The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Board Minutes - April 10, 2007KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING CO SSION M 1 NUTES of REGULAR MEETING APRIL 10, 2007 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Plannng Board and CALL Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were: Timothy Norton, Rick Hull, Bryan Schutt, Robyn Balcom, and John Hinchey. Kari Gabriel was absent. Nicole Johnson, Sean Conrad and Tom. Jentz represented the Kalispell Planning Department. There were approximately 60 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF SITES Balcom moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the March 13, 2007 regular plannmg board meeting. The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. HEAR THE PUBLIC No one wished to spear. FLATHEAD HOSPITAL A request by Flathead Hospital Development Company, LLC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, for a conditional use permit to operate a learning center and. LLC - CONDITIONAL USE sick child day care center (Dinosore program) in the lower PERBUT portion of the existing building at 66 Claremont Avenue. The Kid Kare program, a day care center, currently occupies the upper level of the building and until recently the VA Clinic, a medical use, occupied the lower level portion of the building. The property is zoned H-1, Health Care, and a conditional use permit is required for the proposed change in use. STAFF REPORT HCU-07-03 Nicole Johnson, representing the Kalispell Plarmmg Department presented Staff Report KCU-07-03 for the Board. Johnson stated this is a conditional use permit request by Flathead Hospital Development Company to locate a sick child day care center (DM*osore) and a kindergarten (Individual Learning Center) in an existing building located within the Kalispell Regional Medical Center campus. The property is zoned H-1 Healthcare and a conditional use permit is required to locate these 2 functions within the building. The existing building is 2-story and the Kid Kare program operates from the upper level of the building and as proposed the kindergarten and sick day care center will be located in the lower level, which was formerly the VA Clinic. Johnson said these programs have multiple entrances and exits which they will share with. the Kid Kare program. The proposal will combine the 3 day care functions under one roof and serve the hospital employees and the general public. During the review a variety of issues were addressed including parking. The parking lot will be re -striped and a van accessible sot will beprovided. The li hts in the Kalispell City Punning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 1 of 33 parking area and on the building will be brought into compliance with the city's outdoor lighting standards, and a permit will need to be obtained to modify the existing signs for the property. Staff recommends that the pl g board adopt the staff report KCU-07-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell city Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the 6 conditions listed in the staff report. QUESTIONS BY THE Norton was glad to see that the outdoor lights in the parking BOARD lot and on the building will be brought into compliance with the city's lighting standards. APPLICANT/ AGENCIES Marcello Pi.errottet, Facilities Manager for Kalispell Regional Medical Center said they are trying to combine all of the bids into one building which will be a benefit to the parents. This facility will serge the KRMC employees and the general public. Pierrottet said originally when the VA Clinic was located in this building it required 200 square feet of space per parking space, 22 spaces, and now with this use they will only be required to provide 9 parking spaces which will alleviate some of the parking problems on the campus. PUBLIC HEARING No one wished to speak. MOTION Hinchey moved and Balcoxn seconded a motion that the planning board adopt the staff report KCU-07-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the b conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION None. DOLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call. vote. PRELIMINARY PLAT - A request from Brian Cloutier, of Ashley Square Partnership, ASHLEY SQUARE for preliminary plat approval to create two lots on a 3.193 AMENDED PLAT OF LOT 2, acre lot within Ashley Square. The property can be accessed RESUB OF LOTS 1 & 3 OF from US Highway 2 west and is zoned B-3, Community GEEISON ADDITION NO. 41 Business. Lot 2A contains an existing building and parking lot on 2.887 acres in the northwest corder of Ashley Square. The state Driver Services and Northland. Hobbies are two examples of businesses located in this commercial building (1325 Highway 2 West). Lot 2B is located in the northeast corner of Ashley Square south of Fatt Boys Bar and Grille (1307 US Highway 2 West) and is currently vacant. STAFF REPORT' KPP-�07-05 Nicole Johnson., representing the Kalispell Planning Department presented Staff Report KPP-07-05 for the Board. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 2 of 33 Johnson said this is a preliminary plat request to subdivide 2 lots within Ashley Square commercial area. Johnson provided the location of this proposal for the board. The property is zoned B-3 and the applicant is proposing to subdivide lot 2 which would create lot 2A at approximately 3 acres and lot 2B at approximately 1/3 of an acre. The property is currently developed with buildings, parking lots, signs, etc. and they are not proposing to further develop any of the sites at this time. Johnson noted during review they addressed a variety of issues which resulted in the conditions, most of which relate to the future development of lot 2B which contains landscaping and parking spaces, and compliance with the sign regulations and building standards. Staff is recommending that the plann?n g board adopt staff report KPP-o 7 -o 5 as findings of fact and recommend to the city council that the preliminary plat of Ashley Square Amended Plat of Lot 2, Resub of Lots 1 & 3 of Gibson Addition No. 41 be approved subject to the S conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD QUESTION'S Hull asked for the reason behind this subdivision and Johnson stated that the consultant could address his questions. APPLICANT/ AGENCIES Erica Wirtala, Sands surveying stated she is representing Mr. Cloutier. Wirtala noted that this project comes before the board as a major subdivision because of the previous splits of the parcel. One use for lot 2B could be that Fatt Boys Bar & Grill purchase the lot for additional parking. Wirtala said they don't have any firm development plans at this time. if there are further development plans they would go before site Review. Wirtala said they are in agreement with all of the conditions. Norton asked about access onto the highway. Wirtala said the existing access would be used. She added MDT would like to look at the access at the time development plans are firm in case there would be additional use of that access or a change in use. Wirtala said that lot 2B goes up to the R f W of the highway and there is still quite a bit of buffer area between the lot and the highway. Norton asked if the sidewalks are along Highway 2 and along the interior road. Johnson said the conditions note the sidewalks would be along the highway and within the interior of the lot and added Public Works felt that it would be more appropriate to Wait until the use was known for the site and then determine where the sidewalks should go. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 21007 111 Page 3 of 3 B alc om asked if there was any discussion regarding the poor condition of the current parking lot. wirtala said a good portion of this property is grass and landscaping. She added there is a small portion that is part of the parking area however the upgrade of the parking lot was not included in the conditions. PUBLIC HEARING No one wished to speak. MOTION Balcorn moved and Schutt seconded a motion to adopt staff report KPP-07-0 5 as findings of fact and recommend to the city council that the preliminary plat of Ashley Square Amended Plat of Lot 2, R.esub of Lots l 8& 3 of Gibson Addition No. 41 be approved subject to the 8 conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Norton said his only concern was the condition of the parking lot and that has been addressed. ROLL CALIF The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. GATEWAY PROPERTIES A request from Gateway Properties, Inc., for annexation into (VALLEY RANCH) the City of Kalispell with the initial zoning of R-2, Single ANNEXATION AND Family Residential, and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) PLANNED UNIT overlay zoning district on the 80.7± acre project site. The DEVELOPMENT PUD will. be known as valley Ranch and is proposing 204 residential lots, 29 townhouse lots and a future assisted and independent living facility with up to 120 units on the project site. The project site is in the County zoning jurisdiction and is zoned SAG--10, Suburban Agricultural. The project site is located on the east side of Highway 93 approximately 1 1/2 miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and Nest Reserve Drive. STAFF REPORTS KA-07-05 Sean Conrad representing the Kalispell Planning Department & I PUD-07-02 presented Staff Reports IAA- 07-05 KPUD- 07-02 for the Board. Conrad said before the planning board is a request for annexation & initial zoning of R-2 Single Family and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay district to allow some deviations in the R-2 zoning district. The deviations would include smaller lot size, smaller lot width, varying the types of land uses, and varying the setbacks. Conrad described the location of the property for the board. Conrad said the PUD layout is a conceptual plan and the board is not reviewing a preliminary plat at this time. The developer is seeking approval of the zoning and the PUD layout so they can have direction on hove to proceed with the development of the project. Kalispell City Planning Board M inutes of the meeting of April 10, 20007 Page 4 of 33 Conrad reviewed the PUD layout for the board. The land uses vary but are primarily residential and include large lots abutting the Ponderosa Subdivision and being 12,000 and 25,000 square feet in size. Between these lots and Ponderosa the developer has proposed a 20 wide swath of land for a bike path and landscaping. South and west on the site the lots are 6,000 to 7,000 square feet and are alley loaded garages. The developer is also requesting that townhouses and an independent/ assisted living facility be permitted through the PUD overlay. Conrad said there are also larger residential lots, 7,800 -- 9,000 square feet as the property transitions down to the site of the proposed Glacier Town Center (Wolford Mall). Conrad said the developer is proposing approximately 1.5 acres of parkland and open space and he described these areas. There could be some changes to the parks as the Parks Department felt that combining the parks into fewer larger parks would be more appropriate. Conrad noted the developer has proposed 2 access points along Highway 93, an access point east to an 80 acre piece of property with the possibility of future connection with Whitefish Stage Road, and 2 access points to property to the south (Wolford Mall site). The traffic study indicates that the 2 access points along the highway would be limited to right - in if traveling north; right- out to continue traveling north; or if traveling southbound on Highway 93 a left turn into the project site. However, a left turn onto the highway from this project site would be prohibited. For that reason Condition. # 8 states when the developer comes in to submit the preliminary plat he would not get final plat approval until a connection to either the south or to the east was secured. Conrad reviewed the letters received on this project. (Copies are attached to the minutes). Conrad said there is a Stormwater Management Plan which would be reviewed when the preliminary plat comes in. Staff is recommending that the planning board adopt staff report I -07-05 as findings of fact and recommend to the city council that the initial zoning upon annexation of this property be R-2 (Single Family Residential) and adopt staff report PUD- 07-02 as findings of fact and recommend that the PUD for Valley Ranch be approved subject to the 13 conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD QUESTIONS I Hull asked if the developer owns the access to the west to Highway 93 and Conrad said yes. Hinchey referenced the 5 lots along the highway that are not a part of this development and asked if there was any discussion with those landowners to how those lots will be Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2-007 'age 5 of 33 accessed when this project develops? Conrad said as far as he knows the developer has not discussed access to those lots with the owners. But access could be discussed with the first phase of the preliminary plat. Conrad reminded the board when the preliminary plat comes in there could be deviations on the design but the concepts would remain the same. He added MDT has already indicated that access to Highway 93 will be limited. Schutt said the board is not approving a preliminary plat but is reviewing the initial zoning and he asked if the PUD elements are set or in progress. Conrad said. the PUD elements are set and are included in the conditions. Some changes to parks, roads and access could occur. Increases in percentages of townhouses, units in the assisted / independent living facility and access points would require an amendment to the PUD which would have to be reviewed by the planning board. There was further discussion regarding access points and road connections. APPLICANT/.AGENCIES Bruce Lutz, Sitescape Associates said he is representing Gateway Properties. They began this effort almost a year ago and had several meetings with the planning i n g office. After the August revision of the Growth Policy in this area they analyzed the surrounding properties and took particular note of the Silverbrook project to the north which will facilitate the connection of crater and sewer to this property and was a pivotal point in the decision of Gateway Properties to go ahead with the valley Ranch project. Lutz said their strategy was to create a transition from the lower density properties to the north and northeast by creating larger lots in the 1/3 acre category and above along their border with Ponderosa Estates. Lutz also noted the location of the open space as it relates to the open space of Ponderosa. He said this would create a larger open area that will benefit everyone. In addition, in the 20 foot buffer between this project and Ponderosa a trail will be created and become a link between, all of the open spaces within Valley Ranch.. Lutz noted that the townhouse lots were also an attempt to create more efficient housing but also create an enclosure in this development that was an aesthetic barrier between Valley Ranch and the more commercial properties to the merest and to the south. Lutz said they ended up with an increased setback (100 feet total) from the highway R/ w to the assisted/ independent living project. They don't have a problem with this increased buffer but it may result in a reduction of units for the facility or a more challen ng architecture for the building which will Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of Apri 110, 2007 Wage 6 of 33 come back to the board in detail before that project moves forward. Lutz continued that one of the special parts of the property is the knoll that is situated south of the northwesterly entry into the project. Everyone agreed that the knoll needed to be preserved and left in open. space. There will be no intent to tape down any of those trees or alter the topography in any way. Lutz said they originally contemplated having the assisted / independent living on the south part of the project and in closer proximity to the future Glacier Town Center but all agreed that the site on the west would provide better views and a better location. The interior residential areas have more density but are planned with streets and alleys. The typical size of those lots is 48 feet wide by 130 feet long. They went for a longer lot so that they could have some variation in the setbacks and avoid the snout forward aesthetics. The streets will be open to nice boulevard plantings, limnited parking on the street, and a nice look throughout. The 7,300 -- 9,000 square foot lots are driveway in lots. Lutz said the parks and Recreation Department prefers an open space strategy that would accommodate larger park areas and utilize underground storm drainage throughout the project. Lutz said they received a letter from the Wolford organization that states Wolford would entertain the idea of Valley Ranch connecting with the Glacier Town center project to the south. They are mentioning only one access point and if that is approved Lutz said they would recommend that this access road be moved to better connect to the future Rose Crossing extension and over to the lighted intersection on Highway 93. They fully realize that this project depends on the Wolford project in order for them to connect and get to a traffic light and they accept the condition that states that this project cannot go to final plat until that is achieved.. Brent Card, 41 Ki.n.tla in Kalispell said they net with the Ponderosa Homeowners Association to discuss this project. Card said the 20 foot buffer/trail goes around the circumference of the project and includes the park/knoll area along the highway. Card said knowing that Ponderosa Estates is a subdivision with larger lots they orientated their larger lots on their border and placed a park area to connect to Ponderosas park. The only reason for the townhouse idea was to provide a buffer between the larger lots and the commercial properties. Card said they are excited about the rear loaded garages because they like the old neighborhoods in KalisT)ell with the allevs. It also mares the neighborhood Kalispell City Planning Board M inutes of the meeting of April 10, 2)007 Page 7 of 33 nicer with all of the douses oriented to the front. Card said they prefer the smaller parks that are more spread out so the residents can enjoy a park closer to their home. They wanted to provide more park areas rattier than having higher density. Card said they had. 3 deeded accesses onto Highway 93 and knowing the traffic concerns they eliminated one planned for the far south. They also moved the northern -most access in consideration of Ponderosa's access to get as much separation as possible. Card said he feels they have a great project. Andy Hyde, Carver Engineering said they will be involved with the civil aspects of the project including water, sewer, roads, and storm drainage. Silverbrook is extending big city mains down the east side of the R jw and this project will be connecting to those for water supply and sewage conveyance to the treatment plant. Hyde said this property is essentially flat and it was brought to their attention by an adjacent farmer who has worked this land for decades that there is a small depression in the northeast corner that collects water. Their approach with the drainage design is to fill that area to get it to drain. Hyde said the properties in Ponderosa Estates north of this site have had water either in their crawl spaces or basements and they pump it out. Hyde said they can put in conveyance systems to get the water out of there and will try not to interrupt the drainage patterns that may have already been established by the pumping of the adjacent properties. Hyde continued regarding eliminating the many smaller parks one of the approaches they took with the stormwater was to try to decentralize it, collect the water but then to dispose of it in many smaller systems rather than collect it and concentrate it in fewer bigger disposal systems. They were trying to spread the water out rather than put it all in one place. He noted they don't disagree with Condition #g but he would also like to suggest that in addition to the Parks Department that Public Works should be involved in the input for the location and the size of the drainage facilities. The open space typically does get used for stormwater disposal and because of the heightened awareness of the impacts of stormwater Public works is carefully reviewing those issues. The City of Kalispell will be charged with the responsibility of maintaining these systems permanently and if they are not accessible for maintenance bigger problems could be created. Norton noted the depression is on Lots 6, 7, & 8 however, there is not a park there. He asked hour would the water be retained. Hyde said on the street to the south of the lots Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 8 of 33 there will be a line running to the west and an underground detention and disposal system will be put in. They would have to put in some kind of parallel pipe on the back side basically to intercept that water because they don't want water flowing from Ponderosa into basements or crawl spaces on lots in Valley Ranch. Hyde also mentioned that they have a series of test holes drilled out there right now and they are monitoring groundwater. Depending on the results of the monitoring they may recommend finished floor elevations that preclude crawl spaces. Any sort of improvement on those lots south of the path could end up blocking or intercepting flow and they don't want to block emsting disposal patterns that are already working. But at the same time knowing that they could put in some kind of French drain or infiltration piping to intercept the water and move it to a place where the disposal wouldn't cause problems. PUBLIC Mfar Craig Luke, Ponderosa Estates Subdivision said he has 2 official protests to submit. The first official protest is from people who all own lots within 150 feet of the Valley Ranch proposed project. Luke said they wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density, R- 1 in the Kalispell City Growth. Policy area of the properties included in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch.. (Copy attached to the minutes) Lure continued the second official protest is from people who own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. They wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density, R--1 in the Kalispell City Growth Policy area of the properties included in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. (Copy attached to the minutes) Sharon DeMeester, 415 Chestnut Drive, Ponderosa Estates read portions of a letter to the board. (A copy is attached to the minutes) . DeMeester summarized their major concerns are water, traffic, setbacks, and light pollution.. She added the developers are proposing much more density than Highway 93 can handle until something is done with the traffic. Jean Ambrose - 445 Sirueek Lane stated her concerns are the same as DeMeester's. The ,growth policy shows that it should be R-1 and she is confused as to why it needs to be changed. She walks her dog on the southern border of Ponderosa and it is very steep there. She thinks saving the knoll is a great idea and the other tree barriers should be saved too because they serve as wind breaks. She is officially protesting any chanige in the current zoning density due to the reasons that were documented by DeMeester. