Loading...
13A. Resolution 4473 - Annexation - Chokecherry RidgeRESOLUTION NO. 4473 A RESOLUTION ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF KALISPELL, SAID TERRITORY BEING APPROXIMATELY 2.628 ACRES OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 21 WEST, P.M.M., FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA, TO BE DESCRIBED AS CHOKECHERRY ADDITION NO. 290. WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell has received a request from Unicore Development Inc. and John J. and Brenda Lee Vincent, the owners of the property, which is described in "Exhibit A", requesting annexation into said territory and zoning by the City, and WHEREAS, in the judgment of the City Council of the City of Kalispell, Montana, it is in the best interest of the City and the inhabitants thereof that said property be annexed to the City, and WHEREAS, on November 6, 1995, the City Council adopted pursuant to Section 7-2-4732, MCA, an Extension of Services Plan which anticipated the development of City services for approximately five years in the future, and WHEREAS, the Flathead Regional Development Office in Staff Report #KA-99-2 indicated that sewer, roads, police, and fire services are either available or already in service to said property, and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission held a hearing on February 9, 1999, pursuant to Chapter 27.30, Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, to recom- mend zoning for the property in accordance with the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, in the event the property is annexed to the City, and WHEREAS, the Flathead Regional Development Office recommended annexation of the property (#KA-99-2) with Residential, R-3, on a portion of the property and Public, P-1 on another portion, and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission passed a motion recommending approval for annexing, zoning and subdividing the property, and 4473 choke cherry.wpd SECTION IV. This Resolution shall be effective thirty (30) days from and after its passage and approval by the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL THIS 3rd DAY OF MAY, 1999. Wm. E. Boharski Mayor Attest: Theresa White Clerk of Council 4473 choke cherry.wpd 3 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 Paoe 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, corner 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 8t" 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 I3, 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- 99-1A 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-IA 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 UNICORE DEVELOPMENT INC. REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING FLATHEAD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE STAFF REPORT #KA-99-2 FEBRUARY 1,1999 A report to the Kalispell CTy-County Planning Board and the Kalispell City Councw7 regarding the annexation and initial zoning of 2.6 acres of land. A hearing has been scheduled before the Karispell City -County Planning Board for February 9, 1999, in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The Planning Board will forward a reowyriendation 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 -Kakspell, MT 59901 B. Size and Location of Pr. . The 2.6 acres of land proposed for annexation is located on the north side of Ca.fomia St. between 5e' and e Av. E.N. The legal description of the property is attached in Exhibit A. C. Existing zoning: The existing zoning for the site in the Flathead County Zoning Regulations is R-1 Suburban Residential. The R-1 district provides for single- family houses and minimum lot size of one acre. D. Proposed Zoning: The proposed zoning in the Kalispell Zoning Ordnance is R-3 Residential, reduck-mg minimum lot size to 7,000 square feet. Simultaneous applications have been received for a conditional use permit and pret'iminary plat approval on the site to construct 10 cluster development dweMngs consisting of two condominium fourplexes and a condominium duplex. E Existing Land Use: The site ' a building historically used as a commercial ice house, which is proposed to be removed. F. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning: The general land use character of the area is single-family resideoritial to the south and west, and undeveloped riparian area to the north and east. North: Stillwater R:ver, undeveloped McElroy & VVilkin she, 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 of the community by improving the level of public services to the site, creating a more efficient public service area (the other properties along Califomia St are already in the city), providing for orderly urban growth, and contributing to the City►'s tau base. As discussed above, the proposed zoning would also furthers the goals in the master plan of providing for a diversity of housing needs in the community. S. Wilt the requested zone provide for adequate light and air'? No significant • _ . _ i ! .. Lei, • 1.. the Astir ! • proposed zonkV d isftts inckxle Njilding setback and height standards that provide for adeqWe and air between buI&W 6. WIII the requested zone prevent the overcrowding of land and avoid Mate The proposed residential zoning would substantially Comply with the master plan. The extension of R-3 zoning beyond the building site area at the top of the slope to W ude the perimeter bank would allow for clustering and potential crowding of that buking site area, but the suitability of the density would be addressed in the c o,"tional use review required for cluster developments. 7. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate provision of transports water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements, The proposed annexation and rezoning would improve the level of public services to the site and create a more efficient public service area for the City, since the other properties along Cal'fr omia St are already in the city. Calif °'St. Is W CRY streets with approximately 30' width, curb and gutter, and a sidewalk on the other side of the street. Annexation would provide for access to police, fine, and dtfW municipal services. City sewer and water and other utilities are in place within the street right-of-way abutting the site. 9. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular sultabitity gLft property for particular uses? The preliminary plat application accompanying the zoning petition proposes dedication of the slough area and north portion of the parcel as a city park, an = extension of Lawrence Park. Accordingly, staff recommends that this portion of the site be zoned P-1, consistent with the use of the site. As discussed below, slope stability and flood hazards on part of the site are anticipated to be addressed in the conditional use and preliminary plat applications. 10. Does the requested zone give reasonable consideration to the character of the district? R-3 zoning would be consistent with the adjacent R-3 zoning to the south and west. The surrounding land use character is single-family housing and open space, and the proposed density is inconsistent with this established character. The 93 A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 21 WEST, PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, M=ONTANA, FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT I OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY NUMBER 10223, RECORDS OF FLATHEAD COUNTY AND WHICH POINT IS THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; . - - %: _ . - - - 7 � �- THENCE NOO°09'57'E, ON AND ALONG THE FAST BOUNDARY OK'SAID TRAC#'�,'�'' A DISTANCE OF 571.93 FEET TO A POINT WHICH POINT IS THE NORTH CORNER OF SAID TRACT 1 AND WHICH POINT LIES ON THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE S8r,45'42'E, ON AND ALONG SAID NORTH BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE OF 90.88 FEET TO A POINT; - THENCE SW09'578W, AND LEAVING SAID NORTH BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE OF 281.48 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S80036'21'E, A DISTANCE OF 38.02 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N82°49'21'E, A DISTANCE OF 116.94 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S54°55'220E, A DISTANCE OF 90.71 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S42on'54'E, A DISTANCE OF 121.06 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S31 °15'2TE, A DISTANCE OF 59.62 FEET TO A POINT WHICH POINT LIES AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH RIGHT -OF- WAY BOUNDARY OF EAST CAUFORNIA STREET AND THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY BOUNDARY OF SIXTH AVENUE EAST NORTH; THENCE S76°11'00'W, ON AND ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE OF 445.36 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THIS TRACT CONTAINS 2.628 ACRES AND SUBJECT TO AND TOGETHER WITH ALL APPURTENANT EASEMENTS OF RECORD. 5 Thence North 00° 09'5T East, a distance of 450.78 feet; Thence South 89" 45'4r East, a distance of 90.88 feet; Thence South 000 09'5r West a distance of 301.74 feet; Thence South 20' 04'57' West, a distance of 156.66 feet; Thence South 870 40'42' West, a distance of 37.54 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Said tract contains .853 acres and is subject to and together with all appurtenant easements of record. I 15 11 10 e�� 12 11 10 a 7 7 it tE psi N ILA WA -lia 4 sl I Sr H vicEviwm" UNICORE DEVELOPMENT INC / JOHN J. & BRENDA L. VINCENT PREID"ARY PLAT APPROVAL, ANNEXATION & ZONE CHANGE, & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION WITH 10 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT DWELLINGS CHANGE OM R-1, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL - EVERGREEN ZONING DISTRICT TO R-3, RESIDENTIAL - KAUSPELL ZONING DISTRICT FILE -,#Kk-,.99-2. KCU-99-1. KPP-99-1 SCALE V - 3W' FUthead RegionAl Devokpment J 723 516 Ave. East Roam 414 XjaspelL UT 59901 Phone: (406)75"9S0 Fax (406)75"7 PrIlTi• • f) L-EXD—j-'1AiT CITY OF KALISPELL 1. NAME OF APPLICANT: Unicorg Develojent_a Inc. - 2. MAIL ADDRESSaP O Box 2=O 3. CITY/STATE/ZIP: 8aiispell,Yt 59901 OH ; = 406-156-1221 4. INTEREST IN PROPERTY- - Condo Cluster Development __ S. