their
reasons for opposition, that they just don't want this project. He
re -stated that as per the only professional engineer in the room
the bank stability is not a problem, this project's foundation
system design will work without a problem.
Johnson asked for an opposition rebuttal. An audience member
asked what qualifications the engineer had. In response Guditis
Kalispell City County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999
Page 6 of 13
stated that he is a registered civil engineer in 3 states, he did
graduate work in foundations, certified soil tester, and has worked
on numerous projects over a 25 year career.
The public hearing was closed.
BOARD DISCUSSION Rice asked if a redesign will be required for the project to meet the
conditions. Jentz answered that to meet the conditions literally
would cause the project to have to be redesigned. This would
become a procedural, staff review, and then finally the go to the
council.
Garberg stated that this project does not fit the area which he
based on stated opposition and potential problems later.
Stevens stated that site suitability and traffic safety have been met
through the engineer and the staff.
Heinecke noted that he doesn't believe that this will cause the
visual impact that the neighborhood is concerned about. Doesn't
want to second guess the engineer and notes that the homeowners
association will cover the maintenance and noted that the fire
issue is covered by site review and summed up with the opinion
that this project is right and he is in favor.
MOTIONS Stevens moved and Heinecke seconded to adopt staff report KPP-
99- lA as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend
that the Kalispell City Council grant preliminary plat approval for
this subdivision amending the conditions by; Deleting
recommendations 2,3,4,5, and subject to 1, and 6-14. On a roll
call vote: Sipe, Heinecke and Stevens voted Aye. Hines, Mann,
Johnson, Breneman, Garberg and Rice voted No. The motion to
recommend approval with amended conditions failed on a vote of
6-3 against.
Garberg moved and Mann seconded to adopt the findings that
there is incompatibility to the neighborhood and that there are
potential environmental consequences, fire safety, high density on
this site, strong neighborhood opposition and serious parking
issues and, based on these findings, recommend denial.
Heinecke asked that the board seriously consider the R-3 zoning
being appropriate for this site and that this cluster development
project is appropriate for this area.
Garberg stated that the board had to consider this project only
and the this project is not right for this site.
On a roll call vote: Stevens, Johnson, Hines, Rice, Sipe, and
Heinecke voted No. Brenemen, Mann and Garberg voted Yes. The
motion to deny the application with new findings failed on a vote
Kalispell City County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999
Page 7 of 13
of 6-3 against the denial.
Stevens moved and Sipe seconded to adopt staff report KCU-99-1
as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the
City Council to grant the preliminary plat for this subdivision
subject to the 14 conditions as stated in the report.
Heinecke moved and Stevens seconded to amend the previous
motion to strike condition 2. On a roll call vote: Sipe, Stevens,
and Heinecke voted Yes. Garberg, Rice, Breneman, Mann, Hines,
and Johnson voted No. The motion to amend failed on a vote of 6-
3 against amending the motion.
On the motion to approve with the conditions as stated in the staff
report; Heinecke, Hines, Sipe, Johnson, Rice, Stevens, and
Breneman voted Yes; Garberg and Mann voted No. The motion to
recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to the
conditions as stated in the staff report passed on a vote of 7-2 in
favor.
Stevens moved and Sipe seconded to adopt staff report KPP-99- lA
as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the
City Council that the preliminary plat for the Chokecherry Ridge
Subdivision be approved subject to the 13 conditions as stated in
the report. On a roll call vote: Stevens, Breneman, Hines, Rice,
Heinecke, Sipe, and Johnson voted Yes; Mann and Garberg voted
No. The motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat
passed on a vote of 7-2 in favor.
Johnson called for a 5 minute break.
MDOT CONDITIONAL A request by the Montana Department of Transportation for a
USE PERMIT conditional use permit to construct a 100 foot tall communications
tower in conjunction with their maintenance building. Mounted
on the ground not the building. Filed with FAA not FCC.
STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson presented staff report KCU-99-4 in which staff
recommends that the planning board adopt the staff report KCU-
99-4 as findings of fact and recommend to the city council that the
conditional use permit be approved subject to 4 conditions.
PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the petition.
PROPONENTS Jerry Dupler, spoke in favor of the communication tower. He
asked that the board reword condition 4 to include that
construction should commence or a continuous good faith within
18 months.
No one spoke against the project and the public hearing was
closed.
