Planning Board Minutes 05/22/07Members of the Kalispell City Planning Board:
My name is Marc Nevas and I live at 1475 West Reserve directly north of the proposed
Starling project. I am speaking on behalf of myself and my neighbors and I will lay out
some of the main concerns and objections of our neighborhood in my comments. My
comments, though 44 pages long are miniscule compared to the enormity of the
applications before us tonight.
I myself am a real estate professional and have developed commercial and residential
properties and subdivisions in other communities since 1982. As a developer in my own
community I would never ask for such deviations from the community's desires for
growth or the number of variances as requested here. In fact wehave had great success
by involving neighbors and not excluding them.
You have created a Growth Policy only 4 years ago and yet you are being asked to amend
that Growth Policy, change the zoning and grant 13 variances to approve this 20-30 year,
3,000 residential unit and 60 acre commercial development. This could only indicate that
your own Growth Policy and zoning regulations are terribly flawed and needs to be
completely rewritten or that the developers vision is badly out of line with Kalispell's
most recent vision for the future.
Furthermore you have in front of you tonight 5 different matters you are being asked to
review and decide on in one Public Hearing. They are:
1.. Growth Policy Amendment
2. Change of Zone from Suburban residential to R3
3. A PUD overlay to allow a far greater density of housing and commercial than the
requested zone allows
4. 13 Variances or "relaxations" to do more than the zone change and the PUD
allows
5. A plat approval for the first phase of a project that has not yet received it's
Annexation, Growth Policy. Amendment, change of zone, PUD and 13 variances
to even consider this plat.
The submission is almost one foot thick, and requires so much study that the staff report
could not be produced in a timely way and requires a 49 page staff report just to deal
with the applications in a relatively non -critical way..
With a request for annexation, change of zone, PUD overlay, 13 variances and a plat
approval scheduled for one public hearing, it is impossible for the neighbors and citizens
of Flathead County and Kalispell to possibly become educated about the many
applications in front of you and make informed, educated and well thought out comments
on this proposal and what it means for the future of Kalispell and Flathead County on
short notice. Such a stacking of applications essentially prevents public participation in
the process.
In our concern and commitment we the neighbors have hired a professional planning firm
to look over the documents and advise us and their advice is this:
Unfortunately, information about the project has been difficult to obtain in the short time
available. Despite the best efforts and excellent cooperation on the part of the Kalispell
Planning office, there is only one public copy of the submittal available. The Planning
office has not (as of this writing) been able to obtain electronic media of any of the plans
and concepts from the applicant. The submittal itself is voluminous, and much of it is
highly technical. In my assessment as a professional urban planner of 35 years, it would
require days of reading and study to grasp all of the legal and technical issues raised by
this project.
It has also come to my attention that although the staff report is dated May 8"', it has been
unavailable to myself, my neighbors or our consultant until May 16'h which is only one
week before the hearing. If I am correct legally it should have been available to the public
a minimum of two weeks before the hearing.
So my first order of business this evening is to request a continuance for a minimum of
two months on this proposal that covers as much area as all of the residential area of
downtown east and west Kalispell and would be built out over 20-30 years. Can you do
this so that your citizens, Flathead County residents and yourselves have the appropriate
amount of time to understand the complexity and potential impact on what is the largest
residential subdivision seen in the history of Kalispell?
We neighbors and our planning consultants believe this to be a most reasonable request in
light of the enormity of the many applications that are in front of you tonight.
I would like to point out that no .effort has been made on the part of the developer to
contact us, their neighbors, to have a community informational meeting and to make
materials and information available. And please correct me if I am wrong, but I
understand the staff of the Planning department had requested that the developer initiate
such a meeting, but I can assure you that no effort has been put in this direction from the
developer.
As neighbors we have no reasonable access to the full written application. Only 85 pages
of illustrations is available on line plus the belated staff report. To see the four
applications and requests for 13 variances we must come into the Planning office to have
access to one absolutely huge notebook of untold pages plus a smaller notebook,
spending many; many hours to do this. So far there has been a small parade of concerned
neighbors into your office only to leave shaking their heads at the enormity of the
application to be considered in a few short days. This is not reasonable notice nor
availability for a submission of this enormity. It has in practice and possibly in intent shut
out informed community input. In other words the intention and the reality of public
hearing cannot be met under these conditions.