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, ?007 Page 9of33 Cork Andrews, said that he is a property owner with 2 pieces of property that adjoin the Talley Ranch project. Andrews said he is not opposed to the project. Years ago when all the land was owned by Al Reed, Reed envisioned this was a logical place to have development. A lot of time since 1978 has been spent putting in the infrastructure, including pourer and gas, inhere the easement is located. The developers have talked to him because his property connects to Highway 93 and he is working with them to help with their access to the highway. The neighbors have brought up some good issues and the planning board will be able to handle those issues when they receive the first plat. The project is proposed for the right spot. Bill Dale, Bigfork resident said change is coming and they have to accept a certain amount change. He feels this is an appropriate location for this type of density. Dale wanted to address the assisted Living facility proposed because he started 2 very successful assisted living facilities, Prestige and Riverside, which he added are both full. There is a demand for more assisted living in this area. The parking situation at these facilities is not as bad as some might think because it doesn't involve a lot of traffic. Dale reviewed the traffic generated by the other assisted living facilities in the valley for the board. He said assisted living facilities make good neighbors. Melissa Evanoff, 4th Street West said she called Lewistown Chamber of Commerce to get a relocation packet because even though she agrees growth is inevitable she thinks growth deeds to happen with integrity. Evanoff said she misses the old Kalispell. She noted that the Lewistown Chamber of Commerce said the amount of people from. Kalispell and Bozeman who have contacted them about relocation is unbelievable. She said the native people are being pushed out because of subdivisions life this which brings in people from out of state. Evanoff suggested the board stick with bigger lots. Tom Kittle, 134 Sinopah said that he is a builder and would like to take his hat off to Gateway Properties for a great job and he supports it 100%. To put a 100 foot buffer between. Ponderosa and galley Ranch is too much and could take away 80 lots. Kittle said if the homeowner's of Ponderosa are interested in a 100 foot buffer they should have bought the property. He added this is a great place for an assisted living facility, a great location and he feels the traffic has been addressed by the developers. Kittle said that he believes the open areas, the different size lots, and the trails, makes it a very rice subdivision and he said Kalispell and our economy will benefit from this project. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 10 of 33 Wayne Smith, 118 Ponderosa Lane said he bought his lot 5 years ago because it was large and he has a dog. Smith said to look across his fence to the south and see a trailer park subdivision mares him ill. They were told at one time that there was going to be 100 foot lots and he is opposed to the small lots that are adjacent to Ponderosa Estates. Pete Wessel -- 121 Rainbow Drive said that he is not a neighbor but it is good to see a lot of people involved who are directly affected by a project. Others of us are not as fortunate. He said everyone is Highway 93 North neighbors because everyone drives that road. There needs to be some comprehensive planning done as far as the transportation system. He knows the city is in the process of updating the Transportation Plan but it is not complete yet. He would be a lot more comfortable with the access to this site if he knew what the Glacier Town Center trip generation was. How much traffic will it generate? Wessel said it is hard to look at these projects closely without having the big picture and they need to look much farther than just this site. MOTION - ANNEXATION Schutt moved and Norton seconded a motion to adopt staff report KA-07-05 as findings of fact and recommend to the city council that the initial zoning upon annexation of this property be R-2 (Single Family Residential). BOARD DISCUSSION Schutt asked about the official protest and what steps the board should tape. Jen.tz said there is a provision in the state law that addresses action, on the protest letters by the City Council and has no bearing on the board. If the board recommends approval it will be forwarded to City Council. City Council will, then determine if the letters contain signatures from at least 25% of the lot owners within 150 feet of this project. If the protest percentage was met, a 2 / 3 rds majority vote of the council would be required for approval. Schutt asked if the board should be holding an annexation hearing prior to the PUD. Jentz noted that board doesn't hold a hearing on the annexation but deals with recommending an appropriate zoning classification to the City Council. Council then takes care of the annexation issue and applies the appropriate zoning. Hull said he is very much opposed to this project for a number of reasons. The board always talks about having a large piece of property so the developer can do the kind of development that the board wants to see. This proposal is unusual for a rural piece of property. The minimum lot size for R-2 is 9,600 square feet. The developer is requesting a reduction of the minimum lot size to 6,000 square feet for single family homes, which is smaller than his lot on Sth Avenue west. The width is going to be 48 feet instead of 70 feet. A 5 foot rear setback from the alley is extremely small. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page I I of 33 Hull said when they were reviewing the Riata Ridge project on willow Glen the board was upset that they had only gone to the minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet and now these developers are requesting 6,000 square feet. Hull continued there will be more than 2,000 vehicle trips out of this subdivision onto Highway 93 trying to make left hand turns back to Kalispell. This is huge amount of traffic on 93 and the developer's only real proposal is hopefully by the time this is completed there will be some magical way that they can get on to 93. This project has a lot wrong with it including density, roads, and transportation problems. Schutt said one of his frustrations is they are trying to review a PUD without having the entire plan and it snakes it tough for the board. Hinchey said he feels this project has certain positive characteristics. However, he is still bothered by the traffic problems and the fact that they are really relying on some connectivity to the south and the east which is an unknown at this time. It seems premature to him to be talking about the PUD. Hinchey said the density is pretty tight that far from the city limits. Hinchey stated the traffic situation is too undecided at this point for him to support the PUD. Balcom said she is still confused about the density. She asked is it a benefit for the developer to submit a PUD because it gives them the freedom to deviate from the zoning and asked if they approve the zoning but not the PUD would the developer have to stick to the lot standards of a straight R--2 subdivision. Norton said that is correct. If the board approves the R-2 zoning but not the PUD they 'would have to redesign the project with 9,600 square foot lots. Hull agreed if they approved. the R-2 zoning either this developer or someone else could come in with another PUD or a straight R-2 subdivision where they are not asking for deviations. Hull added there are reasons why the standards are in place. Bal.corn suggested taking all of the concerns into consideration and perhaps a plan could be reached that every one could live with. Norton said he lives on a 1/3 acre lot in the city and it is an adequate size for a buffer between him and his neighbors. He said what the board, asked for at the work session is included in this PUD. Norton said it seems now the board is changing their minds. He doesn't see any new issues with the exception. of the neighborhood's concerns brought up at the hearing. Conrad said the initial zoning they are re uesti Ing is R-2 and Kalispell City Planning Sward M 1nutes of the meeting of April 10, 12)007 Page 1 �4_1 of 33 with a fair amount of deviations from the R--2. Under the PUD the zoning regulations allow a maximum of S units per acre. They are Coming in at about 4.4 units per acre. It is totally up to the discretion of the board how much density to allow under a PUD but 4.4 units still substantially complies with the suburban Residential land use designation on this property which calls for up to 4 units. Conrad said what the public gets in return for this PUD is increased open space and parkland. If they were to come in and do a straight R- 2 the parkland would only be about half the open space proposed here. Hull said the board can't just listen to the neighbors because the neighbor's never want increased density. The board also has to consider what is good for the city. He realizes the density is comparable to downtown but he still thinks it is not laid out well. ROLL CALL -ANNEXATION I The motion passed on a roll call vote of 3 in favor and 2 opposed. MOTION - VALLEY RANG Schutt moved and Balcom seconded a motion to adopt staff PLANNED UNIT report KPUD--07-02 as findings of fact and recommend that DEVELOPMENT the PUD for Valley Ranch be approved subject to the 13 conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Balcorn said that the lots are too small and should be closer to what is called for in R-2 zoning. She doesn't have any problems with the assisted/ independent living facility and doesn't feel that it will cause an additional traffic problem. Jentz said he wanted the board to keep on track. If you have no problem with the assisted / independent living facility then you are looking at 220 housing units or 3 units per acre density for the remaining 75 acres of the site. The small lot trade-off is an extra 10 acres of parkland. If the PUD is denied either this developer or someone else can come back in with a regular subdivision that may have slightly bigger lots but the total number of lots would be the same with a net reduction *in open space and parkland. Norton said that is an excellent point because all they would be doing is a drop from 232 lots to 220 lots and then they would lose open space. Hull said they were talking about consolidating the open space into a municipal parr. If they take the assisted/independent living facility out there still would not be alleys wide enough for garbage trucks to get through and would not have lots that are as wide as the ones in downtown Ka asp ell. There was discussion regarding the alley width and Jentz noted that the street and alley widths are proposed at the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 1 0} 2007 Page 13 of 33 city urban design standards. Hull disagreed. P.J. Sorensen said most alleys in the older part of town are 16 feet wide for the R/w and 20 feet wide between Main Street and First Avenues East S& west. In this project the developer was proposing 30 foot wide alleys. The R-2 would be a 10 foot setback but the garage setbacks proposed for this project would be very similar to what you would see throughout the rest of the city, even with the request to reduce the setback to 5 feet the alley was significantly wider. Balcom said normally with PUD's they receive more information and they have a better feel for how the project will work. Balcom suggested continuing the PUD and the developer ask for further clarification. Also the conunents and concerns of the neighbors can also be addressed. MOTION TO CONTINUE Balcom moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to continue the discussion of the PUD for Valley Ranch until the May 8, 2007 meeting. ROLL GALL The motion to continue passed on a roll call vote of 3 in favor and 2 opposed. BOARD DISCUSSION Conrad asked if the board could give the developer some direction on what they would like to see with this PUD that would help them make an informed recommendation to council. Hull said personally he would like to see a subdivision design to reflect the rural area that it sits in. Schutt said it would be helpful to see more detail on the roads and traffic circulation. Hinchey said it's the traffic flog that is his biggest concern. He would like to see how residents would get south to Kalispell. Conrad said the only problem that this developer has with moving traffic to the south is without the mall site being proposed at this time it is difficult for them to provide more information to the board. Norton noted that Condition. #8 addresses traffic and needing some outlet to the east and the south. Hinchey said they also heard that wolford would only allow one road through his property and according to Condition #8 the one road would be sufficient to proceed. However, it would only be one moray out to the south or east. Conrad stated that wolford may want to allow only one access road into their property but staff, and the planning board may recommend 2 or 3 to the city council because it would provide for better traffic circulation and connectivity to the adjacent property. Jentz said this develo er is at the mercy of the Wolford Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of Apri i 10, ?007 Page 14 of 33 Development and there is no timefrarne for when that project may or may not come in. The board is recommending the zoning and a plan for the neighborhood and at some point someone has to actually get the roads built to whitefish Stage and Highway 33 whether it is this developer building the roads themselves or accessing the roads built in the Wolford project. Jentz noted the bigger question is if the board is comfortable with the design. He said this project is not premature as the entire section is being planned out with 200 acres of commercial development and 150 acres of residential development, so now how do we make it work. ROLL CALL - PUD The original motion failed due to the motion to continue the [ORIGINAL MOTION I PUD. ASHLEY HEIGHTS - A request from Ashley Heights, LLC, for annexation and ANNEX&TION initial zoning on approximately 8.5 acre tract of land. The owner is requesting annexation into the City of Kalispell with the R--4 (Two Family Residential) zoning district. The property is currently zoned County R-1 and is located on the western end of Bismark Street, immediately west the Sunnyside subdivision phase 2. STAFF REPORT - K.A-07-02 Tom Jentz, representing the Kalispell Planning Department presented Staff Report KA-07 -02 for the Board. Jentz stated this is an 8.5 acre piece of land for annexation into the city with an initial zoning request of R-4. Sunnyside Drive forms the northern boundary and Bism.ark Street would enter into this property at the southeast corner. The Highway 93 Bypass forms the western boundary. There is a 2 -1 f 2 acre strip that will be purchased by MDT as part of the bypass expansion. In addition there will be a deceleration ramp coming onto Sunnyside Drive from the bypass in the future but no access onto the bypass is proposed at this location. Sunnyside Drive will actually dead end when the bypass is constructed. Jentz said the R-4 zone is a single family/ duplex zone with a 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. There was a subdivision plat submitted as part of this proposal however staff did not support the R--4 zone change request and decided to hold the subdivision application until after the board could decide on the appropriate zoning for this property. Jentz said staff is recommending an R-3 zoning which is a straight single family residential zone with a 7,000 square foot lot m r�i LUM0 Jentz said the Growth Policy land use designation is 3- 12 units per acre which would accommodate either an R-3 or R- 4 zone. when the site is reviewed they loom at the bypass that will be on the west side. Jentz added this board said 5 years ago that more density against the bypass would be a better use of land because it would create less desirable lots Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10. ?007 Page 15 of 33 that would be cheaper. Since then the board reconsidered that thought and generally has come to the conclusion that it would not be a place that we would encourage or direct a lot of people. Jentz reviewed the surrounding land use which is 1 acre lots or larger to the north and wrest and smaller lots, R-4 & R-3 to the south and east. He said when the property to the east came in at R--4 a fair amount of concerns were voiced by the neighborhood. Also city council is concerned with the amount of traffic on Sunnyside Drive, which is a rural road. 'therefore staff felt that R-3 would be more appropriate for this property. Jentz reviewed the letters received from the neighborhood. (Copies are attached to the minutes) Staff is recommending that the planning board adopt staff report KA- 07 -02 as findings of fact and recommend to the city council that the initial zoning for this property upon annexation be R--3, Urban Single Family Residential, not the R-4 Two Family Residential as requested by the applicants. BOARD QUESTIONS I None. APPLICANT J AGENCIES Wayne Freeman, CTA stated the applicant is on vacation and he agreed to represent the developer. Freeman said the applicant had submitted a preliminary plat along with the annexation request & initial zoning of R-4. In the preliminary plat request it was specifically spelled out there would be 3 lots that would be townhouse lots. Freeman shouted the board the location of those 3 lots. The idea that most of these lots could ultimately have multiple townhouses has been eliminated with the submittal of the plat which is predominately single family. He continued with regards to the bypass the applicant is asking for permission and intends to put a sound barrier berm wall that would be set back from the buildings and would eliminate the sound problems. They have worked with the Parks Department who has requested cash -in -lieu of parkland, for improvements to a nearby park. Freeman said his client is requesting approval of the R--4 zoning and the preliminary plat request that was submitted. Schutt asked what drives the decision to put 3 townhouses in a subdivision that would raise it to an R-4 for a small economic pay back. Freeman said his client has identified this project as in -fill and the margins of return are very low. Norton asked how many lots are being requested under the R--4 zoning and Freeman said 38. PUBLIC HEARING Pierce, 1015 Ashley Drive said he lives near this Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 16 of 33 property. 