06/25/07 Horne to Council/Proposed DevelopmentHonorable Mayor and Council
of the City of Kalispell
c/o City Planning Dept.
17 2°d St. East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: proposed Starling development
Dear Mayor Kennedy and Councilors:
Applied Communications
151 Wedgewood Ln.
Whitefish, MT 59937
(406)863-9255
(406)250-6632
rhornc appcom.n t
June 25, 2007
As you are aware, the proposed Starling mixed use development is the largest
development project in Kalispell's history. I have been working with members of an
established rural neighborhood on the north side of West Reserve; local residents who
will be severely impacted by the proposed development. These long-time Kalispell area
citizens do not oppose the Starling project per se, but they would like to see some
changes in the proposal that would help to preserve the character and qualities of their
neighborhood.
This neighborhood is a cluster of seven single-family residences on lots of 5 to 10 acres
in size. The people who reside in this neighborhood have made substantial personal
investment in their property, and enjoy a quiet, rural life style. Photos of the
neighborhood are attached for your reference.
The Starling developer, Aspen Group, has met with members of the neighborhood
individually and in groups, and the neighbors are very appreciative of those opportunities.
However, all of these meetings have unfortunately come after the Kalispell Planning
Board unanimously, and perfunctorily, conducted a "public hearing" and recommended
approval of the project. And while the developer has been very cooperative in dealing
with relatively minor issues like colors and lighting, the major issues--- components of
the project that will most impact the neighborhood--- remain not only unresolved, but
totally unaddressed.
A coordinated, meaningful community involvement process for this project, which
includes a significant amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy, has been non-existent.
Even though the proposed project is massive in scale and its impacts substantial and far-
reaching, the only public notice provided was a mailing to property owners within
150' and a public notice in the newspaper. As Council is also aware, the project
• Page 2
June 25, 2007
submittal was voluminous. Yet during the very limited period of time available for the
public to educate themselves about the project, only a single copy of the submittal was
available for inspection at the Planning Department. No significant part of the submittal,
not even a PDF of the PUD plan, was ever made available on the city's web site.
The historic lack of public involvement in the development review process in Kalispell is
discussed in the Growth Policy, and the document contains goals to improve the City's
performance in that area. However, in the case of Starling, the largest development
project in Kalispell history, this direction was not followed by city staff or the Planning
Board. Here are excerpts from the Kalispell Growth Policy that up until now have been
ignored:
• City of Kalispell Growth Policy 2020, page 5: Issue 4. Often there is limited
public involvement in the planning and development review process that often
leaves the public unaware of certain projects or development issues.
• Same page, Goal 4. Ensure that decisions are fair, open and based on good
information that is available to the public and decision makers.
• Page 6, Goal 8. Seek ways to provide avenues for greater public participation in
the development review process.
As for the proposed Growth Policy amendment, here too the document speaks to the need
and desire for public process. In section 16 of the Implementation Strategy, Public
Participation and Public Hearing Process, the Growth policy states:
• Page 71, Public Participation and Public Hearing Process: The extent and degree
of public involvement should depend on the scale of the project or proposed
changes. A general growth policy amendment, neighborhood plan or major
changes to land use designations may include collecting opinions, assessing
community needs, and inventory of services and resources and providing the
opportunity for meaningful public involvement.
• Page 72, Pubic Participation and Public Hearing Process Implementation
Strategy: f. Information regarding public hearings, development proposals and
staff recommendations should be available with adequate time for review and
consideration.
Again in the case of Starling, the neighbors were not even invited to an informational
meeting, let alone anything like collecting opinions, assessing community needs, and
inventory of services and resources and providing the opportunity for meaningful public
involvement, as described in the Growth Policy. If these strategies are not to be
implemented when the Growth Policy amendment is for 3,000 units on one square mile
of land, when will they be followed?
The Kalispell Growth Policy also contains some specific language on Growth Policy
amendments. Once again in the Implementation Strategy, in section 3. Growth Policy
Update Amendment, strategy "e" reads, Evaluation criteria should include consistency
with the goals and policies of the growth policy, state law and other established policies
• Page 3 June 25, 2007
adopted by the city council as well as a demonstration of the public need and support
for the change; the proposed change is the most effective means of meeting the need and
there is a benefit to the public rather than benefiting one or a few property owners at
the expense of others. (Emphasis added.) Clearly, the Starling project benefits the
developer and the seller of the property, but at the expense of neighbors ---- especially
those north of West Reserve. Section 5. General Growth Policy Amendment, strategy "e"
states that when an amendment is made for a development proposal, the amendment
application should include a convincing showing of need; and neighborhood
compatibility. The amendment application for Starling demonstrates neither.
In summary, the neighbors to the north of the subject property respectfully request that
the City Council remand this entire matter to the Planning Board with the following
instructions:
1. Follow the Kalispell Growth Policy with regard to community involvement and
conduct a work session with the neighbors.
2. Reduce the overall density of the project to 4.0 du/gross acre so that it complies
with the Suburban Residential land use designation in the current growth policy.
(This density reduction would only be 440 units. Neither the growth policy
amendment nor R-3 zoning have been sufficiently justified by the developer, and
are totally unnecessary to develop this project in a responsible manner.)
3. Replace the small -lot product type in Phase I with and larger single-family
detached product that is more compatible with the neighborhood to the north.
(The project is better served by locating the higher density product nearer to the
"town center" in order to make the non-residential components of the center more
viable.)
4. Provide fingers of linear open space that penetrate the northeast quadrant of the
project similar to what is planned for the southwest quadrant. (These open space
corridors connect with the perimeter open space and are essential for the visual
relief and `openness' that will help make the Starling project more compatible
with its neighbors to the north.)
5. Eliminate the commercial area at the West Reserve primary entrance. (This
concept is incompatible with the neighborhood to the north. A distinct identity
and sense of arrival can be created successfully without commercial land use.)
On behalf of the West Reserve neighborhood, we appreciate Council's consideration of
our requests, and we look forward to more positive and meaningful participation in the
review of the Starling development.
Sincerely,
Robert Horne, Jr., AICP
Principal, Applied Communications
• Page 4
Robert Horne, Jr., AICP
Principal, Applied Communications
June 25, 2007
fi
cf
e.
wvl
vl.
rl
14
zl
41"
al
m