As this one evening is the only opportunity to comment on all of these applications I will
move forward with some of our comments on the small portions of these applications we
have been able to partially digest so far.
1. We oppose the change of zone. The original zone designation of Suburban
residential allowing 1-4 units per acre is only 4 years old and is the result of much
study, consideration and community input. Urban Residential is up to 12 units per
acre and is totally inappropriate for this site at the very edge of Kalispell's growth
area. Kalispell has been building and absorbing 100-300 residential units a year. If
given a zone change this project envisions increasing the production of housing
units in Kalispell by 50% all by one developer in one very concentrated area.
2. We oppose the Amendment to the Growth Policy. The growth policy is recent and
is viable. Much work went into it and it should not be changed without
community involvement and process. The density of housing and commercial it
would permit in this location is not appropriate nor viable for the community.
3. We oppose the PUD overlay for the reasons stated above. Furthermore after
looking at the developers illustrations of a typical neighborhood, the homes in
many areas are so crowded and without yards that it looks more like a trailer park
or modular home park than a residential subdivision. The applicant is attempting
to apply the urban densities of Phoenix with apparently no regard for the beauty
of the surrounding areas in the middle of prime agricultural land in the Flathead
valley of Montana.
4. We oppose annexation of this property into the City of Kalispell for this particular
project. We do not out of hand oppose annexation in general at this time, but
annexation for the urban density the likes of Phoenix do not belong in this
location.
5. We oppose the granting of any and all variances at this time until the Growth
Plan, zone change and PUD issues are discussed and resolved and the City
council has made a decision on annexation.. It is premature to even consider even
one variance much less than 13 until you know what you are varying from. There
is something fundamentally flawed in the plan or the planning if this many
variances are required to go forward to complete the application.
6. We also oppose the granting of variances because there is no explanation of why
or how they would serve the Public Interest. At this point it is only shown how
they serve the developers need.
?. We oppose the granting of the first phase plat until the issues raised above and
below are addressed. We are also concerned that only 3.5 acres of parks or other
amenities are included in the first phase for all of those housing units.
g. We oppose approval of a project that cannot be reasonably completed in five or
ten years. The pace of change in our area is so rapid that there is no way to project
and approve that far forward. You are committing Kalispell to something far
beyond the life of your own Growth Plan.
9. We oppose approval of this project until the County transportation plan has been
adopted. How can you approve a project of 3,000 residences and 60 acres of
commercial development without a country transportation plan? it is only a few
months until completion and adoption.
10. We oppose the location of commercial development backing up to our
neighborhood just north of the proposed project. The developer sites one of the
significant commercial areas directly across the street from the only residential
neighbors. This is bad planning and bad relations. No wonder he did not attempt
to meet with us. It is further proof of lack of care to his neighbors or surroundings.
This is not Phoenix.
11. We oppose the use of a park as a retention pond for storm water drain off. A park
is a park and a retention pond is a retention pond. The pond will be "full pool" in
the spring and dry as a bone in the summer. Some Park! Many communities
refuse to. accept retention ponds as parks, so should Kalispell.
12. We oppose the building of homes on land that is under water every spring such as
the Northeast corner and much of the West side of the parcel. It is bad for the
homeowners and bad for the town that must manage it in the future. In past
springs on occasion West Reserve has been under water. How is this addressed?
13. We oppose such a skimpy 30 foot set back from West Reserve. It is not
appropriate given the set backs observed by Stillwater Estates and others along
the road.
14. We oppose this development on the basis that 60 acres of parks is too skimpy
when one considers that it may hold 9,000 inhabitants. (25% of Kalispell's current
population) There needs to be a comprehensive analysis of the parkland needs and
approved by the Department of Parks before zoning approval. Remember, much
of the designated parkland is just a retention pond labeled as "park."
15.. We are concerned that mention is made of affordable housing but there is no
demonstration of meeting affordable housing requirements.