'three years ago they were before this board on another R-4 subdivision that is immediately to the east and it turned out to be a mess. The streets are substandard, the sidewalks and driveways have all broke, they have rebuilt the main road three times and there are still sink holes I- I f 2 feet deep. When that developer came in here 4 years ago they wanted. R-4 and the neighbors fought it. Sunnyside Drive is only 32 feet wide and can't handle the amount of traffic that they already have. On the west side of the existing R-4 subdivision in the winter they have to park in the street because the driveways are so steep they can't stay on the driveway. There is no open space and kids play in the street because the only park available is Begg Park which is all the way over by the Lakers baseball held and Airport Road. Pierce stated that he strongly opposes an R-4 subdivision on this property. Mark Krom stated he lives at 701 Ashley Drive on the corner of Bismark and Ashley Drive. The streets are very narrow and 2 cars can't pass on the street, the sidewalks are cracked, and in front of his house there is a sinkhole about 1 foot deep that has never been fixed. If there is only one entrance into this new subdivision it is going to be very busy on this corner. Krom added if they plan on building townhouses they will block everyone's view of Lone Pine, Krorn said he hoped this proposal is not approved, Cheryl Pierce, 1015 Ashley Drive said they tried to talk to the board to get the other subdivision stopped and they were not able to stop it even after filing a lawsuit. No one inspected Sunnyside subdivision and now they have overloaded the sewers, stormwater is a problem and the affects on the schools is astronomical. Pierce said there is not enough fire or police protection and those houses are built too close together. she added when one of the houses caught on fire it burnt the other one. The board has to stop approving these subdivisions with this high of density. John Hammett, 1215 Sunnyside Drive said he has lived at this address since 1962 and is right across the road from this proposed subdivision. Hammett said he is asking the plan rn * n g board to deny Ashley Heights as submitted. R-4 zoning is too dense. Lots at 6,000 square feet are too small and townhouses are ever. gorse. There is no park and where are those kids going to play? R--3 zoning is 7,000 square feet and single family but they have the same problem with the small yards and no park. Sunnyside Drive is very busy and is a feeder route to Foys Lake and Meridian Roads. It can't handle an additional 400 to 1,000 vehicle trips from this subdivision. Hammett said a lot of people use Sunnyside Drive for walking, biking, and the high school runs their track team routinely on that road. Hammett added Sunnyside Drive is a substandard road and the developer should be required to bring it_up to the city standards for the Kalispell City Punning Beard Minutes of the meeting of Apri 1 10, 2007 Page 17 of 33 safety of everyone. The hill is truly a hazard and the entrance to this subdivision should be down the hill on the western edge of the property. Sunnyside Drive is also the first deceleration lane off the bypass and won't be able to handle the additional traffic generated from the bypass let alone this subdivision. Hammett suggested that this property should be redone to put in 8-1 o nice homes. He hopes it will be denied. Angie Kruckenberg, 1116 Sunnyside Drive said she is there to voice her objection to the Public Works Department's request to require the developer of Ashley Heights subdivision to include a 60 foot R J w to an existing private easement/their private road. She noted the location of her property on the map for the board. Kruckenberg said they will seriously defend their private road. Joe Kauffman., 393 Valley Vieux Drive said the existing zoning is County R- 1 and he feels that the R-4 , R-- 3 , 8& R- 2 are all too high of a density for this hillside, which he added is sloping. The existing zoning of County R-1 should stay in place. Mel Sharon, 37 Primrose Court East showed the location of his property to the board. He asked the hoard to consider the people who live on the hill and have invested $100's of thousands of dollars into their properties. They could have gone to a higher density when those homes were built but they didn't because they wanted to provide a buffer between their property and what is across the bypass. Sharon agrees with the comments made about Sunnyside subdi islon and the lack of construction quality. His subdivision is all paved, curbed with sidewalks and one acre lots. The traffic coming off the bypass ramp will exacerbate the traffic problems that the area already has. Sharon said he is against anything but the current zoning. MOTION Hull moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to adopt staff report KA-07-02 as findings of fact and recommend to the city council that the initial zoning for this property upon annexation be R-3, Urban Single Family Residential, not the R-4 Two Family Residential as requested by the applicants. BOARD DISCUSSION Schutt said the board has often discussed hour to determine an appropriate buffer between the density of the city and the larger properties in the County. It is his opinion that the densities should decrease the further out they are from downtown. He bikes on Sunnyside and in looking at this property he feels R-4 is inappropriate. Now that the neighbors have voiced their concerns and after reading the staff report he thinks R-2 zoning would be more appropriate. Balcom said she agrees because R--3 seems too dense for this area. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April. 10, 2007 Page 18 of 33 Hull said that he also agrees with the R_2 zoning proposed by the board. The hillside is very nice and it should not be s oiled. MOTION TO AMEND Schutt moved and Balcorn seconded a motion to amend the original motion to recommend to city council that the initial zoning for this property be R-2 (Single Family Residential) instead of the R-4 (Two Family Residential) as requested by the applicant. BOARD DISCUSSION tiJen.tz said if the recommendation is amended, findings need to be discussed. He also reminded the board that they are only discussing the initial zoning on this property and not the issues with the subdivision. If the zoning is approved they will be coming back with another proposal. Balcom wanted to bring up the road easement issue that was addressed by a neighbor and she was reminded those issues will be discussed when the preliminary plat is reviewed. ROLL CALL - AMENDMENT The motion to amend the original motion passed on a roll call vote of 4 in favor and I opposed. In making the motion, the board directed staff to amend the findings to insert R.-2 which would be minor amendments to the findings. The board said they were comfortable with the changes as noted above. ROLL CALL The original motion as amended passed unanimously on a roll call vote. WILLOW CREED - GROWTH A request from Wayne Turner for a growth policy amendment POLICY AMENDMENT, from industrial to suburban residential on a portion of the ANNEXATION, PLANNED project site, annexation and initial zoning classification of R- UMT DEVELOPMENT & 3, Urban Single Family Residential, with a PUD overlay over PRELIMIIITARY PLAT the entire 140t acre project site. The developers have also requested approval of Willow Creek, a preliminary plat to create 288 single family lots, 82 townhouse lots and 9 lots which would accommodate multi -family buildings. A total of 24 multi -family buildings are proposed over the 9 multi- family lots and would allow up to 340 condominium units. The property is in the County zoning jurisdiction and is zoned RW-1, Suburban Residential, and 1--2, Heavy Industrial.. The property is located on the north side of Foys Lake road at the intersection of Foys Labe road and Valley Vier Drive. STAFF REPORTS, RGPA-07- Sean Conrad representing the Kalispell Planning Department 01, KA-07-03, - 07-01 presented Staff Reports KGPA--07-01, KA-07-03, KPUD -07-01 & KPP-07-02 & KPP-07-02 for the Board. Conrad said the project is located on Foys Labe Road north of the intersection of Valley View Drive. Conrad noted before the board is a Growth Policy amendment on approximately 30 acres to change the land use from industrial to suburban residential to allow the residential uses roposed. Also before Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 19 of 33 --- the board is an initial zoning of R-3 over the entire 14o acre site, a Manned Unit Development to allow a number of deviations including smaller lot sues, townhouses in the R-3 zoning district as a permitted use, multi -family buildings as a permitted use within the R-3 district, as well as some setback deviations on the smaller lots. Conrad added there is also a preliminary plat request that would ultimately allow up to 710 dwelling units on this site divided between 3 multi- family lots and numerous single family and townhouse lots. There is a significant amount of parkland and open space and an overall trail system connecting the entire project together. The four major issues are noise along the bypass which borders this property on the crest, setbacks to maintain water quality and wildlife habitat from Ashley Creek which runs along the north boundary of the site, traffic impacts associated with 6,000 to 6,500 vehicle trips per day from the overall project, and stormwa.ter. Conrad reviewed the location of the bypass, condominium units, townhouses, large and small single family lots, open space f parrkland and the bike trails. Conrad described the architectural features of the structures. of note is the overall density of this project which is quite dense. All along Foys Lake Road the developer is proposing a fencing system which would be a 5 foot high vinyl fence and a stepped retaining wall and buffer will be constructed along a portion. of Foys Lake Road. Conrad said when the planning g board reviewed this project at its work session they requested that a noise study be included. No detailed noise study was submitted by the developer and therefore was not included in the board's packet. The bypass has changed somewhat where previously it was thought that it would go up and over this section of Foys Lake Road now they are considering constructing the bypass below Foys Labe road which could play a factor in the noise levels. Conrad said that it is up to this board as to whether or not they want to require that the developer submit a noise study so they can illustrate how the 60 decibel level will be met for the condominium units. if changes need to be made to the layout of the design as a result of the study, they would have to come in before this board with an amended design. Balcom asked if there would be a barrier and. Conrad said the developer has proposed some berming but we don't know if it is adequate because the noise study has not been. completed. Conrad said this project will generate a significant amount of traffic. A lot of it will go along Foys Labe Road and then north on Meridian Road. According to the traffic study a number of Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 20 of 33 the intersections on Meridian Road are already impacted and the level of service is bad and getting gorse. The Public Works Department commented that they are recommending as part of phase 1, which is located at the southeast corner of the project, that all of the improvements recommended in the traffic study save for a possible light at the intersection of Valley View Drive and Foys Labe Road, be completed as part of phase 1. Conrad reviewed the improvements for the board. Conrad continued regarding stormwater the initial proposal by the developers is to retain stormwater on --site using bio-- swales that hold the water and then discharge it eventually to Ashley creek. Conrad said the city has recently adopted stricter stormwater standards and if this development is approved they would have to comply with those standards and show how predeveloprnent runoff would be entering the culvert and not impacting other properties. Conditions #22 & #23 relate to the stormwater drainage management plan. Conrad said the final item is the setbacks from Ashley Creek. Fish, Wildlife and Parrs (FWP's) recommended a 200 foot setback from the high water line of Ashley Creek. This setback is fairly significant and if the 200 foot setback was approved by this board and approved by council they would have to pull all of their buildings and associated parking lots out of the setback area. FWP's said a 200 foot setback should also include a 75 foot vegetative buffer and outside the 75 feet they could install a bike path or trail. The developers went back to F'WP's and were looking for something to allow the condominium units to get closer to Ashley Creek. The project as proposed comes significantly closer than the 200 foot recommended buffer. Conrad noted last weep F'WP's sent a letter (included in the packets) that states they still recommend the 200 foot setback but if the city is looking at allowing a reduction in that setback FWP's and the city shouldn't allow anything less than 150 feet and then the vegetative buffer should be increased from 75 feet to 125 feet. The developer is requesting that the board consider off -site mitigation for encroachment into the 150 foot setback. The current recommendation and discussion in the staff report refers to the 200 feet setback. Conrad reviewed the letters and emails received from adjacent property owners. (Copies are attached to the minutes) Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KGPA-07-1 and recommend that the growth policy 'land use designation for the entire 140.5 acre site be Suburban Residential on the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map. Kalispell City Planning Board. Minutes of the meeting of April 10, '2007 page ? l of 33 Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report IAA- 07--3 and recommend that initial zoning of the 140.5 acre site be R-3 as shown on the zoning district map for the property. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KPUD-07-1 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council the PUD for willow Creek be approved subject to the 49 conditions listed in the staff report. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KPP-07-2 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the Willow Creek subdivision, phase 1--6 , be approved subject to the 49 conditions listed in the staff report. Conrad reviewed some of the conditions more thoroughly for the board.. QUESTIONS FROM THE Balconz asked if the vinyl fencing along Foys Lake Road was BOARD adequate enough for wind and to mitigate noise from the road. Conrad said it would provide screening with landscaping which probably would not help with noise. Conrad added if the board doesn't feel that type of fencing is appropriate they could recommend a different type of fencing. Hull noted the board requested a fence along this part of the subdivision but did not want a 6 foot high gall along the road and the fencing proposed was the developer's compromise. Schutt asked if the bike path along Foys Lake Road was inside or outside of the fence. Conrad said it would be outside the fence and would serve as both a sidewalk and bike path. APPLIOAN T/ AGENCIES Wayne Freeman, CTA said they are trying to create a community with housing that is geared toward mixed income families. He stated it is not affordable housing and the units would be in the $180,000 - $400,000 range. Freeman said one thing this project does that the previous submittal didn't is it proposes a considerable amount of parrs and open space. The project is a "town center" approach where higher density is located toward the center and larger lots around the perimeter to take into consideration the existing properties that are adjacent to this site. Freeman said traffic is being addressed by including an 80 foot R/ W that runs through this site and connects to Highway 2. They tried to create a system that works not only within the confines of the development but recognizing that people will use this road as a way to avoid traffic on the main Kalispell City Punning Beard Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 61.407 Page 221 of 33 arterial roads. The traffic study indicates that traffic is already a problem 'in this area and there are intersections that are failing. Freeman stated this developer has no objection to fixing those areas. However, there are points within the conditions of approval in relation to traffic that the developer is requesting some minor relief. The traffic study recommends that the improvements to the area roads be completed in 2 phases rather than all at once. However, the Public Works Department is requesting that all of the improvements be completed with Phase 1, before even one lot has been sold. These improvements will cost approximately $2 million dollars and the developer is asking for some relief by allowing the improvements to be completed in 2 phases. Freeman said the other item is along Foys Lake Road (Condition #26) where Public Works has requested that the entire length be replaced before Phase 1 is final platted. Again the developer is not opposed to upgrading this section of road to an arterial street but they are asking that these improvements be completed in 2 phases. Freeman said that they have spent a considerable amount of time working with Fish, Wildlife S. Parks (FWP's) in trying to define the Zoo foot setback from Ashley creek. The entire site is pasture with some level of vegetation on the south side of the creek. FWP's has indicated that they want some improvements along the edge of the creep by creating a native planting corridor. The developer proposed a 100 foot vegetative buffer and FWP's came back with 125 feet. Along the entire length of Ashley creek the developer is willing to install, per FWP's specifications, native trees and shrubs. In addition, the Parrs Department is asking for trails along the creek and there was a general agreement that they would put the trails system as close to the buildings as possible leaving a buffer of 20 feet between the trail and the buildings. Freeman indicated to the board the areas of the development that encroach within the 150 foot buffer of Ashley creek and noted it is 1.29 acres. He said they are trying to work with FWP's to determine what they could do to mitigate the areas off -site. Freeman explained the environmental community has indicated there is a need for creation of a GI S database to determine where those critical areas are located both within the city and in the county. He stated the developer has proposed either to fund that study or provide an initial endowment that the city could hold to acquire those critical areas or work to secure conservation easements. Freeman said they are completing a noise study and they plan to berm along the bypass areas regardless of ghat the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 23 of 33 noise study determines. Freeman referred to Condition #46 that requires that the grater rights that go with this property be transferred. He said. the water rights do not necessarily go with the property and they do not know if the developer is going to able to secure them. Freeman said the developer owns some separate water rights that could either be retired or transferred to the city from another location within the valley that could be enough to off -set any impact from this development. Freeman noted that vinyl fences are not cheap, particularly the model proposed. He added vinyl fencing is relatively maintenance free and in 25 years will still be there and will not weather or deteriorate. However, they are not opposed to the board recommending another type of fencing for this location. Freeman said they have been working with Public Works on stormwater. He said all stormwater will be held on -site and they are proposing bio-swales throughout that would filter the water as it is coming through and then hold it and discharge it at a controlled rate. BOARD DISCUSSION Hull asked if the water rights would be on Ashley Creek and they are Ashley Creek. He also asked if the board agreed to the phasing of the road improvements listed in Condition #26 what work would be completed when. Freeman said the traffic study recommends that the improvements be completed in 2 phases. The other thing that is important to note, Freeman added, is the traffic study was completed prior to knowing what the configuration of the bypass would be in relation to Foys Lake Road. He noted that the developer is proposing that a new traffic study be completed that would consider the new configuration