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: ZONING TEXT AMEND • A-3 Cluster IF THE REQUEST PERTAINS TO AN AhMNDh=T TO THE TEXT OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS, PLEASE CO f`E THE FO . A. What is the proposed zoning text amendment? Cluster Condo R-3 Zoning Requested IF THE REQUEST PERTAINS TO AN TO THE ZONING KAP, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: ' A. Address of the property- California St., Kalispell , EN B. Legal Description: SVI/4 NV 1/4 , See* 8, T28N, R21• (Lot and $lock of Subdivision.; Tract #) Sec 8, T28N, 1221 1 (Section, Township, Range) (Attach sheet for metes and bounds) C. The present zoning of the above property is: D. The proposed zoning of the above property it R-3 Condo Cluster E. State the changed or changing conditions that make the proposed amendment necessary: 10 unit • Condo _ -Cluster Deyelo .ent on V plus acres. H. Giving reasonable consideration to the character of the district Unit design will blend into surro nding lan sa"e. I. Giving consideration to the pecurw wYkability of the property fx partimiar uses ___Vtey property wit• • t Y J. Protecting and conserving the value of bindings Construction to meet city codes. K. Encouraging the most appropriate use of land by assuring orderly growth Condo Cluster Development Will minimze land d_ AAt rbanne The signing of this application signifies approval for F.RD.O. staff to be present on the property for routine monitoring and inspection during approval process. Flathead Regional Development Office 723 Sth Aveaoe East - Rooca 414 Kafiqxt Montana S9901 s Phone: (406) 7S -SM Fax: (406) 7SS-37$1 Al Thelen, Interim City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Boat 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 addresser) those issues to 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 Tong 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. eerely, ispell -C Planning Board can Jo n. ident Providing Community Planning Assistance To: • Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispefl • City of Whittiish • Unicore Pmfiminuy Plat and Conditional Use Permit April 22, 1999 Page 3 of b ATTACHMENT A CHOKECHERRY RIDGE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDMONS 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 8&ting 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 substantLaMy 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 subdh sion ownership. Unicore Preliminary PW and CondibocwJ Use Permit April 22, 1999 Page S 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 20 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 subnnitted 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 wager 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. S. 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 DEVELOPMENT INC. FLATHEAD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REPORT KCU-99-1 APRIL 6, 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 of Property: 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 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. b. Parks and Recreation: As discussed above, Lawrence Park is nearly adjacent to the site. C. Police: Police protection mill 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 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the planning board adopt the staff report KCU99- lA 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 mateals, except as modified by conditions herein. All conditions shall be met prior to occupancy of the buildings. ,(D2 A' Redesign the site plan to comply with a 20 foot setback for primary and attached primary degree or margins ofusafety in tch as he s event to protect cslop slope failure. (Not to Tprovide The parking e$ requirements of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance at 25 spares and the proposed 20' building setback from the top of the bank (Le., 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.) As requested by the fire chief provide a minimum 10 foot setback for all decks, roof 7 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. _ 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. The lands within SO 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 reused preliminary plat allowing the City access through the development site to the proposed park. Flathead Regional Development Office 723 51h Ave. East Room 414 Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406)758-5980 Fax: (406)758-S781 APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMMATICN CITY OF KALISPELI� l -t- f • - PROPOSED USE OWNER(S) OF RECORD: Name: e-b` Z or`� Mailing f', 0 - t3,,y-- Z2.-z o Cit3r/State/Zip:4tr.,5PEu- ,"I," S't'Yy',L- Phone: `e�° -lZZ I PERSON(S) AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE OWNER(S) AND TO WHOM ALL CORRESPONDENCE IS TO BE SENT: Name: AF, 2 (- 17, L f 0,E k- Mailing Address: '� 2 3 X4. City/State/Zip: �'4 C-�'s'�c'L� -S- Y90 ) Phone: o -7s-;c- - 65t/3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Refer to Property Records): Street /% Sec. Town- Range Address �.ac z-F c.,rr� -• 4 :''�� �- No. ship No. 41 Subdivision P j '�" Tract Lot Block Name: �'/ �` c�•Z4,1 W. No(s). No(s).28 No.Z1_ 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. -r C. Topographic features of lot. E d. Size(s) and location(s) of existing buildings e. Size(s) and location(s) of proposed buildings. ✓� L Existing use(s) of structures and open areas. C,0,� g. Proposed use(s) of structures and open areas. 