16. We are concerned that Kalispell does not have the water rights to drill the wells to
provide the water for. 3,000 homes and 60 acres of commercial development.
17. We are extremely concerned with traffic generated by the development. We
believe that no approvals be given until the City's own traffic consultants and
department of Public works have passed on all aspects of traffic generation
impacts. We are concerned that enough roads leading to the site will be
constructed and operational before any building gets done. The amount of
construction traffic in phase one will be equal to all the construction traffic
throughout Kalispell at this point but be concentrated in one area with insufficient
roads during a time of great amounts of road construction.
18. We are concerned that the traffic study is not available on line for our information
on this critically important topic.
19. We believe that the main entrance should line up with Wolf Pack Way.
20. We have grave concerns that our wells will be adversely affected by the intensity
of the development.
21. We are alarmed by the tax impact of the cost of school construction and
operations to educate up to 1,800 children concentrated in one district. Does the
developer expect us the local neighbors to bear that cost?
22. We do not wish to bear the cost of maintaining a park that is essentially a
retention pond surrounded by a green buffer. We wish to see the parks
ueparuiieuts evaluation ofthis.
In summary we request that you do not approve any of the applications in front of you
tonight. There are many issues of substance that have been brought to your attention and
must be addressed. This is a huge development and a huge undertaking. These are four
significant applications; they cover an area the size of the entire West side of Kalispell
and will significantly alter the City of Kalispell for generations. As the planning board
you owe it to the future residents of this development and the current residents of
Kalispell to take the time and consideration do your planning properly.
SIZE COMPARISON OF THE STARLING
DEVELOPNMNTAND THE RESIDENTIAL AREA
OF DOWNTOWN KALISPELL
V -,!r - + 9 d ,
ril
.1141L
a "
-
FOV LUKe
.AlauL ms eens
Eve,grcp7n
%3r'hTidgC
Highs Buttalu
50 ClUb
E 1; le
Etata I -lark
T3
(ID
Migi @2007 Goo
`"
Kalispell City Planning Board
17 Second Street East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: Development proposal by Stillwater Meadows, LLC
Dear Members of the Planning Board:
Applied Communications
151 Wedgewood Ln.
Whitefish, MT 59937
(406)863-9255
(406)250-6632
rho rneCD-anocom.net
This letter is on behalf of Mr. Marc Nevas and several of his neighbors who reside on the
north side of West Reserve Street adjacent to the proposed Starling mixed use
development. Since the public notice on this project was first issued, Mr. Nevas and his
neighbors have attempted to educate themselves about the proposal and to assess the
potential impacts that such a large-scale development may have on their homes and
neighborhood.
As you are aware, both the issues this proposal presents and the development application
itself are very complex. The application is for concurrent review and approvals of-
® An amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy for the entire 640 acres
® Annexation to the City of Kalispell
• Zoning to R-3 (Urban Single Family Residential) with a PUD overlay that allows
other residential product types and some non-residential uses
• A preliminary plat for Phase 1 that would permit up to 293 units
Unfortunately, information about the project has been difficult to obtain in the short time
available. Despite the best efforts and excellent cooperation on the part of the Kalispell
Planning office, there is only one public copy of the submittal available. The Planning
o lice has not (as of this writing) been. able to obtain electronic media of any of the plans
and concepts from the applicant. The submittal itself is voluminous, and much of it is
highly technical. In my assessment as a professional urban planner of 35 years, it would
rewire days ofreading and study to grasp all of legal and technical issues raised by
this project. Please put yourselves in the position of surrounding property owners who are
not professional planners and who for the most part, have no fundamental understanding
of the Kalispell Growth Policy, the city zoning code, the Montana Subdivision and
Platting Act, or the local development review process.
i11 auuliiU11 tv Ulk.: VV1ULllli G}.ild l.UlllUle liLY t11 tl2e JUU1111LCa1 111dlel lCLls, 1V1L. 1VCVGlS CLIICL ZllS
neighbors are concerned that there has been no face-to-face meeting With the developer to
Page 2
May 18, 2007
discuss the project, gain a better understanding of it, and assess its potential impacts. It is
the neighborhood's understanding that such a meeting has been suggested by the
Kalispell planning staff, and the neighborhood is very interested is sitting down with the
developer in a cooperative, constructive manner to try and find common ground.