of the bypass and they would implement the improvements according to the recommendations of the new study. Balcom noted that the staff report calls for the 200 foot setback from Ashley Creek and they are using 150 feet and she asked why there is a difference. Freeman said that FwP's requested the 200 foot setback and now has indicated that they would consider a 150 foot buffer to include a 125 foot vegetative zone. They are trying to be creative and work with the city and FwP's to provide an incentive to provide off - site mitigation for those areas within the 150 foot buffer. Norton added there is a letter from Fish, Wildlife & Parks that was given to them tonight that clarifies FwP's position on the buffer/ setback from Ashley Creek along with CTA's response to that letter. (Both. letters are attached to the minutes) Schutt mentioned Willow Creep Road within the subdivision Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10. ?007 Page 24 of 33 and asked the width of that road and how it would serve as a south connector between Foys Lake Road and Highway 2. Freeman said Willow Creek Road is proposed as an 80 foot R/ W. He said the developer wanted to have a larger road recognizing zing that this road would be used as an arterial. Schutt said that the project has only decreased by one unit since the original proposal with one-half of those units being multi -family. Freeman noted that this proposal is an entirely different community than was originally proposed. PUBLIC HEARING (Marilyn Bain, 3350 North Ashley Lake Road read a statement for the record. (A copy is attached to the minutes) Steve Lucky, 341 Stoneridge Drive said he is an International Security Consultant/ Counter Terrorism specialist who works m Washington., D.C. and commutes from beautiful Flathead Valley. He said it is a long commute to D. C. and he chooses to do that because of the quality of life here which is very important to him. Lucky doesn't think you can find people who would be willing to pay $180,000 - $400,000 for lots and houses that small. He suggested that this high of density is the same as you would find in an intercity ghetto. when you stick. between 2,000 and 3,000 people on 140 acres in that area the traffic problems speak for themselves as do many of the other factors. We live in the 3rd largest contiguous state in the U.S. with less than one million people so we have a lot of space in Montana. We definitely need affordable housing because everyone needs a good place to live but we don't need to do it this way. This dramatically adversely affects those who live in that area, the police, fire department and everything else. He feels this type of density will create a magnet for crirninal activity. Melissa Evanoff, 4th Street west asked for the dimensions of a 4,000 square foot lot. Norton said that the board or the developer will address all of the questions during the board discussion. Evanoff expressed her concerns regarding the placement of the bicycle path so close to the highway and the amount of traffic that will exit on to Appleway having to cross over the rails to trails path. She felt that both proposals were very dangerous for the children in the area. Evanoff asked if the taxpayers would be responsible for the cost of the road improvements. she is also concerned about bringing so many more homes into the market and, what this surplus would do to her property values. Evanoff said that Peterson School is full and the school is discussing moving the 6th grade classes to Linderman School. She said there isn't enough room for the additional children and is also worried about the safety of the children going to school with all of the additional traffic in the area that this subdivision would generate. She noted at her Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 25 of 33 intersection of 4th and Meridian there are people who constantly run that stop sign and it is just a matter of time before an accident happens. Evanoff asked if this development is really necessary or just a chance for this developer to make a lot of money. She wonders if the developer really cares about the quality of our town. Evanoff also asked if the Sewage Treatment Plant will be able to handle all of the additional sewage. David Rice, 511 South Meridian said the density here compared to their rural community is excessive and not consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. The traffic flow from this rascal is going cripple Meridian which already has major problems. He asked the board to require the developer to construct the road improvements as the subdivision is being built because Meridian won't survive the added traffic afterward. Rice said adding traffic lights at every intersection where there are stop signs now won't solve the problems. Pete Wessel, 121 Rainbow Drive said he understands the developer is trying to produce a different product but he will show the board photos of another development by them, Empire Estates, which Wessel thinks is atrocious. Wessel said since the previous plan was submitted the number of units was only reduced from 711 to 710. He added with the PUD proposal they are proposing a little bit bigger park, maybe a bit more bike path and a little better design but the board indicated at the work session that they felt the number of units needed to be cut back. Wessel said there is more density in this proposal than the west side of Kalispell. Wessel said if there needs to be density in Kalispell it needs to be encouraged in a walkable distance to downtown. The people in this subdivision would be driving to town which is a major problem with this site. Wessel did an analysis of three recent developments in the city. Empire Estates is 35% owner occupied and 65% rentals; Buffalo Stage is 65% owner occupied and 35% rentals; and Ashley Park is 50% owner occupied and 50% rentals. He said looming at a higher quality development such as Buffalo Stage you will see a higher level of homeownership. He added that a large majority of the rentals are not affordable rentals. Wessel mentioned he attended the affordable housing work session with city council last night and one of the main points was why are we building 1,200, 1,4007 17600 square foot houses. for people who can't afford them. Wessel noted he reviewed the design guidelines for this project which proposes 7 different housing styles but there is no guarantee that is what Will be built. Wessel said that he has a problem with the city allowing development to be Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, -2007 Page 2-6 of 33 architecturally self -regulated. In addition to the condominium units being reviewed by the city's Architectural Review Co Ul x 11ttee, Wessel feels that the Committee should also approve a pallet of 10-1 S home designs which the developer would be required to build. He also thinks there is a need to pay special attention to the architectural design of the homes that will be built adjacent to Foys Labe Road and the bypass such as 2-sided architecture and height limitations. Wessel said a 3,000 foot fence along Foys Lake Road is not acceptable. He suggested the board drive out by Empire Estates where there are split -rail vinyl fences that are pulling apart and the rails are laying on the side of the road. He doesn't think vinyl fencing will hold up, especially at that length. He did provide an example of a shorter vinyl fence at Glacier Commons which is nice and photos of Buffalo Stage subdivision which he likes because it that has an ample greenbelt, meandering bike paths, a frontage road, and houses that are oriented to the street. Wessel continued regarding the noise from the Highway 93 Bypass, this area qualifies for federal funding for sound walls. Ashley Park in the southern part of Kalispell also qualifies for this funding. Wessel stated the traffic study completely neglects studying the intersection of Idaho and Meridian. That location functions at a level of service E out of scale of A--F and a project of one --half the one proposed will put this intersection into the level of service F. He added when the traffic signals are installed by this project it will get gorse. Wessel disagreed that willow Creek Drive would be used as an arterial because no one would drive an S-shaped road with residential driveways as a cut --through. He added this is the same kind of bad design as Meridian. He uses Foys Lake Road to Meridian Road every day and will continue to drive that way. Wessel asked so what will improve this project? Lower density; architectural guarantees from this developer; the road through the site should be straightened; greater setbacks from the bypass; and high quality construction along Foys Lake Road and the bypass. Wessel felt the project needs further review. Wessel referred to the information sent to the planning board prior to the meeting. (Copy is attached to the minutes) John Rauk, 125 Stoneridge noted that he appreciated the intelligent and well prepared comments that have been presented by the neighbors. He noted most of what he wanted to say has already been discussed but he wanted to paint a picture of when all the current board, members and Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 27 of 33 city council members are no longer around and the people who sit in their chairs are suddenly faced with condemning all the homes on the north side of Meridian all the way to Idaho. This board will not be here to take care of the problems that their decisions are creating. He referred to off - site mitigation and the grater rights issue as bribes. He said, water rights are not adjudicated %n the state of Montana. People believe they own the water rights but they have to be approved for a use when it is deferred from its original use. Rauk feels it is all about money, the money the city makes, the money the builders and developers make, the money the landowner makes. We as homeowners in the area are also involved in the money game because we are looking at the appreciation or depreciation of our property. He said this is just window dressing and wondered if the board really is looking at the issues. Rauk thought the comment by the board member who asked, where do they draw the line was a very good point. The line should be drawn now. This is R-1 and there is no compromising and no debate. It should be left R--1. Everyone out in this area purchased properties based on the R-1 zoning and then to have the city entice developers through annexation, which allows the developer a much larger density, is wrong. Rauk noted he heard said that the board doesn't care about neighbors but they should care about the people around a project because they have been paging taxes a lot longer than the people who will purchase those homes in the proposed subdivision. You can make a project like this beautiful but stick to the R-1 zoning. Sarese Grant, 640 South Meridian said her primary concerns are safety and traffic. Her children cross Meridian every day to school and there are plenty of children who do. Increasing the traffic in this area, regardless of stop signs and traffic lights does not change the ratio that the cars will outnumber the children. Grant said there have been several accidents on the bridge over Ashley Greek. In addition there are many other pedestrians and bicyclists who use the area roads and it is not safe now. She is worried that the cost of road improvements will come from the taxpayers and there isn't enough money. Grant said she is also concerned about the environment and the wildlife along Ashley Greek. Grant voiced her concerns about Peterson School. It is full and even if next year those 6th graders are gone and there are 60 seats open, those 60 seats will be filled by the students who are currently displaced to other schools. The kids across the street from her cant go to Peterson School because it is full. Grant said that she opposes the project. Connie Lestiko -- 5 Winward Loop said she is a resident of the city and is here in full supT)ort of M arilvn B ain's and Pete Kalispell. City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 28 of 33 essel's presentations. Those 2 presentations alone would give the board enough information to know that this project needs further review. Lestiko said she is surprised that the recommendation from the staff is to approve this proposal. She said to take the current zoning of R-1 and to change it to an R-3 with a PUD would change the whole nature of the area. She noted R-3 and R--2 zoning calls for single family homes yet with the PJD they are proposing 340 units out of 71 o that would be multi -family units. She added that doesn't count the 82 townhouses. Lestiko reviewed some of the major deviations the developer is proposing which are smaller lot size; reduced setbacks; and allowing townhouses and condominium units in a single family zone. She said this proposal is way too dense for this area. Lestiko said that she has been a member of the Police Advisory Council for years and she knows what a task it is for our current law enforcement personnel to cover the city. By adding 71 o more units will make it more difficult. Lestiko added the environmental impact with all of the previous uses on that land just reinforces the need for the Zoo foot setback from Ashley Creek. Lestiko thinks the setback should be required and the board should not accept off -site mitigation. Lestiko asked the board to seriously consider the public comment. She added she doesn't understand the comment made by the board that the neighbors are not going to be listened to because they never want the density, which was shocking for her to hear. She feels the board should listen to what every taxpayer has to say but especially those who are most affected. Julie Robinson. - 955 Foys Labe Road said she and her neighbors have concerns about wildlife and traffic. She counted 6 dead deer in one month on a small stretch of Foys Labe Road, which is a major arterial for deer to travel to and from their habitat. If there are 6,000 more vehicles going down this road there will be a lot more dead deer and she believes multiple car accidents. Robinson described the icy condition of the road especially on the bridge. She also expressed her concern about the safety of kids walking to school and the dangerous speeds at which people already travel in this area. Robinson described the problems that she and her neighbors are currently experiencing with groundwater and stormwater runoff. She feels that the developer's proposed system will only create more problems on their properties. She noted that she is also worried that she will be taxed out of the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the muting of Apri l 10, ?007 Page 29 of 33 neighborhood and she cannot afford to move. Robinson said that she appreciates the time the architects. have put in to try and make this project appealing she just thinks that it is the wrong place at the wrong time. Irene Houston -- 1314 - 2nd Street west said she is concerned about the density and traffic on 2nd Street. She is less than 1 block from Peterson School and there is a lot of traffic on that road now and she is sure there is going to be a lot more. Mrs. Roach - 963 Foys Lake Road said they live across the road from the proposed development. Most of her concerns have already been voiced. However she doesn't feel enough consideration has been given to those homeowners who live outside of this subdivision. As the homeowner right across the road she is concerned with the overflow of the excess water and is certain during high water when the grater from Willow Creek Subdivision is released her house will be underwater. Roach said she is also concerned about the noise along Foys Labe Road which is loud at times now and with the addition of 6,000 cars from this development and the bypass will be excessive. She asked if there was any consideration for noise barriers for the homeowners who are already there. Roach said she agrees with Julie Robinson that they are trying to do a good job but again it is too many homes proposed and too many exceptions to the rules without real clarification as to why. She hopes that the board will ask the developers to tape their plan back and present something that is workable for the current residents, the community and potentially for the city of Kalispell. David Klingensmith, 245 Stoneridge said as a newcomer to the valley he sees the growth and he doesn't have a problem with growth as long as it is done appropriately. He agrees with the statement made from one of the board members that there needs to be some logical transition from city to rural. If those transitions are not done it will be a great disservice to the city and to those who live in the county who have purchased their property with the R-1 zoning. with the density of this proposal including a 2-3 story condominium at the far west corner of Foys Lake Road there isn't much transitioning from the city to the county R-1. He feels the density is excessive. Klingensmith noted he was also appalled that the proposal was to support this project with 49 conditions. It would be like him telling his patient you are fine you only have 49 problems. Obviously this project needs to be started over from the beginning and reworked. He realizes this property is going to be developed. He added it is a beautiful drive out Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of A.pri1 10, 2007 Page 30of33 Foys Lake Road and he would hate to see that transition lost with a huge development like this one. Scott Creekmer, 229 Sunset Trail said he wanted to reiterate what Marilyn Bain said earlier. He is a builder who built a home in Stoneridge and he was talking with his painter one day, who happens to be 65 years old, and Creekmer said he couldn't wait to see what would be built on this site because they will be beautiful homes. His painter responded anyone would be a fool to build over there because when he was a kid they used to get chased out of there because it was so dangerous. Edna Carter, 100 south Meridian Road said she has lived there for 40 years and everyday the traffic is backed up from Albertson's past Peterson School. She can't get out of her driveway even, though she eventually made a circular driveway so she doesn't have to back out. Carter said, her property also backs up to the mill and she has watched many fires there and they had to bring in Cats and other equipment to put out fires in the sawdust. She can't understand putting more traffic onto a road that already has so much traffic. She is against this project. APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL Wayne Freeman said they appreciate all the comments especially the ones acknowledging they have tried to tape a unique property and turn it into a good project. Freeman said the mill site was on the north side of Ashley Creek. There was a location on the south side but that is in the highway R/ W and is not within the development area. As far as the testing, obviously before you go out and do any of the work you do a number of core samples which they have done. But, before the project goes forward there will be a full scale analysis of sub -soil conditions. Freeman said the high water table has been addressed within the staff comments and they recognize there might be some restrictions on basements in some of those areas. They don't discount the comments on the water rights in fact that is what they were trying to get to when discussed before. They recognize there are several people involved in that issue. Since they didn't feel the condition could be met what they were offering was to transfer water rights from another location to mare up for the impact of this project. Freeman said the traffic concerns are no surprise. He said the developer will be paying for the improvements recommended in the traffic study and not the taxpayers. The drainage problems that were brought up will be corrected as part of the improvements to Foys Lake Road. They will retain water on --site and release at the rate required by the city. Freeman added the bypass will do a lot to relieve traffic Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 31 of 33 congestion and noted that was not addressed in the traffic study. Freeman said this is not Empire Estates. They are more than willing to include the design standards into the conditions and the Covenants, Conditions 8& restrictions (CCR's) for the project. Freeman added height limits are regulated by zoning. Freeman again reviewed their proposal for off -site mitigation for the encroachment of the Ashley Creek 150 foot setback. Freeman said 49 conditions is not uncommon and they feel can be met with the exception of the 4 areas he listed earlier. MOTION - GROWTH Hull moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to adopt staff' POLICY AMENDMENT report KGPA-07-01 and, recommend that the growth policy land use designation for the entire 140.5 acre site be Suburban residential on the Kalispell Growth. Policy Future Land Use Map. BOARD DISCUSSION Conrad said the board could address the growth policy amendment and continue discussion on the remaining items until the next planning board meeting on May 8, 2007. Hull said he recalled when the neighbors were against the 8toneridge subdivision. Hull noted that this property is not out in rural Flathead County but directly across the street from the oldest part of Kalispell. ROLL CALIF - GROWTH The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. POLICY AMENDMENT MOTION TO CO1ITTINUE Norton moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to continue the discussion on the annexation & initial zoning, planned unit development and preliminary plat for willow Creek until the May 8, 2007 planning board meeting. ROLL CALL - The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. CONTINUANCE BOARD DISCUSSION Balcom assured the people in attendance that the board seriously considers the public's testimony at these meetings and their perception that they are not considered couldn't be further from the truth. [LLD BUSINESS: None. NEB BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:20 a.m. The next work session (which is a joint session with the Flathead County Planning Board) will be held on Tuesday, Kalispell City Planning ]hoard Minutes of the meeting of April 10, 2007 Page 32 of 33 April 24, 2007 be ' g at 7:00 p.m. at the Herron Park Community Room, 101 Foys Canyon Road. The next regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission will be held on Tuesday, May S, 2007 beginning at 7:00 p.m. Timothy Norton. President APPROVED as submitted/corrected: Michelle Anderson. Recording Secretary /07 Kalispell City Punning Beard Minutes of the meeting of APcil 10, 2007 Page 33 of 33 r s s 2007 �r 4�'�..