7- c-s,eJ CONDITIONAL USE PEKVIT TOPICS 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 cat 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. Z. 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. ejQ4Gk _-' APR - 5 1999 - F. R. D. O. 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 ovens 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 67Pd mrtiinv int to the mmnmeri cite and nhserve that adenuate huildino gmre is ftirther ciiminichM APR - 5 1999 Aprils, 1999 F. R. O. O. Mr. Tom knrz Members of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission Once again I am writing to you to voice my opposition to the pruposed Choke Cherry Ridge project that is being brought before you by Mr. and Mrs. Vmcmt and their developer Unicore Development, Inc. I am familiar with the process that is before you and respect you for your time and yvur expertise m 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-m it 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 wood 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. Hdaerever, tot 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 m the S100,000 to S 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 reiax:ing 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 Umcore Development, inc. was to have a I 0-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 m each bmldmg. 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 'Bows 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 fees? • There have been many comments made as to what the sag 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. Bow can one say that this is not true. The test hole may have consisted sisted 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-emit 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 494 5Th Avenue E.N. 'tf14TD Kalispell, MT 59901 March 29, 1999 44R 3 0 ,99 Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Cornmiss : "NIA0 q GO Flathead Regional Development Office p 723 5th Avenue East -Room 414 Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Members of the Planning Board: 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 --wilt 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 CERTIFICATION APPLICANT: CHOKECHERRY RIDGE & UNICORE DEVELOPMENT INC FRDO FILE #: KPP-99-1 KCU-99-1 L 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 landowners -adjoining the Drrty lines of the property that is to be subdivided. , /fi / Date: A?7 Assessor's S-T-R LoVrract 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 I23 KALISPELL MT 59901 TECHNICAL PARTICIPANT JACKOLA ENGINEERING PO BOX 1134 KALISPELL MT 59903 FLATHEAD LAND CONSULTANTS PO BOX 572 KALISPELL MT 59903 TRACT # ASSP.SSCR # Mgt/ ADaxr-is (.� t 31 S .Z 75-0//(oG SD Ik; lton A • 4 Ileleo 8. BcccA C resfv� , Mr "fog �t/Z� 8/x E i5-0933��0 ,��b�fa• f Donna fit, tvltf�ry1fif It ll spe 11.1 Air S9sIDl 814 F 75-D/41pS14 �o•!�-try J" Gtla�/ems '�ri�rcr,,cs Add Lfy$ cf_ Ave EN re 78.4, 78F I Car soe<J. Ik r 5990/ Co r lvh r !!; f Brelala Le e C/art c =�f�o Bir E 7s-a�9�/�S ,� � P %4^rA.•e.s �4dd Ave EN Tr 78c Cl-� ;ta l:sGe u rn r 5917,0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION Conditional Use Permit for A ilispell Senior Housing Project NM-OT Communication Tower Chokecherry Ridge Condominiums Andrew Farris Zone Change front 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: 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. From: Steve Cheman March 29, 1999��� ' 494 5th Ave. E.N. Kalispell, MT 59901 To: Kalispell City -County Planning 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 I -lilts 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 con -winced 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 B�:ock 5 ?5-04388sz Qsfttt4 J Will, Family Trust Du•SC4..s AQQ,;6;m ")esf GOrof 494 L.ofs /; z.- Kalispell MT 59901 Block 5 75-0156150 4,12. He!en Collins & Clara Anderson Qcu,c4,,.,s gld, 40 Clairmont5i�Apt #121C Kalispei MT 59901 24A 8-ar-x) 05-0974871 Edgar A_ & Margaret L White 135 Birch Drive Whitefish MT 59937 4 04 05-0409100 Albert & Loretta Johnson 467 East California Street Kal'isped MT 59901 5 .. 05-0787850 McElroy & Wilken. PO Box 35 Kalispell MT 59903 56A 44 05-0455500 McElroy & Wilken sr -a PO Box 35 Kalispefl MT 59903 ' 5 B .. 05-04555W McElroy & Wilken PO Box 35 Kalispefl MT 59909 236A 05-0981309 Peter &Vivian Sprunge.r 653 Whitefish Stage Road Kalispefl MT 59901 23B 05-034G600 - Peter &Vivian Sprungtr 653 Whitefish Stage Road Kalispell MT 59901 2388 05-0981515 Callen & Joyce McDonald HCR 80 Box 775 Camdenton MO 65020 23K 05-0888051 Callen & Joyce McDonald HCR 80 Box 775 Camdentonz MO 65020 23KA 75-0981516 Peter & Vivian Sprc(„ger 653 Whitefish Stage Road Kalispell MT 59901 �23 05-088eo5a Gc//en D. v Joyce h. Aic Donald f/cz 8o Box -27ss G� de^-s4-On) A40 GSO�O 23C OrEDGo/��] FIQy%'-dCo"n. -j Soa S M .e : n Sf e ei L..of/�83 y� $� f?ve• EN A7r j�w.tic�,.ss �dA�ox ygy 8,. Arc Env