In view of the circumstances described herein, and again on behalf of Mr. Nevas and his
neighbors, I respectfully request a continuance of at least two months on all requests.
During the continuance period, I suggest the following:
Have the developer make available one complete copy of the submittal to Mr.
Nevas and his neighbors, and allow additional copies to be made at the neighbors'
expense.
® Have the developer provide the Kalispell Planning Department with electronic
media of the project master plan, Phase I preliminary plat, and any other relevant
concepts or illustrations in the submittal-
0 Request that the developer, project design team, and city staff meet with Mr.
Nevas and his neighbors and any other interested property owners so that those
potentially affected can better understand the project and make constructive
comments and suggestions.
i Hold a Planning Board worksession so that the developer and surrounding
property owners can report on their progress and present comments and
suggestions for the Board's consideration in a non -confrontational, productive,
and collaborative manner.
A development of this magnitude has the potential to impact the entire West Reserve
corridor now and for years to come. According to the development submittal, Starling is
projected to build out over a period of 20 to 30 years. Therefore, it is of paramount
importance that all stakeholders be afforded access to vital information, and be able to
participate in the planning and review process in a constructive manner. Again, we
respectfully ask you for that opportunity. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Robert come, r AICP
Principal, Applied Communications
Cc: Tom Jentz, Planning Director
Sean Conrad, Planner
Marc Nevas, et al
FINANCIAL PARTNERS
Sean Morgan
Managing Director
May 22, 2007
Kalispell City Planning
The proposed housing/commercial development at Stillwater and Reserve was brought to
my attention about two (2) weeks ago. I submit to you that more time is needed to study
this proposal and weigh the advantages and/or disadvantages and dangers. While leafing
through the only two very large books containing the available information, I realized
that the final and approved traffic studies, water use, and more were not included. In
order for my wife and I, as well as the other neighbors affected by the development to
fully understand the issues, we need more time.... perhaps two months.
I know we cannot stop development in our beautiful valley, but we can insist upon
diligent and well thought out planning. So called affordable housing is sometimes a good
thing if it is affordable quali housing. (not another Empire Estates). Two hundred or
more houses in "Phase one" would equal 400 vehicles entering from and exiting to West
Reserve. This is a dangerous proposition considering the hill just west of Stillwater and
the blind spots and the inevitable ice. Add to this residential traffic, the 700 to 800
automobiles from our new Glacier High School and the trucks from the gravel pit, you
have a chaotic mess with increased exposure to accidents and injury.
As to the water use .... where does it come from and where does it go? When Phase II, III
and IV, etc. are completed will city water be enough? Will a community well need to be
drilled and if so, how will that affect existing neighborhood wells? With rooftops,
sidewalks, driveways, and streets... where will water runoff go? How will the contents of
the runoff water be treated?
Fertilizer, insecticide, sprays, oil, gasoline come with the territory when you have a high
density development. So far it's not a pretty thought.
The understanding is that lots as small as 4,000 square feet are proposed near the corner
of Stillwater and Reserve. This is nuts!
People come to live here because of the beauty, the lifestyle, and space. If we don't
demand that high quality standards be met, we will have shoulder to shoulder living in
ticky-tack "cottages" and box barracks (ala Empire Estates) painted in colors that in some
countries could qualify as flags.
I could go on, but time is my enemy. Business travel requires me to be out of town this
e1. T . of ntf r7 tl,o r..eeti^^ T�'E're are cn m n� ntl�ar r�nceiii( that need t(� hP
.. ____ _.. - ______ _ _-I.I.eSllt t_L14 1.�1 ram. i Jv llat 01-1 s O
P.O. Box 5014 • 1405 W. Reserve Drive ti -
KalispelL MT 59904 '
Tel.: 406.755.2 324
Fax: 406.257.195I
Toll Free: 1.800.775.2445
Email: scan@mor.Raiisact2.com - Sean.Morgan@ingfp.com Member SIPC
discussed and studied that you must see the wisdom of tabling any decisions about this
proposal to later this summer.