BOARD DISCUSSION The Board discussed the petition, considered public testimony and
Kalispell City County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999
Page 8 of 13
To: The Flathead Regional Planning Board
From: Ed & Marge White
20 4th Ave. East, Kalispell, Mt.
This is in regard to the three petitions by Unicore Development for the
Choke Cherry Ridge Condo Plan:
First petition is to annex said property into the City of Kalispell with an R-3 Zoning.
Second petition is for a conditional use permit to construct 10 cluster development
dwellings consisting of two condo-5-plexes.
Third petition is for preliminary plat approval of this proposed development.
a:' This property is basically in a triangular shape with very steep slopes on
two sides.
b. The land around Lawrence Park is surrounded by single family homes.
C. The vicinity Map from Unicore Development shows an area of 2.6 acres.
First of all, I'd like to say that we are not opposed to development. The Vincent's
have a beautiful building site. This part of Kalispell is characterized by older single
family homes, the beauty of Lawrence Park, & a quiet neighborhood. This is a
natural setting & deer,birds & other wild life are thriving in the wetlands. This area
would make a very nice 2-3 single family home development which is consistant
with the R-3 zoning & the other single family homes in the neighborhood.
This 2.6 Acre development is very misleading, because it includes a .849-acre
of wetlands dedicated to be added to Lawrence Park . Also the vicinity map shows
that part of the land calculated in this 2.6-acres is really very steep hillside and
other wetlands. Land near the gully on the west side of the development property is
unusable for building. Taking into consideration the 20 ft. setback from Calif. St. and
a 10 ft. setback from the edge of the steep hill, there is probably only about 1 /2 to 2/3 of
an acre for building. Crowding 10 condo -units & 25 parking spots on such a small
area is not very wise. We believe this is a sensitive ecologic
al arQp and it woVId hpp
an adverse impact on the wetlands. Some of the unusable land appears to have been
used in the calculations to justify 10 units of 7,000 sq. ft. for each.
We own, the adjoining property to the west of this development. Our tract has
a total of 1.866 acres.
In comparing the Vincent's acreage with ours: They have 2.6 acres less
.849 acres they are didicating to the city which makes a total development area of
1.751 acres which is less than our 1.866 acres.
We then would be able to petition you for a development of 11 cluster condo
units provided we are able to count the area of steep hillsides & wetlands into the
required 7,000 sq. ft. per unit. I wouldn't even consider this nor do I think you should
consider using the Vincent's unusable land to validate their petition to squeeze so
many units onto such a small concentrated land area impacting the wetlands of
Lawrence Park. I used this example as a comparison to illustrate some of the tactics
used to crowd more units into a small area.
We realize that the clustering concept is legal, however; we believe in this
situation it is a manipulation of the zoning laws. This development does not show
neighborhood compatability. While they seem to be following the letter of the law;
are they following the intent of the law? I don't believe so.
R-3 zoning requires 7,000 sq. ft. per unit. Ten units would require 70,000 sqft.
There is 43,560 sqft in an acre. One-half acre is 21,780 sqft--2/3 acre is 29,185 sqft.
This is far less than the required 70,000 sqft for 10 units. In fact there should only be
three to four units built on this land. If this project is approved & built, I believe they
will be creating a nightmare for future residents. Many problems will exist after the
developers are gone. Do they care? Ten units & 25 parking spots on this small
triangular piece of land is clearly overdevelopment. Most new subdivisions are 1/3 to
1 /2 acre lots. Is this a subdivision? On 1 /2 to 2/3 acres?
Problems with oil poluted water from the parking lot could be harmful to the
wetlands and the wildlife. The proposed filter system with a storage tank for the
parking lot that requires maintenance, I believe would soon be forgotten once the
project was completed. Snow removal would probably be pushed over the bank &
this & watershed from the units so close to the banks could destabilize the hill.
Concentrated traffic & noise has a negative impact on the area & increases danger to
children playing. Stability of the hill & steep banks are also a concern. There is no
alley to facilitate the flow of their traffic with this project. One way in & one way out is a
Choke Point for residents, visitors & emergency vehicles. The snow storage area on
the vicinity map could destabilize the lot on which we are planning on building.
We urge the Planning Board to:
1. Approve the annexation of said property into the City of Kalispell with the conditions
that the property be developed with single family homes.
2. Dissaprove the petition for a conditional use permit for a cluster development for
the 10 condo -units.
3. Dissaprove the petition for a preliminary plat approval of a 10-unit condo -
subdivision.