� ` `� :y �-. f • i"' � r� �= i I-'.t t � r � r� ray f"'T'i- �` } -4• ��._ t.r te',. ite i:� iU�..l r �j ff•ir�r�� f Stephen and Cheryl Wits o n 48 Blue Spruce Lane Kalispell, MT 59901 March 2 6, ? 007 Kalis� ell City Planning Board 17 nStreet East, Suite 211 Kalispell, M-T 59901 RE: valley Ranch Planned Unit Development Dear Planning Board: We recently received your correspondence regarding the above mentioned development and are writing to express some of our concerns. We have enclosed- photos ire- took of the property being pro.pOsed' for the. development, and you will. find : references: to the. photos an.:the- enclosed.. plot. plan.._ _ Photo #?. shows Z red flags -- the one on the left is 100 feet from the north boundary of the property and the one on the right is 20 feet from the boundary. Photo #2 shows a red flag .)0 feet from the north boundary, where you see the chain link fence. Dote the yellow stake warning of a buried gas line. There is a 3 -cable electric transmission line buried just north of the gas line. Photo #3 shows the creeds and ground cover growing on the old slough that used to rnn across the parcel. Most of this area is too wet to even farm. Photo #4 shows the ground water that came from the area in photo 43. In the mid 1990s water flowed across Ponderosa Lane at this point. There is an on going drainage moblem in this area. We have many coneems about t ds proposed development, but the issues that i=ediately come to mind are as follows: I - is the `? 0 foot wide designated park area at the north side of the proposed development adequate to accommodate both the buried utilities and .the walking path that the developers have indicated will be along this corridor? in addition, there is only a ten foot set back requirement �r.{�i— '► * 1� ^`� �� , 't�'� .,r»-+-; .—.m- ttr' ii Y rtii ��{'/�� 'h�r r�� r�e-r' V 4L�V iJ Vim Vim. Ul%w .1. vil�rh Ot '_ S .:t.iii� �1�� ''Y��iS :� d1 LLLli1 iLii 4111.+A v • �. �•st v V.,J �. The "buffer zone" between the building lots on the north side of the proposed development and Ponderosa Estates should be a minimum of 100 feet. . A public walking path is being proposed along the northern edge of the development within the proposed ? 0 foot designated park area. How is this to be maintained? An area of public access in such close proxity to the wooded environment of Ponderosa Estates is of great concern to us, primarily because of the potential fire hazard this would. create. 4. As shown in photos #3) and 94, there is a serious drainage problem that needs to be addressed. Is it prudent to put in a housing development over an area with such serious drainage issues? Your consideration of these concerns will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, eryl and Steve Wilson :� ■tr-',�Rr yr� �� 'vl• ,-•�. :�a�r =_ •-•-•y••. _..;J,. � .�i•s.C.. ��1r.�4 �:.._.{,+_ y -' -- _.:ti' �� ,tr?, r., s`y:�,. '+r.Y- `•�.. ,'�'R t 1'�5a ,�� ,i�:�:.r�a `�: • .r� ; � ..�•..la• • , . _'1 r .. . -�r•i.- .,,�,, .'- .' +.. . _��:, -. fir :i`;z°�- < _-i•,�+w'+� ��'t�j,�•,,�'R� .` .�.�Y4 3 r�T �� ,.�;i +-s. + •,T J}�'+.�•i _ y{, ,t.,••\tilil r.L�rr •.'„y, =. ri+a�. r«�:. Y�•�,,•fF^�„,� ..N R•I.,�.\•. -- ty �� 'r!J�, R� "•. ".' "-4. ,{x.rw+Yr- "� �� •�•�Y/. �,, r' r' •~'' '�'w;4,+.,A '+�,j4r'.... ,��1./�+�„{�y.C[ .+��. . n;;�;...rya...- �..� ��ri'�"r '. '. :��1 �l ,}rT111+3r„� � t•�f�,�t!:4t i.14�•1i ►�. inpili _ u sti•.��a��".r.y7.' .4F _•r�('�rl�... �.`'•7 %4r��;f r��ya ye'..t��li[ :l � �_ f.,� .• •L. LiS4 �=-�4•rr"�.: "�5,��r � .ii`:7, �7`• "'�N-` ."'i .. �: �'«'f �, ��+� r.. •_� �T-•[r.y :1�• `.�L1 f\ �. i� r. r .ti �V•{-^fir ��_ '!W ri� -. 1. U. �" A ��-'�' E , • , . _ �? r.'• ' :;r.. j' • r7 - .�►I 4 IV...r+'� �1,�''�. `" -� .r l 1'.rl.•5- }':ir��••A" . i•'-'L1 + ``•��•` t ... H� �� -•., Lrr1 .. y. w � 5' tit " � �t _�n«i••••• ��'.y .?, �`4.'�}.} ��' 1`'J. : . `+t.�R `'�'i,'j'�`ri_`. - ' .� �' '.+,( .�. _ T. � ^ 1:. .. _� V 7 J . 1 Y:��' . i tf � ;y'n..:. lyip ��•�, ��7 ` � ' -,1;• ��-;r�{r�•Y �V�i ., ,' � ��'.. -4S _. ' `�..� ,t•• a •i. . "'J• .. _ � .',�py�l, '� it !! }* ar�*�/. •R. r iw I Y � � 'SC+.� �"�'r,..�tr ��. ,, ++ �� . .� r' _ " rr .;,;fit_ ��„ i.• . ` - ....� �.. � .. •+: ..r•r +[- 1 ..:#tea n : � �.. -� ,• . -_ ,• .�'w- -'sue-�j`.-. .- fv^�^^.'.n "0 ..yr• :. ,.�1 '•_:jn r..=.r"'^ `Y - " �.. ^"l..''.... 1- _ .:+�[« - ,'A'• -'. ••irk,.-:...-.� ,a .-�,�-.. �;.'�wa yi",r.ww..�.w •'r �.� Ja L+�' - _ - .. �... - j}�+ew••"w=..T:.•r- _ .�.y. -_`Y»..'y°'•.�•+----�'. "w :._ "'ra'i�•,..-w.:��^":-•w..a. - - � '-_` w?"'••.1:•l• _ .._:•••F. wad :."q'•-t 't•� <Sw.'^•xr ... =A y ..a °•• rater ' c' '+eC • � •sw . �" + � art 'icy ""�'+�° .i.�. mom.•.' - _ ..►. ---... ._.« -~ "• •.•.:.W , _ - Fcx " �.e-a:'�s .; ry,_.� dr"w�aa�.•.. :na:�..s. •-�'a �+•� : '� ..'`� : .'}4 . 'ryF,"`'! °:S":°. s".'�'.a.rr..r.rr r-...-•. _ ."'!I�[y+i'�'» -�` „,�"+i�li�+.r" "�~....T` ''bar•-:+'=��''►- `:""t_•:'. S,r -`^��_F;"':.. r_ :ram, - -. '�•�;: '.:t'�:-.�'-•'. r:'"L ►' w•�.+•�+r&x:. ;�r�'1-Mc',i ,�.,• R•+�' 9�` ,d. .J. •�ai4'��_: _ � �•�-•• • - •y�� .!'- .. - �' .,,�._ :_ a..,wR a° _- A�`� Yy+•- .a.%� �_ ^�C�� 'r. a�^(.r.".'e i'ay'-.�.�E'!.•�r' _��_ _-�, ��•c�%.'�:-�.+�ir�W..�i,.�`w�g^"r .,a. •' ,. " ° , . �:,- .r:�'ar_a",n+"" �i: sra�::...P^� �^�+'r�R;,A,^�'.'�+"' aF.,Ow�rY'w+ ••�.arv^r�.v�`J�•'�'i• .4}•�:-`''r g}Gp•�:=p"P". •w F *"��,,, -�5.. - ... _ _ _ .. - .. t��,"r'.s;`_ •--s `t�l�,.,,.� !i; r• !`� •�,,.' : � '•„i :..�` .�•�r.. � ::-•..��"�.;,r_ "". y:.=.:: ^*._�;�"" _ . f„t+r �: _ •_�' wc. Kad.�+'.'--'..a ry. _ _ .: •"r Y :9e-�r .Y•+.i'�".fry �•"w""�p,R.:r ^'r_. [a "."Ca F w „aln•i",`sr,:,:.: .. •'n"�' ��_ - - - -'»�: ��-�"•^"^s:a• �sr+-�c�,. �'��4ww #�`�t,��;�`• !�``y°.ui3}'"•'�:'-..;,pC ^•-�"�s;r�• .:`�F•':aer •-.L.__•w;:.:.";�' •��:�•.,, i= ,.awe •�r".n"• �te::��" ... � �,._a�. _..�.. '..•eFi3, �:.., - ti.: +Fy „r,�..�,a.p�:`.�?, i. p'0 ., ',L. _.-:'fi•`F.'< r �=::rwr:-.-..^�i.�=�, - .-� "i: •,'V+Fh" ,_�,• :a•9'*y, "`" hw"',...'.•wx.,:i: I. 1` ": �'• ^••-+I...i"Z� � .•^f �.��!, �� e _. �'AL+iw ° ` �" '+••'^•-"`•^�r .�•� .:.�..•.. rim.•.•':. s _ •.4 .1.n� w ., _ •:i,,; r:"' ,7 y -.1.. wy � :�r'i •�,'X''S"°' - - !-^"�• �I:".'W^� a1;IY':'r.'•.-v F"Fa T`�'yM" rA!••. w8•�'T - _ .'�: '<<".• 'F �'" .. ..... s. ~-Y,"•r e. _ .�'l'w.'�.s�y.: ..h-..'1•. sq'.. �•': ^ sY=a.4:. _ ".. lriw'-' .,,y. - - •i .w :P: a �.�.�:'Y'"�r�-•»'^.'•a " •E..«..: _.w• r..' :ti'a..i4._ _ ..`et ' ? y r� - - - -•`i• ".',•'• - ° 741 .w » ••.:ay:• . •.,fir iti - w��•!i...." ;t '•-'• r • •i4 ia� . c� - ._. _ - �,ti�-ayA..:.�4'�'9i1f.>.-'..rr.•. �-:ar«.i-�,.,.i �q., ^":.n;7i► y..'.'!; ,�'�`°' ti"•rr :•�.�G. r,.+�-M. `�'!•_ »:w. .. ..,.. ••Y-s C: .. _ ia-�:' "r'"`rv='.-`. .:,.'v'pe�'. ii�y r•::'.i �'Ry • . _ _ , . ',: ' _ ilk " � �; r� 'ram.. _ x-� ` = .. �„�• .,a,., � - . Epp•,. ...w ,.. - �.•r - �.`.: s r"C'e� .•i .l,?'._',W�t=^«� _�...'"'. .'�°:,i , •• _ •�.� vi'•• F M1 .. /'v'' - A � +.�- •e - - l - - .. ' J �ALY � .. -tea- 'My.,y�• 1 •. � j��`�•.i""' • - wi !'n r - ♦ '' •- S . •'._ r. .. �' • .�:. ...� .� ^_ µ'•!!".. .- � "•. ��°•T v t�.•..�...,..:a.,��"�.�.. •ere-rr•,,,� v�, w �'"+.w -.wti� . ° �H ..j r• .. e •r ." ;rrY`..r".�t�• :•. �• , � • ' `r �' ��.;.. '•:n,+ �'!n•��•+r . •.arn ^•�?�..a�- s.. 4� - .•� • . �' .r.-��►'w• r '•'� :r....,<<'',,t+�^•�:`�.,"y,="■`µ.•'"Y_�+.��'7E•,�.r«..;_.,,:•�.r..�-... Y r_ •�.rM�".: . . _ �� "w_ - - .. .-.�.-.. ii •n �w �j `Sl�"w- Aa+' f-L i,,,,y'Ar..' ��'R•}�;c�,.r. _-•-s•`-'�'-•-m.- `f. - - ._ .- .. _ r'tifi •:.' .-,�. ,J•�w.. _ •-•' ' JFq � sa"�'��'_��+��lr• . �,�• - t•" t, : �!a_ F•i :� . �'� y��tl ' A ra �"r" `� w�•:� Sy �• _ 'r. n."'= ;.:�� .��i-w�7�� '�1G3,�� w.+,�y.w� r ��"-s,,::+1�"'; '�••.y`~ r " ° _.. -� _ •� " F " .:.w- iC'-� �'��y^�qf�.,-R�';.•y! :,Lr--••.""'.3.': «- .i.� �`' .rt. �' 'vii"�;; . " " '., '�:«,r t ... _ a • • ••-�+i 'J• •_ - x.c'ry�•ryr. �w...u•..�..••r.Ja . „� 'a"�,wrw•. '- `�••��\-.Rx,:x .�,y a�.: �: • : ! '•.. -«.. "...•„ .. r s ;. } : �� :!!c x�•�" - •x' ��i �-ti: _ .r,...r �: �if•..iY-, �,w;.�„%,• .��,""?� � .y, 'tea r _ r ' � '�� wR • � -, . ......... Mr .• 'e; e • as '�✓`; e" - _may • . a•.y�. � .. .. � � - - Y;:a lAl'fir�'��''E >` r ' • .. ' nrr�• 'r: �"a��. - - •.'w„^'r�.R .a,.-. " •tt�j�: 's.-..•A:e•r a .5 """'.�',rK;,,r� .e' . �s •i ..�,+..�.•!ei•.,�,-«._� .'.•...•,: � � «. .. - .,ax.... , 4s" •;y.,.c.. _ r:...n..L....�..p•..«..•.ciraKr.•.,i.-:.�,:,• A. .. ��`," "....iwr.••"•• Y _ .. r.. w.. _. `"""`i .. , . _ . ! � i'+ra�• .r i�� """,` «glrliilC:llEC. Er. - �� ^�S`'-'�Si" ' ' - • '� - . : � ., ...- : �._ ..r .:..,jy! :+a-.••... --.. ,,'... ;:i .r,w., Y �. srr arr-r •.• _ !, •:xs�E•f:•..'.+.. _ .. _. r "+'l;,�Rexq..f _ ?. ,t , a, ",•.� .4••• �' .._Aa.._".i! •R�in+Fii-"c...a+y _ �•,;;.e' _-;=aryl...` - •J-�.•- _ - ,,,.�.wrr+.. }`may. !.r - .. ... '- ,„ - . " rvp•- •.... -s._ 'L'e y.....� ',�,r�.,.�^+•:: :'tr��•�' i�k'�,�..4'i.f�; r� • e .,. -•�. :;#,: ''+r; - r °.� _ .» ,;.�!� .ASE; _ i�.Fi;�'• Vr . i7. S;:a..w°€Ar�. r,;ia;s . _ .! • . . w ... .�„ • • i'� •� ... -.. _ . .,% /�i.:�'µ"j wi{; :4L:��•4,•�••• .. Lf••• r�'G. r'.� s ��•` .F: _ _�.::�.,' •`: .. . . ter+ pyiwir iriw .w ` j.� r gi!T T'r '..; tit �: "•� ti`r spy a Y r ` .=o.: r c:w. .. r .e F. rlw;Y ¢ �..•',t�_s°'••"• -.'{u.',. .., L... _ �nf%�F"" rF.y .�;' :ier"'''yi: •'- - ..�i:. W , M;i::: '•... -» aai '� w.=.: .. .r•->Ir+ _-•S. • ar- ,... .. r.$'Y'" - .'. Jr•,• .• • '�.'":�ti�1y•,6. •y�., t+�;r�,+p�,�L�, c�t�,a'� `•. L +~i:•".'y;••.•.5.d. a>.<�n,�,.��.;r.'„,,•.�4',;"L.;ir. .{ ��"�+.i•A:rt'•s•.'.-L!]. ��fc'"..;...��?' Y�'••TV.2".' :'Sj�.-.'a�•'1�-7�" N �- ,i!i!r+A^SP,.:111 A�.r•�r i\I1wF— T. �F„•_...y. ,•�� a`a�"�a•�'� fd�e"r ir...•c: . am.!�r.:�--�: I.rA1..W`,-r.!r.'•:, J,'�-.y'4. 'f _�� f.•T:a_ iF1C••- i�LI.:.�7-�.1%`:3.'.a;."r :•�wC' . �_•r•.'. , •�3' >..'k� ��_'• • ., - - _ .- ry 10 x �a:� - v • +a{..+iRe• '"""•5, i`a'•.w•.•'`h.'•.. :+'�,,,T•°..-F':; _ _ . _ • �• yd�=s•"t;a�d'"' _ .« x ' iti `��drf`• '-iJ:•.. .I - ,• rkzX;�r•• � r.>,; �s' ••r:'�• 4 ° Y e. t .a4 . '" r,a-J�C.s'''�''F = :►a••�ir,,..b ry�Kie rl s•sr _ + iCa� r�eL3""., � +f ►.�w �i -' :.j,, ,�'%r.:� - ��" '•�;�"�,":r:; - �'- --2 r .� Y.f +.• Y � �Y'T• ids^ .�a. a, PS'^�. 1-xe �"f.s. . - , M• ''/, ary.e .x _ T,y:. �% .rr„•-%i$'- .q str �° ;M 'I C. ro •� : ° ' f .11•" '.*:wr.�i. � � ��"r .A-'L'=; i}.� -3i � _ " i, Y Y�•.�^S•'-<`N.w.�a �•..'l.r _ k'1A.x .,',• r _ _ _ !- n.�[ r y ati'�ye'. „'-E.n- '1�: • �� M• ? •r '•Tki PY.,x;p'*'_y. ><. rti • _ ��1.;� . _ F',`�, r•= S�asx�!.. kj w�• � �",�•... $r -� ` 'p - Y • � . a..: • ��-. i.*r,. �`{�'tfi'•f • • 'y s:-� �:'• •! • W a": . �-- .•Y•:.r6.• �.�•-+1.1�'�-.ir•�� .ar'• s- � .L.,.r.,,:. �S;,rl •ai' �:. •��.r^„' •`. .e• _:*'..�-.- :}:: r�-• :i:.+. :; r- de" i A@'. r.'�r':;'a-:•a.:•-..'r. 'i:7#..•._ } ylr,.'.r '•"•,: ''v; • ,, y,.e :+i,"�h'rra " ..apv • �-"- r'` dfi: pis . xS.;..is'' t'.S r � "'L:*• '} " .ro'•'_ sa . ;• •. :�•':.:� f. `^ t=(' %x`-''�8�" e r�rh�i'iaf .a«Tr., r�l� "� � �• Ma �" •'�'": '^'• -' .'�!; ' �i�•Sr ii,:•x: .. G' 4,K.; ,',iv"sJ,b,. 3.� ��. YeK,•�°, �?�'• � .*' �L � ' A, 1� ''r;"+rL •r„a, •� :�,�' �«�Y��-.•Y�n �rW 'H,� ':x^�. i:.i. }%.,•v,..: ,z i;«r� '�" �+ s �� ., +l - ,y,x�i, ;'5�;:. r�. �•: iae•::.c �,��-Y'J�``°:. ;' _ � I:. ;�, •. •.mot•.. ,..a�,�. ..,��.,k�__.. � �:3ii.-.. `� .. �,�F;.,. s_� •'i'�.;�"-_,:�" r3 `7r.-�Yy�-, f :'. .: ." �" k ,�«-x!C,'•�.�.,,.r,�,,..rK: i'h• 4 w;F� � ' .°' ',R .r.� h Tr''L �-rt�•=-._�...{�.. ...`.�:y s �' .R�: _ ""�r'..,� . ��s. i� [,._ r.r.. �x�•.=�r;�n•" r".�..y-"`r":— .. �ic'..:"i.�-'=Wyk•-•"`.`: -;:. Via... t, R � p�,;.� . •tti �axr-z•,'v��.��:-3�i a= _..:..>� � ��'`�'kt?A�= ;.•�' � � • -f '+,,:!,•r:��• 7 _ _ d= : :� : - ��►; � a�xr•r"- • Ay,�°''w�' 'F- "'xc'.'wf ws�':�' w •i .. � x! • �. t :• • N+._ � '"*!.'q""'=.�... •' 'ram: �?r`-$ w�:•*"'•"",Y �' - ` r.�.,y 'F r. w• a '�.��: ti.a,j•c.- ", i :it••+..c c r....'Fr-i."'5::...... py s is r o n4 i I ,- r1 1 Ry Qlr r wit; F r .� � � � a n x ! � � � C} ...__. _ .._., . _ — I i .�, } i l ; t 1 � . f;:= ��, -� � { � � # I r .�� , I •� 1Iq cI ! � i �' i I .. } I ^Q r ! - � i � � � e ��1, - i-'•r.�R � � �'.1�i1 " � �j` [ —. .�., {-•S SD ' DOC r : f , .. w . 0 I . ,.� - � "fill � i 3' �arE xner �` 1 � ,� 3m._- ,. � '++iG►' _'A'1 i -1AR- yy 30fi•jai& 01 lam! -- .. —� [ i _ _.. _ -._.. _ - - - •-- .. s+r r'U'y _ ---AMR- �� a i r7 xi j -.i r f - - f - `� ,i$r-' --e w- I - + -` -,�Y� ► tI 1 � # NorthCD >�x fSa -sly&,---►.�I-- � ,. �. �1 ll�:=� _.�.: : �� '►'�s `` r f ; ', r ~ ? I w►t-qlf f �' % � � _� � � i 4 } � fit- _'-� •- fir' �: 0�� F � � r+r - � - —•- - - ti.� � T., .. _ _.J ...-.:+.�' /f 1r -- L —" ,�� ..� ~X' �� ._+�.+-t�•rt � � _., ��r �' '---'1-� }-�a:'.`�. .l_... - �i": 711 �Av�ti 1 '� �, ` ` Y r rr� iv�~ ` y`+ \I I lI, ''��•I1 f •; ( • � f _ '� i• I auoauY Jwuru 3RDii717I# �� r` I l i I 3.�.�14j.lrt L'.J ` ` f, "" �,..... ".. - ` ""•� e - li n- rn 7. 11 �y r/v L - n ca W � -A p] r =t"yy CCr �y 13 [r� �� r4� �S'^ ui � m _ _ _ Q {ia (D r'`A Er Q I _ _ , r , ; ` r ' << �I • It r'1 i{� r,� L1 !li C (I] N �I T f •4i .� _ _ (n Q W t_G 1�' ffn +_.._► �i Ca [L..1 �F • _ LY'� L�»Lx'� 4 ' r' + ! ❑r ,fir �. .0 fNIJ �" = r - L3] +' J' J V _ Trk area r .. _ �U rr m A , .R, - i r _ a N 1r cp > C 7 Fn ra{ F na f -r�; �+= -�' s� y�-� I {� ` pet r-j y f� A r.a r 1] f x. r'- ' I f �1 �if�' Ea"• .'�.,� 1--(Iiti[ CD 0 7 a LVJ N j `� ! � �_� � � � �� -�" � •� �,� A !' g �I� � � '�� t,�� --- � ;ir l+r#!, _ � ## i t@n "per i=rt ;• m 0 F 1 11 i �4 •)CA 1�'i.r �l t� ;;..�._ i►� ,fid�;� r D '^ rrsnx-'��'i. Tom=•.: f�lf',r"'>� ':�� Ih ..._..__..... 'r � kl [Ti{ I;it by ox Ir�1LFKS1►.IL�C-= 'TRACT 6 J nip ,S n 7 _. rctr -y VI on M mom coSr W r�� 4 rIJ CD m ' ,n 4 JL f 1 t r N ,firi y I �• cr 4 S PONDEROSA ESTATES KALtSPELL, MT 59901 Flathead Valley's Finest Sub -Division • 4 Miles Noah on Hwy 93 arch J O,' �t A f City of Kal'spell Plarming De ar tmewL Attn: NIr. Sean Conrad 17 Second Street East, Su1te i i Kalispell, MT 5990 i Gentlemen. - On Friday, March I 6, 2007Imet with h Mr. Sean- Conrad regarding the P Cate�vay Properties. Bunn our g g � proposed. �y g r discussion I emphasized that �n no - the .hoard connected z ways the Ponderosa Estates with �-ate�xvay Properties �n the development - the Talley Ranch Planned Unit bevel and construction of oprnent. Last summer Gateway Properties brie . - Ct - „ P �y met �z� the Ponderosa hoard might"' buy prope � adjacent ac ent to and s a� d that they � our development. The explained " - �s then went on their way. y � �ned what they "might" build and. Some individuals on our board did el streets dot express some concern regarding water tables, lighting,,, size, etc. But in no way did we d re gard.ing anything �-ateWa Properties make specific re clue sts y F res was contemplating. Therefore the se Ea on page I of their I'UI3, i.e., �zrh� � ntence In Section s complies with a request by the Pondero : -� Board of Directors."apply. does not saoneowner I have dlscusseel.this with NIr. Arent Properties o f Gateway Pro erti es unc _ a afore mentioned sentence was- p and he has agreed that the placed on their PUD In error. Plea . Your future deliberations. se do not_ consider It in any of Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Nirs _ Elaine rah an. President Ponderosa `states Homeowners Board �-Opv [.o: r 3ry Nor. Brent k-C and 4' lie T-0 i -t v LL \--k ENJ iF-�t fit - t �._. .c 6'iP- ZAT Lk-u M 13;::� �,J FF--� .�`�'� ice: 5 ti/�+ r' \ L.�� raj~� tl �3 L i�.►� (J� � '7,t P7 c c!�� u r' k�x1� L L� - k4 V [ t � t�.,.,.0 [ � � 1 ��r � �. � `�� e i�--•J 'ti�i ; - 1 � 1 �+`�a``t �`-'y..J (I..1 j ,� � }'�- � - I Ll I + �� tF� N � tr�J [ .r �'� •r��7L,. t ^ �'C 3 �. �J�� .L--• �..1 S7 �--�1�� -- � �•� ,� �� \ j � � 4 fv •' y 1 u i fir+[^ �� V `��f � P ', 'A� S 1 Z s YY S 1r i iY l.1 r �-+ i .1 �,� '+� � � {,,�.r,. V� + _� � L� • ..� �. � � .� I,l �� i� { � � � � � �� _ r� � �� j yry I � 1� �� .. L� � .� ` ��'w` [.,•, ?i'• i'? � t t/� � fK, April 5, 2007 Kalispell P l ann.in g- Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the 1P current zoning density of SA-1 County and R- I in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded 'in, the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2B C in Section. 19, Township 29 North, Mange 21 Vest. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way g way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and west Reserve Drive. we all own lots within 150 feet. Please refer to Montana Code Annotated 2005 as follows 76- 2-305. Alteration of zoning regulations'- protest. (1) A regulation, restriction, and boundary may be amended, supplemented, changed, modified, or repealed. The provisions of 76--2-303 relative to public hearings and official notice apply equally to all changes or amendments. (2) An amendment may not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and voting members of the city or town council or legislative body of the municipality if a protest against a change pursuant to subsection (1) is signed by the owners of 25% or more of (a) the area of the lots included in any proposed change; or (b) those lots 150 feet from a lot included in a proposed change. LOT # LAMB ADDRESS PH()NE _W ---2 - , J[ ��',.,, f Gam± C-L�..L�S o- V. '' •- •-•f ' F f t J r i r1 47/ ,. err � `� ram: _.f y � ., �� 1 J� �� f.• � i G..� ��."' ��.�,.- r f �+i� -.,,.� / �+ r±J 7 f F'OVD • T �� f ..-. � l .5 1 7 `� � l I J E f # April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tarn Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA--1 County and R- I in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 37 and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 west. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of Hig h�- moray 93 approximately 1 + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and west Reserve Drive. We all own lots within 150 feet. Please refer- to Montana Code Annotated 2005 as follows. 76-2-305. Alteration of zoning regulations'- protest. (1) A regulation, restriction, and boundary may be amended, supplemented, changed-, modified, or repealed_ The provisions of 76-2-3 03 relative to public hearings and official notice , apply equally to all changes or amendments. (2) An amendment may not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and voting members of the city or town council or legislative body of the municipality if a protest against a change pursuant to subsection (1) is signed by the owners of 25% or more of: (a) the area of the Lots included in any proposed change; or (b) those lots 150 feet from a lot included in a proposed change. LOT # DAME ADDRESS PHONE April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 Znd Street East, Suite "'-)I I Kalispell, MT 59901 A. ttenti o n : Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the in- cluded cluded In� the proposed project known as valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 Forth, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is- located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1 + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We ail own lots'Within 150 feet_ Please refer to Montana Code Annotated 2005 as follows: 7 6--2-3 05 . Alteration of zoning regulations -- protest. (1) A regulation, restriction, and boundary may be amended, supplemented, changed, modified, or repealed. The provisions of 76-2.