P.S. Commercial ,-A should be for Highway 93, Main Street, Meridian Highway 2,
etc.
MAY-24-2007 23:04 FROM:BLENDS 4067555357 TO:7511858 P.1
Starling,
Before you tonight is an opportunity to embrace excellent community planning. You
have the benefit of the years of education and experience that this team of planners,
engineers and developers brings to you tonight in the form of the Starling mixed use PUD
application.
I would like to address seven common concerns to new developments:
Concern #1: Traffic: You all have the traffic study information in front of you, so you
can refer to that for specifics. I would just like to point out that Starling will have eleven
different approaches on the four sides of the community when it is complete.
Surrounding Starling is the new high school, shopping, theaters, ball fields on section 36
and college. Within Starling is land set aside for a new elementary school and numerous
new parks as well as areas for neighborhood shops and businesses. These and many
more amenities are all walking or biking distance for residents of Starling.
I bring this up while discussing traffic impacts, because the proximity of housing to work,
shopping, services, schools and the basic daily needs of people, impact to a great degree
how many vehicles people need and how far they drive them to function in the
community they live in. Minimizing the number of vehicles required, and the miles
driven, will reduce the impact those residents have not only on roads, but also on our air
quality and the greater environment as well.
A family of 5 who lives on 20 acres on McManamy Draw will need a truck, because
when you live on acreage you always have to haul stuff around, a family car, and then
each child who is old enough to drive will need a car too, unless one or both of the
parents are willing to drive them to every activity they participate in, resulting in an
ultimate potential of 5 cars with a minimum of two.
Contrast that to the same family of 5 living in Starling. With .a smaller lot to maintain a
truck is not necessary. With many work opportunities available within walking or biking
distance, one or both parents could potentially get to and from work without using a car.
The kids could walk to the Kids Sport complex for soccer or to the new movie theater.
They can walk or ride their bikes to the high school, junior high, elementary school or the
college. This family could live quite comfortably with two or three cars, and could get by
with one if they really needed to.
For every car that a family can eliminate they will save a minimum of $5,000 per year in
associated expenses. That $5,000 per year will allow a homebuyer to borrow $65,000
more, that they can then use for their home purchase!
Not only is Starling's planning good for affordability, it is good for the environment.
Fewer and smaller cars driving shorter distances to work, school, shopping, entertainment
and services means lower impact to our road system and to our air quality.
MAY-24-2007 23:05 FROM:BLENDS 4067555357 TO:7511858 P.2
Concern 42: Safe
Many of the concerns people have for safety are centered on traffic and pedestrians. I
find our county roads to be very pedestrian and bicycle unfriendly. County roads
typically have no shoulder, high speeds and deep ditches along both sides, none of which
is conducive to walking and biking. Starling is providing an entire trail and walking
network with appropriate separation between the cars and the people. The traffic calming
design of the curbs and sidewalks at all of the internal intersections will slow drivers
down to a safe speed. This is precisely the kind of planning we need to encourage. This
is planning for safety.
Concern #3: Lack of Planning:
Change is difficult for people to accept, it is difficult for us all. People often see
unattractive buildings or subdivisions they don't care for and feel there is a general "Lack
of planning" in the community. I am not sure if "lack of planning" is the best description
to describe the feeling one has about what they don't like, since it takes a great deal of
time and planning to build an ugly building or an unattractive development. I think that
much of what people refer to as "lacking planning" is more a function of a "lack of
experience, education and aesthetic sense of the people doing the planning" as well as a
lack of understanding of the powerful and dynamic forces of economics and aesthetics
and the relationship between the two.
While "aesthetics" is highly subjective, i think most of you can appreciate the "Project
Vision" and "Architectural Design Guidelines" found in Section 7 of the PUD
Application. This section conveys the level of thought and planning that has gone into
this project thus far. The project team has clearly respected the aesthetics of Kalispell
and the Flathead in the design. This is an opportunity for Kalispell to embrace a well -
planned community complete with parks, recreational amenities, and trails, mixed
income housing and a nixed use, truly a walk -able community.