Thank You,
13 April 1999
From: Marge White
20 4th Ave E. Apt. 102
Kalispell, Mont. 59901
To: The Flathead Regional Planning Board
I would like to speak in opposition to the Choke Cherry Ridge Condo
Development.
I believe the pros & cons have been amply presented & I'll try to make this as
brief as possible. We own the lot adjacent to the west of the Vincent's property. Our
plans are to build a single family home for ourselves. We have been annexed and
zoned R-3. We are not against development, but truly believe this is over development
for the size of the buildable land.
This proposed development uses the cluster condo concept to validate their
request for 10 condos on this small piece of ground & call this a subdivision. I believe
what they are asking for does not follow the intent of R-3 zoning in this neighbor-
hood of single family homes.
If it is passed it will set a president for future landowners and developers
in the city of Kalispell to declare a 1/2 to 2/3 acre a subdivision , which can contain
cluster condo housing. What future ramification can this hold? Wouldn't this be a
legal loophole for others?
At our first planning board meeting Unicore Developers stated they would
do this project one way. 10 condos or none. Have all the problems been resolved
such as: (1) over crowding the buildable land
(2) sufficient parking including emergency and handicapped parking
(3) placement of snow removal
(4) guaranteed maintenance of filter system for holding tanks
(5) negative impact on wetland adjacent to Lawrence Park
(6) stability of steep banks
This proposed development is not consistent with the neighborhood of single
family homes.
Thank You,
l "r, 0
51 Commons Loop Glacier Bank Building ® Kalispell, NIT 59901
Phone 406-755-7888 * Fax 406-257-7220 ® Email a2zbg@cyberportnet
April 12, 1999
Mr. Earl McPeek
UNICORE DEVELOPMENT INC.
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: Chokecherry Ridge Condo's
Conditional Use Permit
Report KCU 99-1
Dear Mr. McPeek:
Commenting upon Staffs KCU 99-1 as follows:
The observed crack to the west of the property is in the top 3' of fill reported in Boring # 1.
" SURFACE MATERIAL Consisting of organic rich fill topsoil and pea gravel." This Crack
tracks an old gopher tunnel as evidenced by soil being deposited on the surface. The observed
condition also is aggravated by the fill having settled, creating a ponding area. Water movement
has aggravated and collapsed the tunnel. This is not a slope failure. The underlying silt and clay
materials has significant shear strength. The slope failures near Whitefish had underlying clay
materials with saturated water conditions and a consistency of toothpaste. This is not evidenced
in any of the borings.
Slope stability analysis was performed in all the soils types found for the 38 degree bank average
slope. The 38 degree slope reflects a 78% grade ( tangent 38 x 100). The 38 degree slope is the
natural angle of repose of these materials. Our report of 12 March, traces slope stability factors
from the crest and back to 20' in 10' increments. Sufficient safety factor was found at 10' for
the type of construction proposed. It should be pointed out that a proposed structures will not
impose any additional load on the bank. Actually load will be lessened. This is shown in the
following calculation.
Building Loading - 47psf Snow+ IOpsf Dead + 40 psf Floor Live Load+15 psf Dead = 112psf
Sallow Crawl Space Excavation - 2.5' at 110psf = 275psf >> 112psf
Normal Basement Excavation - 7.5' at 11 Opsf = 825psf »» 112psf
If the placement of footings must be maintained at the 20' setback, it would be possible to
construct a cantilevered system as shown in the attached sketch.
Structures, Foundation and Soil Engineering
Cko kec.heY'rl Rtle
Bqs,-meA+
cCrxd0 E 5
WaM
Ste« S
:t
�,� vim• �
l � rAll-4
_ _ ail ✓t. _ __-1 �/L� - L{. Yt-L�,.K�c-✓ d_ _ _ - - - - _—�,�.�
475 4th Avenue E.N.
Vnlicncall MT gaQ01
----
"pril 8, 1999
Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission
C/O Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East -Room 414
Kalispell, MT 59901
Dear Members of the Planning Board:
I am writing in regard to the conditional use permit and preliminary
approval to construct a 10-unit condominium project known as
Chokecherry Ridge in my neighborhood. This letter is to express both my
concerns as well as my opposition to the project.
My first concern i s that of placing a condominium dwelling in a
single family housing neighborhood. This neighborhood has existed here
for many years and the condominiums would be in sharp contrast to it.
My husband and I just recently moved into this neighborhood, because of
the fact that it is a well -established, single family housing area. Also,
the property value of these homes would most likely decrease.