-303 relative to public hearings and official notice a l equally PP � � y to all changes or amendments- (2) An amendment may'not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and voting members of the city or town council or legislative body of the municipality if a protest against a change pursuant to subsection (1) is signed by the owners of 25% or more of: (a) the area of the lots included in any proposed change; or (b) those lots 150 feet from a lot included in a proposed change. LOT # DAME ADDRESS PN(-)NF (4 r s' -L April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Torn Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA- I County and R-I in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known. as Valley Ranch. It can be'described as Tract 21, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located -on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Deserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME ADDRESS Lf;'_3 Che-561v� JOY-,'�e pop /—" /Le: PHONE QDO__T�— 7ss-�o7y April 5, 2007 Kalispell P lar=' cr Department artment 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zorung density of SA- I County and R-- I in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project mown as valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 2 9 North, Range 21 west. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High -- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and west Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE Z5 2- f. /lam\►,y Z'3 k - t,�g [.j eel �,..A b / LOA) --I..,,, . L�l bt& 5 r If 1. f r Y lzll"L t I it� e. r k,/ 7) f fe _ � AL i w, ! 1 = IrA April 5, 2007 Kalispell Plaruung Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zorung density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Punch. It can he described as Tract Z, Tract 3, and Tract 2$C in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 west. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Deserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development_ LOT ## NAME ADDRESS PHONE . � .. r� k --------- ---- �j ! 7 { Sri .- tJ fry � {" �� +�-!••I[�-'fr -ice., w - Yf VV 2 6�1 7-5 7 r-)- '7 ��4, 17_Y_ f-7 ��+ � i ��y i f� ; - : � h �.�� ,� jr`� fit+.►`" � `J�{J � 1'� j��+rr « i� � � � t✓ i.�+ .i�+ �� / r � �� ...,. � '"? r � �.i �ti„�,� •ram „� 17 r r � , ice` � } % I i� ,�f_�`y� �' �. [.� L�� •Z.."�- ! r �•., -f r `' _ ,t � .� April 5), 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tern Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest anv change in the current zoning density of SA- l County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2EC 'n Section 19, Township 29 Forth, Range 21 vest, The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High -- way 93 approximately I+ miles north of the intersection of Highway- 93 and west Reserve Drive. we all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # DAME ADDRESS PHONE C` ZY !��l ire - C_ •� f / � � � 'fl Ij '�7 f r - 444 e JZ Ili Ze e 5 21 ,. t.J lA,_ I IT z? r I^t �,.._.y i�� .r• _]` � .f 's� C,� � )! ' `'I �� T �� `T � } � s ��1. � � � � . 1 ! �� :-... ��'a r .r1 --• � � _ � y I .,,,,_.`tip' � � f � 1 F �f t � � � ..�', �-^/:r`y:ryi.l _ ,. �� t � '+ i � '� e � �" 1� � � '�.....f �ft�. �• -1 �i � � _.: � ri'.rv.� i '1 �� f � �j April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 2 1 I Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom. Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officiallyprotest in the p an change � ce � current zon'.ng density of SA --I County and R-I in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in-- c lu '-, and Tract 2BC in , p P . ded'n the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3) Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1 + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom f entz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA- I County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed proJect known as valley Rand. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 west. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1 + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and Nest Reserve Drive. we all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this developmente. LOT # DAME ADDRESS PHONE i I j ! i 3 i "Icr Department Suite 211 .1_1 �)901 Attention., Torn .Ientz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoi- in'a density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch_ It can be described as Tract ?, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 forth, Range 21 west. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way g way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and west Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE r6 C !I / �:l EKYiVi 3Y LAC, L��G(WS�ncc� 776 />uC 7�Z-37�5 April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, Wish to officially protest any char-,L'�y 11 �- -=T current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth proposal Area of the=ro cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can he described as Tract2 , Tract, End,-::: Section 1.97 Township Z9 North, Range ? 1 Nest. The S 0.7 acre proJject site Is located on the east sd A way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the Intersection of Highway 93 and Nest Reserve Drive.Y° - ~L lots in ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. April S, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, SIT 59901 Attention. Torn Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any chi t7= current zoning density of SA- I County and R-1 in Kalil ell Ci Growth Pro osal Area of the i-F�,.. . p ty p pro._ . eluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Section 19 , Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east sip F way 93 approximately l+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. g Y lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME ADDRESS p� �: April .3, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Torn Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as valley Ranch. It can he described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and. Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North., Range 21 west_ The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1 + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and west Reserve Drive. we all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. 75 a�7-oa'rl April 10, 2007 To: The Kalispell City Planning Board Please accept the following detailed comments on the proposed Valley ranch Planned Knit Development being developed by Gateway Properties. In brief our concerns include the following. 1. Failure of the applicant to comply with Section 27.21.030 A)� page 66: Standards for Planned Unit Development District_(PLTD), that requires specific information be submitted as part of a PUD application including subdivision documents and other essential information that has not been provided as required. Details comments on this are provided in the comments that are attached. 2. Failure to comply with state law 76-2 -303 MCA on annexation hearings which allows that a municipality may only conduct a hearing on the annexation in conjunction with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation when the proposed new zoning is comparable with the existing county zoning. The proposed zoning of R--Z with a PUD is not comparable with the current zoning of SAG 10. 3. Failure to demonstrate that the proposed density and relaxed R 2 standards proposed under the I LTD provide, as is required, that there will be an improved overall site design or comparable public benefits in additional open space. In fact the relaxed PUD standards provide for an equivalent R-4' zoning with little to no public benefit. R--1 is the classification associated with the Suburban Residential classification called for in the Kalispell Growth Polley, which the public was led to believe was the future density for this area unless significant public benefit was to be provided for increased density under a PIED . A PUD under the Rw 1 classification would allow for 3 dwelling units/acre not the 4.5 proposed. A PLTD for this proposed development should demonstrate the significant public benefits and improved site design should include elements that_ Create an increased buffer (100 ft) between lots for lots 170--189 which back into a steep ponderosa tree covered slope and lots 7-1 8 which are in an area of historic drainage problems and an area with existing trees that should be retained for buffering. Consolidate internally (as opposed to highway frontage) public park facilities in excess of the minimum required of 10.59 to offset density increases requested; • Assure that trail systems are scaled compatible with proposed trails in adjoining subdivision and that they include and provide connectivity to parks and trail systems in adjoining developments, 0 Provide greater buffers to adjoining development in exchange for requested higher density internally, Do not allow for storm water or lift station facilities to be considered as part of calculations for park facilities or to be sited so as to interfere with the optimal function of park areas, ' Sec attached Exhibit A chart that compares -Lone classifications Retain existing trees, Address areas of high ground water and seasonal flooding. 4. Inadequate transportation infrastructure or solutions are in place to address transportation issues identified in TAC committee discussions and in the current new draft Kalispell Transportation Plan. Conditioning this development on the future development of a full movement intersection is premature and allows for speculative development not consistent with the predictability and time lines that a PUD is clearly required to provide as part of the City of Kalispell Zoning .Regulations. This application is premature until comprehensive transportation guidelines are in place for the development being proposed north of Deserve Street. For example, it is of concern that the Sliverbrook development at Church Drive was approved with the assumption that an over -pass would be built and yet now it has apparently been announced that no funding for this by-pass exists! 5. Staff recommendations for a series of future amendments to the PUD are not allowed under Kalispell Zoning Regulations 27.21.020 (7) Limitation on Rezoning or under requirements under 27.21.030 (5) that require certain information to be part of a PUD application not future amendments to a PUD. Missing information and issues proposed for future amendments include: phasing of the development under the PUD, a park improvement plan, location of parks, development of a proposed assisted living center, future parking and. signage plans, and a street connection for a future full movement intersection. Fncouragang and allowing for a series of future amendments also opens the door for amendments for other uses than say a proposed assisted living center. Lack of deadlines for future amendments may result in the inability to make adjustment to lots, parks, buffers, and streets. 6. Potential inappropriate citing of the proposed future assisted living center in an area where height, noise, and high groundwater may create unacceptable problems should be addressed now, not by future amendments to the PUD. Each of these six points is addressed in greater detail below. We request that you deny the application before you tonight and direct the developers to address the incomplete information that is required to be provided as well as the issues raised within these comments. This application is speculative in nature given that road infrastructure is not in place to serve it and time should be taken to create a better and more complete plan for this development. I. Incomplete PUD.Application due to failure to submit Subdivision documents re uired by the Kalispell zoning,regulations for a PUD application Section ?7.2.1.030 (5) page 66: Standards for Planned Unit Development .District (PUD), of the Kalispell Zoning Regulations, require that "The property owner applying for a PUD district classification shall submit three copies of a PZ...TD preliminary plan which shall contain the following information. if a Pik also Involves a s0division, the iuiiittuiis"a'i also include tl'�enfo►iLititn ia' ILX€3uts 2C��iii ed lb` o"]catl�Jn stated in the Kalispell Subdivision .regulations." (Emphasis added) . The Valley Ranch PUD clearly involves a subdivision and yet the application submittal file does not Include the subdivision documents required for application under Section 27.21.030 (5) page 66. A. list of issues that should have been more clearly addressed as part of required subdivision documents like an environmental assessment include: identification of historic areas of seasonal high groundwater, groundwater mapping, clarification of proposed ( but vague) "underground" storm water detention facilities and issues of high ground water, lot and parkland layout that could be problematic given areas of high groundwater, and lack of information regarding the source of city wells that will provide water. The well issue is of concern given the potential for problems under recent court rulings that may result in the lack of approval for new appropriations in the basin_ New city wells are proposed at the recently approved Church Drive subdivision but it is not clear if the city has water rights for this development. Subdivision documents are needed to inform a decision by the planning board, the city council or to inform the public wishing to comment on this proposal. An environmental assessment is an important subdivision document needed given significant ground grater issues in this area. This application should be rejected because the PUD a lication is incomplete and informed ublic comment and decision. making can not take place without this information_provided. Incomplete PUD Application due to failure to submit other documents re wired under Clty of Kalispell PTJD Regulations includin the following -required under Section 27.21.030 (5)2 page 66: Standards for Planned Unit Development District (PUD): "(a). Proposed dimensional layout plan super -imposed on a two to five foot interval to roffiG_m�a of the area drawn to a scale not less than one inch equals Zoo feet shoring all streets, buildings, open space, lots and other elements basic to the development" Comment: THE SUBMITTED TOP OGRAPHIC 1L4P IS DIFFICULT TO READ AND DOES NOT PR VIDE IMPORTANT SLOPE .rNF'OR.ATION NEEDED INCL UDING SLOPE IN► FORMATION FOR L 0TS 170-189 WHICH BA CK INTO A STEEP P FOND ER OSA TREE CO TIERED SL OPE AND L 0 TS 7- I S WHCH ARE IN AN AREA OF HISTORIC DRAINA GE PR O.BLEAl-fS. THE B U DABLE AR.8A OF THESE L a TS IN CONFORMANCE NTH SLOPE REG ULA T.IONS AATD NA T URAL DR4INA GE ARE,4S I it is important to note that such information is not optional, but that the code say this information "shall he" provided. 2.7.21.020: General. The #allowing application and review procedures shall apply to designation and approval of all planned unit developments in the city. (1). Initiation of application: The land owner shall submit an application to the zoning commission for a change of zoning from the existing district to a proposed PUD district or for creation of a PUD district on annexation of the property into the city. Theapplication lication shall he accoml2anied by a preliminary 121an containiny, the information rem ed in Section_?7.1I.030(1). in cases where the development will he executed in increments, a �chednIke, shavring the time 1,1rithir. each part will be filed amd completed. shall also be included in the application. SHO UL D BE ESTABLISHED TH.R O UGH 1IISSING S UBDI VISION .ANAL YSIS FOR THESE LOTS. SINCE BOTH AREAS ARE TRANSITION AREAS BETWEEN VA LLEY RA, _NC. A, ND P ONDER OSA ESTA .TES THEY SHO ULD BE REDESIGNED TO PR O VIDE A LAR GER B U.FFER FR OBI THIS E1;USTING SUBD.IT17SION AND OF THESE SENSITIVE AREAS THE PROPOSED B UF.FER AREA SHOULD BE INCREASED FR OM 2 0 FEET TO 100 FEET -(SEE MORE DISCUSSION OF THE PR O.PO.SE.D B UFFER AREA BELO PV) (b)_ Proposed locations, areas, densities and types of residential and nonresidential uses and structures within the area proposed to be developed and maximum height of` buildings or structure; Comment: WHILE THE APPLICATION NOTES THAT IT ALL ALL W FOR M,LYIMUPI OF 3 5FEET I.N'B UILDING HEIGHT IT DOES NOTADDRESS AREAS WHERE USE OF THIS FULL HEIGHT WO ULD a1PA C'T VIE W SHEDS THE STA FF REP OR T REFERENCES "EXC.ELLENT VIE TES OF THE V.ALL.E Y FL OOR . 4 ND BEYOND ' fi YET THE APPLICATION AND STAFF REP OR T FAM TO IDENTIFY AREAS WHERE HEIGHT LDETA TIONS MA Y BE NEEDED TO RETAIN IMPORTANT VIE WSHEDS. JUST SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT, FOR E.1�4PLE, IN THE INITIAL PALOP0SAL BY B UCH WOLFORD LIMITS B UIL.DINGS ALONG H.IGHWA Y 93 TO ONE STOR Y HA TEE BEEN PROPOSED. A SDIDLAR HEIGHT LIA117TATION SHOULD BE PLA CE.D ON THE PROPOSED ASSISTED LI T17ING CENTER THA T IS PROPOSED TO FRO UNTHIGHW4 Y 93. (c). Proposed plans for handling vehicular traffic par ng ; _ s:ev�ag :_ disp o_ a1 f e e ee e t :. a water � u i . site ` er rm t :tr�a erg a a d .ath rtit n s it io n e tune s ply.. " p p, Comment: THE A PPLICATION IS LA C. ING IN NECESSARY DETAIL FOR ALL OF THESE ISSUES. PARKING —THE DE VEL OP.hI.ENT STANDARDS REQUIRE NO ON STREET O VERNIGHT PARKING AND REQ UIRE TWO CAR GARA GES AND TWO G UEST VEHICLE PARKING SPA. CES ON EA CH L OT. NO DOCU .E.NTATION IS .PRO k DED TO SHOW IF THIS IS DOABLE. SSE WA GE DISP OSAL -- A .LIFT STA TION IS IDENTIFIED AS NEEDED AND S.I TED WITHIN A PARK K . REE4 . CREDIT FOR .PARKLAND SHO ULD NO T BE PR O VI.DED .FOR THE AREA USED FOR THE LIFT STA TION. DRA, INA GENO INFOPLIVL4 TION IS PRO VIDED TO ALL O W FOR E VAL UA TION THE PROPOSED STORMWA TER SYSTEiV OF "UNDER GRO UND TANKS'r. NO I!%rF OR111IA T 1 ON IS PRO FiDE'.,D TO DEMOIVST R lT HO r ST uRl' TV-,4T ER GENRA TED BY .STREETS WILL BE H , N.DELED AND IF C URB' AND GUTTER WILL BE USED TO DIRE C T THIS WA TER. TER S UPP T Y -NO INFORMA TION IS PR O VID.ED A S TO HOW -A TVA TER S UP P_ T I � S YST.E11 WILL BE D E TIEL Off' ED AND IF THIS .INCLUDES THE DE.EL OP,'1IENT OF ;VETrV T ELT ,S 771_14 T A 111-E L_,�STING T�4 TER VGITT4 F,4 II-,t413 L E I AT THE ARE`_. AND POTE4VTIAL L111PACTS TO =STING WELLS IN THE AREA FROM THE DE VE'L O.PMENT ' OF A LARGE CAR.4= WELL . . SITE PER-II1IERTEP TREA Ts EiYT AiVD OTHER PEP TINEiVT SITE DE VEL OPMENT F'EA TURES --NO DET_41L PL4NS .IAA VE BEEN PR 0 VIDE'D. ALL, DE EEL OPI E.NT STANDARDS PR OPOSED ARE LEFT TO THE JUD GEMENT OF THE DE VEL OPER AND A DEVEL OPErR APPO NTED COADIfITTEE - THE P UD SHOULD .SET BASE STANDARDS THAT WILL BE FOLL 0 WED_ THE RETENTION OF =STING TREES THA T BORDER, B UFFER, AND PR 0 VIDE SI GNIF7I C., NT CH4RA CTER FOR THE P ONDER OSA S UBDI VISION HA VE NO T BEEN ADDRESSED. (d),-,. Elevation drawings which demonstrate visually the generaF architectural features. of each proposed building or architecturally: dfstinct.group or type of buildings and the. site perimeter treatment; Comment: NO .DRA 9177VGS H,4 TEE BEENPR0 VIDED. (e). The plan shall show the boundary lines of adjacent subdivided or unsubdivided land and the existing zoning of the area proposed to be changed to PUD as well as the land adjacent thereto; (f). An-..'enu-meratio-n-,,:of-'e,ov'e-n-ants m--detail proposed to be made a part of the PtM and shall be enforceable by the city council, Comment: THE STAF'.F' REPORT PR0T17DES NO REVIEW OF THESE C0VENANTS AND THEIR ADEQ UA C.Y CAR ENFOR CABILII Y .B Y THE = ANALYSIS IS NEEDED TO D E TERM17VE IF THESE C 0 VENE ANTS CDMPLY ff 7TH 27.22.030 Design Standards for Single Family Dwellings OF THE K LISPELL ZONING REG UL. 4 TIONS` THESE COTENANTS CAR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS THEY ARE C. 4LLED BY THE APPLICANT DO NOT PROVIDE ASSURANCES OR DEJA IL AB 0 UT THE 1 MINTAINCE OF COMMON AREAS AS REQ UIRE`D..IT IS NO T CLEAR WHAT PARK AREAS WILL BE CITY PA RKS AND WHAT ALL BE COMMON.AREAS MAINTAINED B Y A HOME TONERS ASSO CL4 TION. IT IS Na T CLEAR IF A HOME 0 WNER ASSOCIA, TION WILL E VER BE CREA TED AND IF IT CO ULD HA TEE ANY VOTING P0WER. saternent : eressirig the ordern h:c thy: deyelQnent shall occur an d`estmated�- b time~ f6 r- c0ampleting the development. In case of a phased development, estimated time sehedule for starting and complenng each phase of the development shall he roviaed (emphasis added)- inn rrrui Comment. NO PHAS..TNG PLAN IS PRO VTDED ,4 S IS REQUIRED. IT IS NOT COMPLL4NT TV'.ITH THESE RECULA TIONS TO SUGGEST, -40 THE APPLICI4IATT HAS, THA T A T SOME U1' KV 0 TTW FUTURE .DA TE . FTE.R ADE'Q UA TE TRAFFIC INFRA ST.R UCT URE HAS BEEiV B UIL T B Y LSE TIE, L P,' IENTS TO THE SO UrTH, THA T THEN THEY WILL PRO SIDE A PHASING SCHEDULE. =.AEGULATIONS CLEARL Y .REO U.IRE THAT THIS SCH'ED ULE BE PR O VIDED A1D C010111= TO AT THE TL E OF APPLICATION (h). Adequate provisions shall be made for a private organization with direct responsibility to, and control by, the property owners involved to provide for the operation and maintenance of all common facilities, including private streets jointly shared by each property owner, if such facilities are a part of the Planned unit Development, and in such instance, legal assurances shall, be provided which show that the: private .organization -is: self=perpetuating and adequately funded 10-. accomplish its purpose: Real property taxes of the private streets and coalman areas shall be assessed as levied pro rata to all privately owned parcels within the district; Comm en t SEE COMMENT ON 0 AB 0 VE. THE DE VEL OPMEiVT STANDARDS PRO V_IDED TO NOT PRO VIDE FOR .DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY TO OR CONTROL B Y PR OPER TY O NERS� LEGAL ASS URANCES ARE NO T CLEAR. (1). Adequate provisions shall be made for common facilities which are not:dedicated`to the public to be maintained to standards assuring continuous and adequate maintenance at a reasonable and nondiscriminatory rate of charge to be beneficiaries thereof_ Common. facilities not dedicated to the public shall be operated and maintained by the private organization and at no expense to any governmental unit; Comment: SEE COMMENT ON (f) .AND (h) above. THE APPL.IC-A, NT HAS FAILED TO IDENTIFY WHICH .FA CLUES WILL BE COMMON AND WHICH SILL BE DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC THUS THIS REO67RE ENT HAS .NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. 