Concern #4: Location inappropriate for density:
This is an objection that we hear very often, and especially with larger subdivisions. I
cannot think of many locations that are more appropriate for this type of density. When
you look at what is available within such close proximity to this site it is obvious that this
is where we need to put our density as a city. This site is close to the college, high
school, various shopping, new theaters, sports complex and the Junior High. It's phase
one borders on the West Reserve loop road which is going in this year to access 93 and it
will be near, but not directly on the new by-pass with access at 4-Mile. The land to the
south will be developed to a similar density in the future I am quite sure. Sewer and
water are available to the site. This location is unique in that there are very few sites of
this size left near the City. This type of "master planning" provides a more cohesive and
controlled development pattern than what we have traditionally seen taking place in
MAY724-2007 23:05 FROM:BLENDS 4067555357 TO:7511B5B P.3
Kalispell. This density is similar to what we have on the east and west sides of Kalispell
and is very appropriate for this site.
Concern 45: Imnact on roads and other infrastructure:
This project is in about the best location it could be in to create the least impact to our
roads and current infrastructure. With its close proximity to so many schools and
services, including the hospital and the new fire station, as well as to the West Reserve
Loop and the future by-pass, this is an ideal location to place development in order to
minimize the impact to the existing infrastructure.
The developers install all of the roads, utility services, sewer, water, and storm water
infrastructure as well as providing parks and some perimeter road improvements. And
Kalispell has adopted impact fees that charge the homebuilder or homebuyer for the
added impact of each home or business to the existing community systems.
With all of this in place, I think the City and the Developers have done quite well at
addressing the impacts of this development on infrastructure.
Concern 96: New development will devalue the existing homes in the area:
The neighbors to a new development are always concerned about what quality of
development will be. taking place next to them. In this particular location there are very
few direct neighbors with homes that will be bordering on Starling. This is not to say that
the impact of this development will be any less for these few, than if there were many,
but only to say that it is a good choice of location for such an expansion of the city
because it directly impacts fewer people than most other sites.
What you see neighboring acreage values do when a development is created next door...
is to go up in value, not down. This is not to say that the people in the home next to the
development don't dislike having to look at the new development, but simply, that they
will have a greater financial gain as a result of the new development when they do choose
sell.
Concern #7: Houses won't be affordable enough... or they will be too affordable:
There is always great concern that there is not enough "affordable housing" in the
Flathead. This is a real problem. it has been a problem in the past and will be a problem
in the future.
At the same time we worry about affordability there is great concern that we keep up
certain aesthetic standards in the community. A recent letter to the editor suggested that
if a trailer park were proposed today in Kalispell, it wouldn't have a chance. Even
though it would provide affordability in our housing stock it would be aesthetically
unacceptable and therefore denied. Yet we all know how difficult it is for many
hardworking people to be able to rent or buy a place to live.
MAY-24-2007 23:06 FROM:BLENDS 4067555357 TO:7511858 PA
There are committees formed to try to come up with solutions and ideas to help address
the affordability issues. Ideas are tossed out like government subsidies, grants,
ordinances that require developers to build a certain amount of affordable units in each
development. While these are valid ideas, they are not very fair. All of these ideas result
in a tax to those who make more to give to those who make less.
A better way to provide affordable housing is to allow different types of "housing .
product" within a single master planned community. Starling has done an exceptional
job of including "paired homes", "courtyard homes", "town homes" and single family
homes on varying sized lots, which will provide for a community of mixed income levels
and a variety of housing options. By using "attached" product types instead of
exclusively single family detached units, the land consumed by each dwelling unit and
infrastructure required is reduced which in turn creates more affordability. Starting out in
a smaller home gives people a "hand up" rather than a "hand out" and is clearly part of
the solution to the affordability issue.
Starling will provide many housing units, with all of the amenities this community has to
offer, that will be well within reach of our working class community. There will also be
many design features, aesthetic qualities and amenities that will attract retirees and
affluent buyers as well. Starling will be a diverse and vibrant addition to Kalispell.
Please help make this project a reality,
Thank You.
0