Another concern is the likelihood of increased traffic on East
California Street and the other East North streets and avenues. Most of
the intersections on these streets are uncontrolled. Therefore,
introducing an estimated 100 trips per day of traffic would definitely
increase the danger of accidents. Also, most of the avenues in this
neighborhood do not have sidewalks for the pedestrians. This only adds to
the danger with increased traffic flow.
Third, the proposed site is .66 acres not over 2 acres as stated by
the developers. This vacant lot does not seem particularly suited to 10
condiminiums. The land in the northern area of the lot actually sloughs
over the bank, according to local residents. It does not seem feasible to
put such a large development on such a small space. It is possible,
however, to have 3 or 4 single family homes on the lot.
Perhaps the members of the Planning Board should personally come
ionk at the site and see just why this proposed project does not fit in our
neighborhood.
I strongly urge the members of the Planning Board NOT to approve
the conditional use permit and preliminary request as it is suggested.
Thank you for your consideration on the matter.
Sincerely,
Brenda Clarke
Kathi Jo Ebert
476 4th Ave. E. N.
Kalispell, MT 59901
Home Phone 406-257-3165
April 07, 1999
Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission
C/O Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Ave. E. Room 414
Kalispell, MT 59901
Dear Members of the Planning Board:
This letter is to express my concern and opposition to the conditional use
permit and preliminary plat approval to construct a 10 dwelling condominium
project known as Chokecherry Ridge. This request was made by Unicore
Deveiopment,Inc. on behalf of John and Brenda Lee Vincent.
The representatives. of Unicore would like you to believe that this is a
shabby and run down neighborhood in need of this type of development, thereby
enhancing our property values. This couldn't be further from tine truth. ^via my
street alone, seven out of the ten home owners have done some type of home
improvement from painting a door to major additions. We take great pride
in our neighborhood. Several homes in our neighborhood are registered with
the Montana Historical .Society. My point here, is the development on the
scale that Unicore proposes is entirely out of the character and flavor of our
historical, tidy neighborhood and could only reduce property values.
The next problem I have with this development proposal is the misleading
claim that this project will be built on 2.6 acres of land. This may be true;
however, only .66 of this land is even feasible to build on -approximately
the equivalent of three city lots. Ten units with parking and set backs
on a space that supports three single dwellings? I find that totally
unacceptable in any neighborhood setting.
Ours is a neighborhood of quiet, single family residences. Our children play
carefreely on their bikes and roller blades. Many adults participate in
jogging, walking and bicycling as well. They are forced to do this in the
street because sidewalks are few and short in this neighborhood. The
projects proposal for the 23-25 new parking spaces and the traffic that will
accompany this is of grave safety concern.
Finally, although I've been told this bank is stable, I'm very concerned that
with the stress of building such a large project it wouldn't hold up.
Some of that area is already falling into the swamp.
I'm not opposed to a reasonable proposal for development of this property.
Two or three single family homes would be a fine addition to our neighborhood.
I urge the planning Board members to reject the conditional use permit and
preliminary plat request as presented and insist the developer propose a
project that complies with the existing community of single family homes.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Dave Ebert
476 4th Ave. E.N.
Kallispell, MT. 59901
To; Flathead County Planing Board
C/O Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5TH Ave. E. Room 414
Kalispell, MT. 59901
Dear Board Members,
'D/ lc-vp&s
C/
A
The plans of the Unicore Corporation for the property known as Tract 23A
off East California street came to my attention purely by accident.
Once known they were very upsetting to myself and family, We feel that
this proposed project named Chokecherry Ridge Condos will in no possible
way better our quality of life or enhance a nearly 100 year old single family
neighborhood, many of these homes are in the Montana Historical Society.
This proposed project can only add to the problems of an already years old
sewer and water system, cause increase traffic where many children are at
play not to mention lowering property values and being completely out of
character with the rest of the neighborhood, I have enclosed pictures of a few
of the neighboring properties.
Wouldn't this site be better used for one or two large single family homes?
Please do not turn a beautifil and historic neighborhood into an overcrowded
area like Hawthorne and Liberty streets.
Sincerely:
Dave Ebert
APR _ 9 1999
�l
F. R. D. O.
April 5, 1999
APR, 1999
476 5th Avenue East North^,
Kalispell, MT 59901
Tom Jenz:
Members of the City -County Planning Board:
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 previously made
by this Board and the concerns of the City Council and to the strong opposition of the entire
neighborhood.
I urge each of you to drive by and visit this site. Try to envision what is being proposed. At our
last two meetings this proposed project consisted of 3 complexes, 10 units (4-2-4) with 20-foot
setbacks. Now, the project is to consist of 2 complexes, 10 units (5-5) with 10-foot setbacks. No
matter how this is figured, the resulting number of condos still is ten. Too dense and
inappropriate for this site and for this neighborhood. When we met with you last, it was even
suggested by one of your members that the required setback might even need to be 35 feet. How
can 10 feet be safe? Are engineering tests 100% accurate or is there room for error? It is
impossible to even consider placing the number of units with parking as proposed due to the size
of the site (.66 of an acre) after all required set -backs are taken into consideration. Further, I
have been told that the soil composition here is very similar to or consistant with the parent soil of
the Twin Bridges area where they have had considerable sloughing of the banks. I ask you,
clearly, how can a project of this size safely be constructed here?
If you look at the present makeup this neighborhood, you can see that it is single family homes.
The proposed condominium cluster would clash with this setting. It is my understanding that the
purpose of this board is to maintain the integrity and continuity of a neighborhood. I urge you to
retain the present makeup of this neighborhood. There are only single family homes with most of
these homes being over 30 years old with no other condominium clusters in the area.
My next concern involves the increased traffic flow onto California, 5th and 6th Avenues and
eventually Oregon. The traffic on Oregon has seen an increase this year, not only by the traffic
from this neighborhood, but also by the users from Whitefish Stage and others that use it in their
daily commute to and from work and school. It was stated that this increase of traffic was not
coming from this project, no it isn't, not yet. But with the possibility of 23 new vehicles (based
on the number of alloted parking spaces) this will make a dramatic increase in the traffic flow,
which makes this area an accident waiting to happen.
I feel that the owners and developers wish only to profit from this, that they haven't given thought
to the size of the lot only to "how many units can we squeeze on the site" which then translates
into the dollars connected to the project. At the City Council meeting, Mrs. Vincent clearly
stated that this project would help their retirement; they are only seeing the monetary side of this
project, refusing to listen to our concerns. But what happens when the bank begins to give way
and the condos are threatened and the developers and the Vincents are no longer involved? Who
is resposible then? Sufficient thought to the above mentioned concerns have not been addressed.
The developers have proposed giving the city about .8 acre of slope, wetland and open space that
could become part of Lawrence Park --this "gift" is totally useless. What benefit is this 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? There will be no more.
I feel a project being developed on this site needs to conform to the surrounding neighborhood
and consist of single family homes. I recognize that at some time development of this site will
occur, but it needs to be one that conforms to the present makeup of this neighborhood, 1-3
single family homes. I strongly urge that you vote to deny this project.
I again urge you to give consideration to the strong opposition of my neighborhood, your
previous concerns and recommendations, and deny this project.
Sincerely,
Jeri Anderson
JJ
�7-Ld.", e-t- od-�
zf
To: Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission
From: Jon and Sylvia Heselwood - Owners of 483 5th Avenue East North
RE: Unicore Development Petition
412/99
Dear Board Members,
We wish to take this opportunity to strongly express our opposition to the proposed
Chokecherry Ridge condominium project planned for construction on the north side of
California Street between 5th. and 6th. Ave. E.N. in Kalispell. Although we support
improvements to this neighborhood we oppose this project for the following reasons:
1. Incapatibility with existing older single-family dwellings. We fail to see how you can
"pack" this many units on 2/3 acre of flat land, with adequate off-street parking and
without the need for tall ungainly structures.
2. Refuse pickup bins located right on California at the end of 5th. Ave. E.N. Even with
landscaping or camouflage fencing, these would be an unsightly addition to the
neighborhood.
3. Increased traffic flow in a quiet neighborhood, with few existing sidewalks.
4. Is this a safe building site? We have heard from several "old timers" over the years
that this location was used as a dump. Is this true? There is a large sink hole in the
street next to the property which seems to indicate an unstable condition. We also
question the need to come within 10 feet of the edge overlooking Laurence Park.
As we stated earlier, we support improvements to the neighborhood, but not in the
form of Chokecherry Ridge. Instead, we would encourage the developer to look at one
or two single family dwellings, that could be built to blend with the existing homes in
the area and provide adequate grounds and parking for its inhabitants.
Thank yucu for your time and consideration,
Wivia and Jon Heselwood
�9
O
550 4th Avenue E. N.
Kalispell, MT 59901
8 Apr 99
Thomas R. Jentz, Planning Director
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East, Room 414
Kalispell, MT 59901
Dear Mr. Jentz:
APPLICATION -
APR - 7 1999
RE: Chokecherry Ridge Project
This is our second letter concerning this project and after
reviewing Unicore Development's current plan we can see nothing
that eases the concerns expressed in our first letter. Changing
the configuration from 4-2-4 to 5-5 still adds up to a 10 unit
cluster development on a very small lot and totally out of
character with the East North area.
Your office was very specific about having a 20 foot setback
from the edge of the steep slope; however, the current plan
shows only a 10 foot setback. The developers seem to feel that
10 feet is adequate based on test holes drilled at different
locations on the site. They stated at the city council meeting
that their samples showed a layer of clay under the top soil.
Our lot is located on the edge of this same bank only about
22 blocks west. Our property also has a layer clay and we need
to be careful that we do not over saturate the soil along the
bank causing sloughing. A project such as the one proposed
by Unicore Development will concentrate a great deal of water
on a very small amount of soil due to roof and driveway run-off
This has the potential of creating sloughing. This many units
on so small a space leaves little room for landscaping making
for an aesthetically unattractive site.
We understand the owners wanting to realize some gain from their
investment, we only wish they would come up with a project more
in keeping with the existing neighborhood, e.g. two or three,
at the most, duplexes We are attaching a copy of our first
letter as we are still concerned about those issues. We hope
that you will deny this project as it is being currently
proposed.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns regarding the
Chokecherry Ridge cluster development.
Sincerely,
LR.obley and Carol Carr
550 4th Ave. E.N.
KALISPELL, MT 59901
7 Feb 99
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.
Sincerely,
Robley and Carol Carr
i
11
•ttttr.
LEE t Vr
Dear Mr. McPeek-
Commenting upon Staffs KCU 99-1 as follows'
The observed crack to the west of the property is in the top 3' of fill reTorted in Boring # 1.
" SURFACE MATERIAL Consisting of organic rich fill topsoil and pea gravel." This Crack
tracks an old gopher tunnel as evidenced by soil being deposited on the suirface. The observed
condition also is aggravated by the fill having settlers, creating a ponding area. Water movement
has aggravated and collapsed the tunnel. This is not a slope failure. The underlying silt and clay
materials has significant shear strength. The slope failures new Whitefish had underlying clay
materials with saturated water conditions and a consistency of toothpaste. This is not evidenced
in any of the borings.
Slope stability analysis was performed in all the soils types found for the 38 degree bank average
slope. The 38 degree slope reflects a 78% grade ( tangent 38 x 100). The 38 degree slope is the
natural angle of repose of these materials. Our report of 12 March, traces slope stability factors
from the crest and back to 20' in 10' increments. Sufficient safety factor was found at 10' for
the type of construction proposed. It should be pointed out that a proposed structures will not
impose any additional load on the bank. Actually load will be lessened. This is shown in the
following calculation.
Building Loading - 47psf Snow+ 10psf Dead + 40 psf Floor Live Load+15 psf Dead=112psf
Crawl Space Excavation - 2.5' at 110psf — 275psf >> 1 I2psf
If the placement of footings must be maintained at the 20' setback, it would be possible to
construct a cantilevered system as shown in the attached sketch.
F 4std U1 Emir Yft
T6 39dd S3:DI3-40 31ddod,:�00 .
_
9ZZT-SSL-96b 96:8i 966t/Zt/t0
cyowl
n
w
0
-a I
Z0 30Vd
S30I-�� 31d2i0d2300 9ZZI-SSL-90V
90:81 S66I/ZI/t0
y y. l J \- 1 1 l v a , Y V V )! J V— I ! J J r. V V l
7pNOV"V,
Narda Wilson, Senior Planner
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5`II Ave Fast
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: Chokecherry Ridge
Dear Narda:
I recently conducted a site visit whcre Chokecherry Ridge is proposed to be built. T
noticed some things that may indicate potential site problems such as steep slopes, tree
growth patterns, debris and cracked ground. Based on these site conditions, the Building
Department will ask for engineering to determine the suitability for construction.
Building permits, if issued, would be based on the requirements of the building code.
Sincerely,
Craig Kerzman
Building Official
cc: PJ
file
Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997
Telephone (406) 758-7700 - FAX (406) 758-7798