0). All private streets shall be maintained by the aforesaid private organization in such a manner that adequate and safe access is provided at all times to vehicular traffic so that fire, police, health, sanitation and public utility vehicles can serve the properties contiguous or adjacent thereto and so that said vehicles will have adequate turning area; Comment: IT IS .NOT CLE,R WM T STREETS WILL BE PRI K4 TE AND WHAT WILL BE ASSUMED BY THE = (k). The offs-str e : p r g o : pr ided: shall meet. the . m h-imum, st'andaids- afar ,ot-f street: - parkin -,-as-per dChapt r- =:? of the Kalispell honing ordinance; Comment: THE DEVELOP ENT STANDARDS REQUIRE NO O T STR E.T O VERNICHT PA RKING �4ND REO UIRE TWO C 4R GA RA CES ANDD TTVO C UEST w VEHICLE .P.4 RI INC SPACES ON EA CH L O T NO D O C UMENTe4 TION IS PROVIDED TO SHOTV IF THIS IS DOABLE OR IF IT CO PLIES TVITH 'C4LISPELL ZONING O R D IA LACES. THE STAFF REPOR T NO TES POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH P 4RKINC UNDER ITS RE VIE T V OF THE .P UD E V 4 L UA T.ION CRITERIA #S NO TING PR OBL E,11IS WITH SE TBA. CXS FOR (rA R 4 GES .4 ND P 4 RKING BL 0 C=V G 6 SIDEWALKS OR ALLEY AREAS .1 T IS .SOT CLEAR THAT THE RECOM..111ENDED `SI E L OADE.D "GAR GE DESIGN ADDRESSES A LL THESEISSUES. (1). Where a PUD also involves a subdivision of land, it shall also meet the requirements of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations and the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act; Comment; AS NOTED EARLIER REQ UIRE.D SUBDIVISION DOCUM- NTA.TION WAS NOT PRO VIDED. (m). The city council shall require bonding or any other appropriate collateral to ensure that all required improvements shall be satisfactorily completed in accordance to the approved plans, specifications and time schedule; and, Comment: NO CONDITIONS HA TEE BEEN .SUGGESTED TO .ESTABLISH THE REQ U- RED B ONDING. (n). Any other information, plans and details which the planning board and/or city council may desire to fully evaluate the development proposal and its impacts. Comment: C VEN THE RECENT REPORT ON THE KAL.ISPELL TRAIVSPORTAT.ION PLAN THAT 17VDICATES SIGNIFICANT FUTURE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES* IN THIS AREA GIVEN THE DENSITY OF DEVELOPA�ENT PROPOSED IN THIS AREA, THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE TABLED UNTIL F17VI.AL RECOMMENDA TIONS ARE AIL4DE B Y .THIS STUD Y AND THESE RECOMAfENDA TIONS CAN BE CONSIDERED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE CONDITIONS OF THE P.R CAP OSED P UD. 2. Annexation hearing method is not consistent with state law. The proposed method of annexation for Valley Ranch is not in conformance with state law. 76-2 -303 MCA-3which only allows that a municipality may conduct a hearing on the annexation in -3 76-2-303. Procedure to administer certain annexations and zoning laws hearing and notice. (1) The city or town council or other legislative body of a municipality shall provide for the manner in which regulations and restrictions and the boundaries of districts are determined, established, enforced, and changed, subject to the requirements of subsection (2), e2) A regulation, restriction, or boundary may not become effective until after a public hearing in relation to the regulation, restriction, or boundary at which parties in interest and citizens have an opportunity to be heard has been held. At least I5, days` notice of the time and place of the hearinv- must be published in an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the municipality. v (3) (a) For municipal annexations, a municipality may conduct a hearing on the annexation in conjunction with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation, provided that the proposed municipai zoning regulations for the annexed property: (i) authorize land uses comparable to the land uses authorized by county zoning; f ti Y authorize land uses that are consilstent yyith land uses approved by the bard of uoulltv �.0�zn,1Svlone:s cr the board �3I ad ustr»;enL pursuant t' paIi r u ThI ch::p[ x wr (iii) are consistent with zoning requirements recommended in a growth policy adopted pursuant to chapter l of this title or in a master plan, as provided for in ^6}--"-';04(')), for the annexed property, 7 conjunction with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation, provided that the proposed municipal zoning regulations for the annexed property: (1) authorize land uses comparable to the land uses authorized by county zoning;" The proposed land uses (R-2 with a PUD overlay allowing for smaller lot sizes) are not comparable with the existing county zoning of SAG- 10. Tinder state later a separate hearing on annexation must be held prior to consideration of rezoning_ This re nest for initial zoning and annexation should be reiected and the legally re uired separate heann on annexation should be held first. 3.) Failure to demonstrate that the proposed density and relaxed R-2 standards proposed under the PUD provide,, as is required, that there will be an improved overall site design or comparable public benefits in additional open space. The following definitions give guidance on the public benefit that should result from relaxed standards or increased density. 76-3--103. Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the context or subject matter clearly requires otherwise, the following definitions apply: (10) "Planned unit development" means a land development project consisting of residential clusters, industrial parks, shopping centers, or office building parrs that compose a planned mixture of land uses built in a prearranged relationship to each other and having open space and community facilities in common ownership or use. From the Kalispell zoning Regulations, Definitions'- Page 193, (169). Planned Unit Development. A. tract of land developed as an integrated unit. The development is unique and is based on a plan which allows for flexibility of design, setting and density not otherwise possible under the prevailing zoning district regulations. From the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations 9.45 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPNMNT (PUD).* A. land development project consisting of residential clusters, industrial parks, shopping centers, or office building parks that compose a planned mixture of land uses built in a prearranged relationship to each other and having open space and community facilities in common ownership or use. A PUD allows for flexibility of design, setting or density, in exchange for improved overall site design. Public benefits for increased density should be the cornerstone of developments that request annexation into the city if Kalispell is to retain a former reputation for having great neighborhood. Given the significant density and relaxed standards be requested (.b) A joint hearing authorized under this subsection fulfills a rnunicipaiitv's obligation regarding zoning notice and public hearing for a proposed zrmexation. History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. I36, L. 1929; re -en. sec. 5305.4 i't.C.��1. l935; R.C.M. }94' l 1-270 �+; arncl. i uu7• n* Marti i t �1. ;�� i _ i �s�r�� fi i t�. �x I _ i , yy- `???iC1 �? ] t ;� i I Al. y i y J-4. J + tka S4�.W. ■ tJ• ✓ .i Sec. .✓ ✓s ,..- v 4 3 ti _ ..... �'oov_ here public benefits should be demonstrated and required_ we are proposing that the following public benefits be assured.- 0 Create an increased buffer (100 ft) between lots for lots 170-189 which back into a steep ponderosa tree covered slope and lots 7 -18 which are 'in an area of historic drainage problems and an area with existing trees that should be retained for buffering. Consolidate internally (as opposed to highway frontage) public park facilities in excess of'the minimum required of 10.59 to offset density increases requested; ■ Assure that trail systems are scaled compatible with proposed trails in adjoining subdivision and that they include and provide connectivity to parks and trail systems in adjoining developments, • Provide greater buffers to adjoining development in exchange for requested higher density internally, ■ Do not allow for storm water or lift station facilities to be considered as part of calculations for park facilities or to be sited so as to interfere with the optimal function of parr areas, ■ Retain existing trees, ■ Address areas of high ground water and seasonal flooding. 4. Inadequate transportation infrastructure or solutions are in place to address transportation issues identified in TAC committee discussions and in the current new draft Kalispell Transportation Plan. Conditioning this development on the future development of a full movement intersection is premature and allows for speculative development not consistent with the predictability and time lines that a PUD 's clearly required to provide as part of the City of Kalispell Zoning Regulations. The PUD a lication is _premature and should be denied as demonstrated by it failure to meet the following PUD re uirements .A) 27.21.030: Standards for Planned Unit Development District (PUD). (1). Location of PUD. A PUD district shall be located in. an area where public and private facilities and services are available or are to become available by the time the development reaches the stage where they will be required. There is no know date for the development of a full movement intersection to the south and thus this PUD is premature and speculative and should be denied until certainty is available assure adequate public facilities. B) 27.21.020: General. The following application and review procedures shall apply to designation and approval of all planned unit developments in the city_ (1). Initiation of Appiication: The land owner shall submit an application to the zoning commission for a change of zoning from the existing district to a proposed PUD district or for creation of a PUD district on annexation of the property into the city_ The application shall be accompanied by a preliminary plan containing the information 9 required in Section 27.21.03)0(5). In cases where the development will be executed in increments, a schedule shoNvinc* the time within each art will be filed and corn feted. shall also be included in the aDplication. (emphasis added Phasing can not be addressed until adequate public facilities are in place and thus this PUD is premature and speculative and should be denied until certainty is available assure adequate public facilities 5. Staff recommendations for a series of future amendments to the PTA are not allowed under Kalispell Zoning regulations 27.21.020 (7) Limitation on rezoning or under requirements under 27.21.030 (5) that require certain information to be part of a PUD application —not future amendments to a PUD. Ili s s ing information and issues proposed for future amendments include: phasing of the development under the PUD, a park improvement plan, location of parks, development of a proposed assisted living center, future parking and s ignage plans, and a street connection for a- future full movement intersection. Encouraging and allowing for a series of future amendments also opens the door for amendments for other uses than say a proposed assisted living center. Lack of deadlines for future amendments may result in the inability to make adjustment to lots, parks, buffers, and streets. See regulation below. 27.21.020 (7). Limitation on rezoning. The zoning commission shall not initiate any amendment to the zoning ordinance or official Map concerning the property involved in a Planned Unit Development before the completion of the development as long as development is in conformity with the approved detailed Planned Unit Development and proceeding in accordance. with the time requirements imposed therein. From and after approval of the Planned Unit Development by the city council under Sections 27.21.020(4) and 27.21.020(5) the building official. is authorized to issue appropriate pemuts complying with approved plan. 6. Potential inappropriate citing of the proposed future assisted living center in an area where height, noise, and high groundwater may create unacceptable problems should be addressed now., not by future amendments to the PUD. This issue should not be the subject of a future amendment. In accordance with city PUD regulations such issues should be resolved as part of the original PUD approval. 10 OEM a acd +.d 4 rn v cry a. y r 'a Ta v b U iQ �-. �, 11 �• "" -� ;b vct 4-6 LL,cn o , + �+ rw i.., v r`•+ ram-, C� C� �} i" tia a 4] •iui v Cti ^� = n mi i 4-4 I t�,j ;~ t� 1iw1 1✓S �w r ��.... � L U 4'.'4 � CCi � '� � .��r v � � � � ..aid � r` . � • r'` � � • r'"-y v C1] _ � r.r r2 • '-•� • *`� ,...� ,`ter .•-.w "'� • v rev{Ur r'�`. e }�� f! �wI r .._w [�^� . ,�-•+.; CCU `� r�l C� *•`i !r�-y? Ci �y v CCj • �+J 'rr1 � �y �1 �~ �i • .-•i r-1-.•1 U v i�1 "'r { i.� a . l . , Q 5 aunt mmo cZ G,] v Cr.., 4� �,,, �•, ,, t�.� '"'" L �-., �"' [y �"' "•"` [] ' p d" LT,, ►r] ` tp�" fr- 04 L G '"G` G,rt w.., Ri U C] ,-K ..-• rr Q! d" `✓ L.L, CAI Cr -� ^ ^ .� ` .., ti.. r .,r ' ..� N ct `� - -•� Q ct U �. Cal ct mono tv '�► L, d' tv � '� ,--'�' 'd cCt � by t� � $„� t�. ►...� �..,] ca "d "cd � r-� •.� U) .., rat z„{ V �.•, �., T3 'd U CCt .-� �-. �-: c�3 ct � v v c.� a) ... � rn s-' - �`" v "` et to \ t— as a ct M--� cn N .� U Ci, Q d.3 3-4cn 4-1 60 al N 4? • • GJJ d] O py c� G... V ,., v Q �, • v "� cd cl ct cn ° _ a CAN j N 4 asv aw W cd ct v v Z.4 v 00 u I�cn. U �= Q�*' ° +•�' ° Q L]� ° per.,, 4-0 41. �.cn g ,+ v vow anp-' ..��•-.�, � 4-4u3 lJ � � � � � t-� • *-ti 4] . � U --� cE`er G•� DG � anyCA .. 'U tab ct Ca � ��..' ` Q� ' '"" • � CS' � � � fl"` � � � �"` `� ` � � � L.L., � d3 cz `r:) ct .w � v �' +-� a � • -.. • � • ,--�' � •. � C{i v 4-+ cy '� b,,. bfJ 4-4 � 3-,••i . � CJ] 4,a C17 • .••e U U] ` � �'"� � r� r� .. ✓ ct � ��. � C� ram. � fit. U} �"• 77, f R-1 Density Per Acre R-2 Density Per Acre R&"2 Density Per Acre as a PUD t JA I rt Tivv cu 1;7 41nr pill .07 rU Ln r 0 W ra ado M RE PA l3CW' .�C Y^� 4 �- 2�.a .•R�3 -I. tiRAW 32 O R.H - r_z •C.'-'^•�_�. r• .. �N: Ff=� R�=b S F'•`�_-„',. vS� -.e .yea. [y r 1 T` J� R tV ■ ' � :" 45 TLKITT CA CALL„ l'J�►t ,1�C 17-47 L ISS .. � KAT#�M 3J414 4v can:. 12 4V riYJdZXSTM -. :dL FRUMM �. r - -�•: Th esen iw 4 Pawls % ,::: _ PARK Is O ii , A kM� r OA ml T 'st X .. um g�v as :,sj� .•!� Utz? �: [x'+�'y��','.4 5 . Y/ ;.. a� solo U VN AMA] A-lallYl h 0 1w 4 ---^'■ f € kLI a"n 2997 i tiY Donald wren Cromwell LIB r I } :Li rtli ► u � P IT '340 McGregor Lane, ari.on, Montana 599?5 (406) 858_2498 April '621, � 00 7 City of Kalispell Planning Department 17-266rid Street East, Suite ? 11 Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission April 10, ? 007 �- Ashley Heights, LLC. ]ear Mr. Sorensen, We are the homeowners of 702 Ashley Drive, Kalispell_ Our single family home is located on the western end of Bismark Street and Ashley Drive. We are temporarily out of the area and will not be able to attend the hearing. However, we would like to respond to your notice of public hearing letter and provide you with our input for the April 10, 2,007 hearing on the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LLC. for annexation and rezoning. We object to the proposed zoning change requested from Ashley Heights, LLC that would change the zoning of their 8.5 acre tract of land from R--1 to R--4 (Two family Residential). As you are well aware, the area directly to the East and to the South of the 8.5 acres owned by Ashley Heights, LLC. s already zoned R-4 and Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense from approval previously granted to Owl Deveiopment and others. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem with Owl Development and other developers because of the small lot sizes, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads to provide safe ingress and egress. As you are well aware, although Owl Development reached an agreement with the City to limit the number of two family tots as a condition to receiving their final plat, there were significant problems that subsequently developed which resulted in several lawsuits filed against Ow Development. We do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of County R-1, as tong as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding degradation of services. We do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex into the City of Kalispell with the R--4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single --family homes ,would be acceptable and consistent with its current zoning. A change of zoning to R--4 to allow for two family residences is totally unacceptable. Let's learn from our past mistakes from S unnvside, Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving This zoning change. Respectfully submitted, Donald L. Cror-well ■ r r f f wren 11. �romti�eil Ll Ll 2007 KALJsH - LFLANlli�IG DEPARNEW Czty of Kalispell Planning Department 17-2 nd Street East, S ulte 2W I I Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE : Notice of Public Dearing, April 10, 2007 -- Ashley Heights, L. C. Dear City of Kalispell Planning Commissioners): Date: We are homeowners in the s annyside Subdivision and would Ii"e to comment on o � ur Notice of Public Dearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and zoning Con7.nllssiona April ri.l 1 02007 regarding the proposed request by Ashley Heights, ITC, for annexation and rezoning. g We object to the proposed zoning change that would char e,,the zoning of the S.5 -acre 1 g g tract of and from. R- 1 to R-4 (Two family Residential). The area directlyto the East and to the South of the 8.5 acres in question is already zoned R-4 to accommodate Owl Development's request p q est for zoning change some years ago. Sunnyside subdivision is alreadytoo dense and we do not bel' x eve it is in the best interest of the City_ The density of this area has been an ongoing problem because of the small lot sizes overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads to provide safe m' ess and p gz' egress. we do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning f C . g oCounty R-1, as long as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding p g degradation of services to city residents. It is our position that we do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with th overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex into the City p of Kalispell with the R- 4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current R--1 zoning . A chan�e of zoning to R-4 to allow for two family residences is totallyunacceptable. Let's le p am from our past mistakes from S unnyside, Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving this zoning change. T hanK Vou for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, IV TT _Citamto viler ron�'.rZ`ir A"dress. 44 `r f � �D Fri 11 [�Z 1�`=9' 4 i � A � t 0 2907 Date: City of Kalispell Planning Department 17-2" Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, 'Montana 59901 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, April 10, 2007 -- Ashley Heights, LLC. Dear City of Kalispell Planning ommissioner(s): We are homeowners in, the Sunnyside Subdivision and would like to comment on your Notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission., April 10, 2007 regarding the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LL C. for annexation and rezoning. We object to the proposed zoning change that would change the zoning of the S. 5-acre tract of land from R-1 to R-4 (Two family Residential). The area directly to the East and to the South of the 8.5 acres in question is already zoned R-4 to accommodate Owl Development's request for zoning change some years ago. Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense and we do not believe it is in the best interest of the City. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem because of the small lot sizes, overcrowding of duplexes and tovvmhouses, and Inadequate roads to provide safe ingress and egress. We do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of County R-1, as long as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding degradation of services to city residents. It is our position that we do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowm* g Ashley Heights, LL C to annex into the City of Kalispell with the R--4 Two Family Residential- zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current R-I zoning. A chanc4e .� w of zoning to R-4 to allover for two family residences is totally unacceptable. Let's learn from our past mistakes from Sunnyside, Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving this zoning change. Thank you for your consideration In this matter. Respectfully submitted, (1 P Q, 1 flnn.. l x T i .Q� 10 Ti H v 1"1"1 v r r7 f t Propevr -- ddress. `' ,• ...- ;1 E�f C C_� 7 72 R 09 07 lu . cLrIN � ! Dates City of Kalispell Planning Department 17-2nd S treet East. Suite L1 Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, Aprff 10, 2007 Ashley heights, LLC. Dear City of Kalispell Planning Commissioner(s): We are homeowners in the Sunyside Subdivision and v�ould like to comment on your Notice of r Public Hearin.g, Kalispell City Planning Board and zoning Commission, April 10, 2007 regarding the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LLC. for annexation and rezon' . g We object to the proposed zoning change that would change the zoning of the 8.5--acre tract of land from R-1 to R-4 (Two family Residential). The area directly to the East and to the South of the 8.5 acres in question is already zoned R-4 to accommodate owl Development's request for p q zoning change some years ago. Sunyside subdivision is already too dense and we do not believe it is 'n the best interest of the City. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem because of the small lot sizes, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads to provide safe m- ess and - egress. We do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of Coup R- 1 a as long as the City is confident that It can provide services without a corresponding degradation of services to city residents. It is our position that we do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC �Kalispellto annex into the City of with the R_4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. S ingle-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current R-1 e of zoning. A char -.� t _o g zoning to R allow' for two family � amily residences is totally unac; eptable. Let's learn from. our past mistakes from Sunnyside, Empire Estates and other overiv dense communities by not approving this zoning change. lot 11za K you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted. J uR-.y SIde S ubdivisicin rionieowner� Property address: 1 ri err.. E� (,D, i - i7 P71-1 R o 9 2007 �Q,UQPELLPU'AN��ING u� rP }r�lT Date: -� City of Kalispell Planning Department 17-2 ad Street East, Suite ? 1 I Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE. Notice of Public Hearing, April 10, 2007 -- Ashley`� hex �hts, LL C. Dear City of Kalispell Planning Commis sioner(s): We are homeowners in the Sunnyside Subdivision and wo - , . uI� �i�e to eanunent on your Notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City PlanningBoard and Zoning g Commission, Apzz.l l o, ') 0 07 regarding the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LL C. far g annexation and rezoning. We object to the proposed zoning change that would change � g the zoning of the 8 . S -acre tract of land from R-1 to R-4 (Two family Residential). The area � directly to the East and to the South o the 8.5 acres in question is ahead coned R--4 f Y to accommodate owl. Development's request for zoning change some years ago. Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense and we do not believe it is in the best interest of the City. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem because � g -p of the small lot sees, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate road egress. We q s to provide safe ingress and e ' o not object ect to the annexation of the property with its current zoning as ion as the City is c of County R l , g ty confident that it can provide services without a correspondingadation de of services to city residents. gr It is our position that we do not need to create another r mpire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex into the City of Kalispell with the R-4 Two Family Residential- zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent - w wish its current R I zoning. A change of zoning to R- to allow for two famil residences is Iota ' 1 . y totally unacceptable. Lets !earn from our past nv stakes from Sunnyside, Empire Estates and other overt dense ense communities by not approving this zoning change. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted. j �. rhn- , s LAC � Ube' iv * slon riomeown er Property Address: ;' E•� .�_ Date: ' A. L �L t:.nfliIR t Irt :'1T t C City of Kalispell Planning Department 17 -? n d S tre et E ast. S uite Z 11 Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Notice of Public Hearin¢, April 10, 2007 — Ashley Heights, LLC. Dear City of Kalispell Planning Conu issioner(s): y�6 We are homeowners in the Sunnyside Subdivision and would like to comment on your Notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and zoning Commission, April 10, 2007 regarding the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LLC. for annexation and rezoning. We object to the proposed zoning change that would change the zoning of the 8.5-acre tract of land from R-1 to Rw4 (Two family Residential). The area directly to the East and to the South of the 8.5 acres in question is already zoned R--4 to accommodate owl Development's request for zoning change some years ago. Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense and we do not believe it is in the best interest of the City. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem because of the small lot sizes, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads to provide safe ingress and egress. We do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of County R--1, as long as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding degradation of services to city residents. It is our position that we do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex into the City of Kalispell with the R.-4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current R.-1 zoning. A change of zoning to R-4 to allow for two family residences is totally unacceptable. Let's learn from our past mistakes from Sunnyside, Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving this zoning change. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted 1J ■! OBI'�u7.vSidei7�ilvsoi�µioieow�1 eI' y? 7 1 } Propery Address. _� April 10, 2007 City of "ispell Planning Dept. 17 2� Street East Kalispell, NI' 59901 Dear ispell City Planning Board, 1 am responding to the four requests by the Applicant Wayne Turner far the changes to the ro crty owned by the Charles and wynona O'Neil Family Limited Partnership on � p Foys Lake Road. The OLO.Mlh R9&Y Amrndm as presented by Wayne Turner has some Critical errors of a&mission. He states on Page 3, Semen 1a, `There are no known hazards on the site.' This same statement is repeated on page 4, Suction I, 1 beg to differ with this statement by the Applicant. This proper was a. portion of the former Forest Products Co, sawmill site. Ruing the many years of operation of the sawmiH this ardeular area was a portion of a mill pond. This mill pond area was filled 1n as the operation of the sawmill changed and no loner needed this mill pond. This area, was filled in with bark, wood products, meW parts from unusable equipment. This fill area could be as deep as 20" in places. Fill was also placed along the banks of Ashley Creek. Some of this ffll created the steep bmiks that are referred to by the applicant. Please reter to the aerial photo taken on Aug. 30, 1972 by western Ways, Inc. labeled Exhibit #1. This fill area also shows in the aerial photo taken in 1980 by the same company. Please near to Exhibit 42. As you can see this mill pond covered a major portion of the mull site, A requirement by the Planning Board should be core rillinsi of the industrial al areas which were filled for the protection of future buyers of property and the city of Kalispell for liability Treasons. The land in this area and other areas of the sawmill site have a high water table that continually flmded in the spring. The balance of the acreage South of Ashley Creek also has areas of fill in several places. The largest area covers approximately 36 acres. This area, was the orig' mill pond. This area was filled in with bark and other wood products. After it was filled in it was used for lumber storage. other fill areas show as light patches on the 1972 aerial on Exhibit #1. Areas along the creek were also filled- This fill can be observed on Exhibit #1 aad #2. It is stated in the application amass for this site will be through the industrial area to the North. However, it is not stated what the indust:bW use wM be. 1 would think that it is highly unusual to allow residential access to cross an industrial site. The only access to the North would be onto Appleway Drive, as shown on the gal labeled Exhibit 42. IEghway #2 is approwimately 150' or so away from t1 s access, Most vehicles are traveling at a fairly high rate of spud as. they exit from the highway onto Appleway Ririe. Appleway Drive to the East is a very narrow road that can barely handle the current vehicic- use. t uefie v e Lhat kttit s T3e ac V e ss t 7 ija v City Plan€ Board, April 1 oz�'� Page Two, C subdivision, as an access point. This access will create trade conge von a very serious su n, sfety concern. The Petiti A ` ' a Zomn states the need for smaller lots. However with the record number of subdivision requests for small lots with annexation approval have ahead ted pre<lirninary approval I question his supposed need for that Y � . . hi densiI lots. .A�o�g to the Paper appro y E,300 s� lots are wasting at • s this tirne for final plat approval. The developer should be rcquA ed to present substantial P . evidence as to thLe need for the change to alloy this zone change for this project. The applicant dated in his atignfM V=edmit Develo men on Page 25 that "'The Applicant concluded that the adjacent property owners, general public and the new presidents of willow Creek will benefit from the requested relaxations, rather than be ne fives impacted by them. " Actually, the adjacent owners property values will be Y p senously and adversely impacted. R-1 zone regulations were followed to the letter' for ■ r ■ Stonerid a the subdivision directly to the Nest. They are not men followed in this ro osal. The ,applicant is asking for 9 variations to the regulations and has not proposal. � � � i "not �,ioT�fOrrn to resented evidence as to the necessity for these changes. This plan does p the neighboxhood. The adjacent property lots to the west are 1 ame in size or 44,000 sg ,ft. The Appfimot peas to back lots of approximately 14,000 sg.:ft up to the lots in Stoncridge that are 44,000 sq.f1. in size_ It appeal that he does not plan to install a buffer zone, but plans to maximize how many little tiny lots that he can cram onto the property and has the audacity to cWm that it won't have an adverse effea The Applicant will be use only one to hit from this variation. The Applicant In his ` . sf relimij= Plat A. l* cation answered NIA to the 5 questions regarding his requested variances. I believe that he should be required to give a rnore detailed answer to each question because a subdivision could be planned for this property that would not require the variances that the Applicant "is requesting. The Staff Report on page 33 Section E refers to the s on Agtcuh=-P--d Ag icul alFatter U Facilities. The March 161, 2007 letter from Mr. Turner GIs to address the actual facts regarding the pumping site, water ri&s� water night ownership d recorded Xk1cs pertaining to this pumping site or POD_ The details are fully c ed out in a document titled s Settlement Agreement' dated July 17, 1987. This document was recorded under the recording ;M00291114250. This pumping site is the main POD for one of the water rights listed in this document, ne casements listed in this document are not shown on the Preliminary flat for Willow Creed. From a lei standpoint these easements must be revealed to .future buyers of the lots in this subdivision. 'Three of these easements are very clearly detailed and &ectly affect this property, They are listed on Flathead County records as Certificate of Survey No. 8698. A 3 0= easement runs from the POD along the North property boundary to the property Page Three, City Planning Board April 10, 2007 line ending at the Stoneridse. Another easement crosses the property from Meridian Road to the POD. A third eammenl runs in a North/South direction on the boundary fine between Stoneridge and the proposed willow Creek subdivision. This is a 60' easement with 3 0' on either side of the property. This 3 0' easement on the willow Creek side Will directly affect the useable space on the west end of the lots that border Stoneridge. I have briery described these . The recorded document spehs out the details and allowable uses of these easements. W. Turner" s lettff dated March 16, 2007 would lead one to believe thact he wilt own the water rights at this POD and that this letter- should take =e of the problems with this site. This is not true. If he .has an agreement regarding water rights in his purchase agreement of the property he will only receive a portion of the rights at this POI]. Three other entities also own a share. 1 own a portion of these rights, the 60 horse pump and improvements, at this site. Roger o"Dell also owns a share of these rig asr 'He faxed me a letter regarding this POD and asked me to read his letter into this public record. It is as follows: see attached letter Page 43, 446 of the staff report requkes the transfer of ground and =face rights to the city of Kalispell. It must be noted that only the portion that lair. Tumer will acquire at time of purchase of the property can be transferred. Page 44 #47 of the staff report requires the pump station and any assocWed n1ines to be removed prior to the find plat of Phase 4. When property is purchased it is purchased. subject to existing easements of mcord. I sincerely expect that the casements regarding this POD will be honored. As as owner of this water right with this historic :POI] site, I do not want spay pump equipment, nary underground pipe or any of nsy u8 nprovements removed from this site. I hope that you will consider my comments in your decision regarding the requests presented by the Applicant for review this evening. He has requested major changes that will affect this area forever. He has not shown compelling evidence to substantiate the necessity for these changes. He is simply ng for the R-3 zone change to allow a higher density on this property. This will benefit him, but not the existing neighborhood. Ply follow the zoning regulations and deny his requests as presented. Thank you for allowing nee time to present my continents on the Wayne Turner requests this evening. �inccrely, r Mari Iy nun f`_n 1CM "YMM-A nl-) nK1YCT-1TnrT r7MMMrT-1TM �L-r,rr-r r r --rr i ----- ------------ _----- _..... . ri'� l-si�"r},! t' afi•y;]€-.. t�:..�•• .; :.. ",I jq••,r.• . r . ..~ . f" .. L� T i • i, � 1 �. i it }�1 €3`I�rl A r•_ . 1r •'yS.+}�#�••.1;is r,Yr, s.`,' ,, ..; �i.. �+�iia:. .'+S�r#„ic.,,. ■ •'.s�-` �"'r •'s a .. e•F1 �•* � _r •g •r �1 .. 4� r.�,`t �'�1'�. - � ' - •. i � ,i'' • r:�P ` ,. sa " e ts`= ` _ _ i � ir. •, i•F,3i►ia i s •• s . , , � / �`,: e�p;',►y ''" t t �! .gar^ .�$sf .}I++-Ftir :' y'a s,:.. ' i r. saw 3' �° .4•t{.� �.- .ri'�^": •, �t ' • ' w,r i• • s • .•3" •; irii-?'fr.t ' � - ,. „•..a • _ s • .i , � i€„ Y• i.'•,S !•t ,'� : . i =1. !a ,•. .Y. i_' i. - f y j.•• '`! •[...�• .t t:: s � 'ar ��.J , s '��;,€, .'�` t i >� , "4.i < •aR• �3,F -.i�' ";` •'+ `r€• • )i •r •�t �. •a' i x ' f ,.d •li :'i•=•E '•+s' •- r .. ... ! f 4•i } ;• �..1..'.' € ri:visy}p�{€ � d; t : �� €: ; .. � :� ' . i t_:' � i € ri;/ •(i � � i •' r ��••pp M� i' ;.; .:: ); ..' •`�c�Rw#� :€•! tL° : erar• : � .h�# 3 �,• A•j't' 4h, ��►•• tt`.••sV - rr,�•y,.s •1, �-•4.j•.. JSw• �r+i•"�, .ss .. r €o•. 1.rl: i., r _ €•, , *: '.F/ u'I , i € ^3' tF' ` } Ii ,j fi' » • .7„ Y '] yy 9 a a f' , 3•r Y. L a €i E`• .(r!,• ! 1 4 •F• a. • YY I -'s`' !` • ••Y • t }• ,� ei`'1• •r ` `i I i• , „ § ♦ ' 1. . # J • 't f k E" rFP . rr sue■ } �li 1 4 $ €'+' • t' at; • i F •1 i �1 • .. � fi.,.. �., .- i • ti4J F • + •� .I{ r FE3 i.r • F , €:- - �.• '' FJ' L .>Ii f •7�-r• l.ri i'r 1``r ii :iti E'1':a •S' ..F• } f, '3°..i;� '•:;7_ .�.� - s ,+ �,.Tx „a,,, - if hr' .w i+ � h•.� 1 >tr.=r'3 i4 >. r..•.'3' .f., ►`3 P`i�. :r.�,''` L r, �' i- 3,'{`•.F . }►' .ri. ,. �lr• ..tiF,. �t' •yH.._L.. f I.. F. .�i 1' r6 „iTF ]3 :r. �j, '1 t. r}.r •it. ,l't °I,•' E. F ! iMs,• 'i•• r •` r'.� •Y �` ir' e. i ;• : {drA r43Is `� r :A-'i, '€ ■}e ors.' :. �.' `!i!' .k 1, .e'.., `,i/ 1 F.. •. f.tri.i r, 4FLr li`' i'i`y r'ti w s: x.rF. €' 'wt�;'Is; e•�t.s,. k:' ._+ r;•} s r i�"" .S r f .€,1:.i„ { fi.a•,•'•.;•' F'i.{",�.1 "ie ;j€p•. r,:,t i..j. rer.iFt 7�..t^:kr.� sF�a P i�' ;, F •� i• _ i ti ',.� ..fF '-i k'Ji •. �: ]ry •�!'•°i¢. k•=� �r t4i•S'� ° li rV�• 7..,�k .. 'rT• � i .Frar ••t ]} .I' 'S`r , ,y. - '1 f' i.'a• aL, rM ti i i -.n!• I• i ' IF. 1' e.• f '.k• d r ' i ♦ 1'Y` j • 1• t i ,�' a4 •', L• 11, '• ' i' i .�k' . i i it i ,. i ••j .. 'r �' i • •F r r- l' '�€ , r 1 i ro ' [•v; s p, r h ' J 4 W. .� `' �y ►aL f ;�r•,1 v .s' •s.i • .1;. :c °[' �r M,~ 3,.1�y# •.. t.,' • r 41 . / ' ' s: F€71 ;•. s� . < i v ! •r'' l�r. fff' #r �`. �F r w i s '�. 7. •�} 1 to jt ;T' +!a f 0�i .�v" • sj��'i a' p 6 3 r.• 's' ¢rp- ' . ,.a, ;si- fi;iF !'a'. !�'k�`�.a',. €iiliali'�•.r >€ .; •s,: ,• . 'i?.••. .4! :f,{ jG. €..aqig n >. €i'foiii'l Ti��i'€. + �'�a� � ti i • }} � , } . '} � �k. f. c "� i•"," .t ,Y ,p ' t ip.''• €^'.. �� },,liJr'•t sr t t . �'.#f ax n, . � �, .� 44 - eF,'!"•,r f', i .. i•�. ih p' € 3 .. xi i, •'rJi rsi E. 3 ! Lr { F_ �p •• t: F: �•+'t � ,''' _. ' . - : -ale} . ! `� � ° '� •:r ��"� ��L�1[+ jai' �ii �. � ;•� a� t � •F-�S; L.:L.-. •�, � � r . � � 's: t �•i�, t"{� �� ' i �`��', � � .� �,,, . €�,},. �� •. �,� � � EL>'� }' a �'�•`�� •i�>,+ s,"..' `f ' C x-#' E. ` . -•s � r ' �• J j r' lGI, • ^ 4 > 7r'> s � 1.' �= � °'� '' y"• • '3 � ,"€. � .. ": "�"� j,l ; �?• .''J>.-.'" } ii •ia +r•�• � �i . i• y� l ��!,�� eei±er' ,}''�i1�1'Ei •� `� � � •� 'R ` �j'Iw ��F :�* r i �! �. 'a' _ j ram•-..� '� r ::ti :I 1 ► , Fri i ir.. f . �1i L1±.!" €, ,... ,•F . i f . a.`a I r ;- a !er a1 / ! € i . !r , €. t:ai� .+i E 'e. i §'r H€i"•li J ► I==� ++ s kf.1' i + ` , �i. ` > f' s � • • �:, i • ;d i ., liy?v., .wF t, §• F i y{+i'Li i i�, ' I+ �' ` ia! � F �. {{ '•ry„ € I�r ;•i •. r " • • { ' > r F '•, I `fit E fi•��]]fir;i.%. ew '' t•• • JJI 1 r'ifI ' i "� t :�• .iti" _ `� r 3i r },i'1. "€ • € Y +Y �€3" •�Z •'S.•1 7,1 ' �•#i r,., `i^riN ir'r L c. € : i s '� E. . ; , i r . 1 t e } ' •'r'sr .�e' � •�# 1 `€ +i3' r y'�y � J `t ' f ?#Fltl�_ i �� 5 ,1�ti t�t , �^7s , ' '�".' h+�r Mr �� ! �` ,'(r , /' • • R !"' `.:i9 € gj,.' °'r t� . � R a r! �� s j7' W �t t,r � s,! i vN"�;, tY ;•� 7 £i.ya• 1• i . !q t 1. .7r' • `*7'♦ j i • � ),(• j € !. •; " 1 }�. j �i ; w � ' ` t'•-ia if3.i+7� •i.' � i. % �f t F��S�YF�'� "i �,��i, .I x3 T' J f S�a ii , 1` i J •r 'r.r �+ �. � � tL ff', F ��'.� �.. �� ,, I i•! •'•�'' rf �". • i ` i F 1 _ t •� ,I� r i "i t i, .: I ai>: ' �5,1 s 'ry y' �`�. 1 1! � �d' �` 1= ��(� r � �' � s � ;� •li f {� ° , :, . "S �,..4 � I : � � },+• '� Yf '� }} ,; # r �r � j„ € �" . � Yy '�`� � { , , y i'■��e 'i: ; � i'� ,,�g"'�.�� i€`•y��• ;.��°s.ti; �(!�� #�',� ��`.f�,,, • +'t'• •.r ..., . 1 = i.�,�ti'�„ �+��E �: � r �e ..�4�4.1•' ��lE�li•�ri,.}' - � + r i t �. • ii �y r t �r � ) � • s ' if ar •lr�+ !i[� t a f = s ! �� r�';ri �►'�, C'.un '� Y'•}V ' '� �iaril i�','�3€. �'l.i'n. ,:crr} .� r'� .. •�,• s .. '+ r'�� IC,;��'�Y. � Y 4 (1r#� i ' 1 i r. `r r 1 j. C_. w �•SL I s �}a - .3 r `i �' �•L. `1 "1�3J�` �yw,- I 5 > � € �r j �i i y''�1i� ��j1�f � ,a� f�.�pp> (r �- Y'i i �s• .k=" '1 i, ^,Y•.E, s 1 r€' r; I � /. Ary �y�� . Ri:ss#�r. � • f! +��,-L.. {r�jyh�i'�3".#'rsi f"'11'y •i�l�'4 !^{ i � J: lia, +f �' `� ... -_ €T ��• '' ! €. � �.1 � �! yy A� jj r S 'i' �j1 r.it , ti' ■, ,. fig ; ,,4-.. S • ' .. '} Py4�i1"F=F,: 1 •3 F'ia l! .•F:�, tili,.r . ;SrrLL d..e R `�• ,`;i� � (�) •j 3 "H..r� ', sK'7 r - . ',s a -. `rtR r,.F• •� � , 1 F >i e. j�{f� : �• ''�. >M f• la � cars .1i3, f'' •.. y}pr3.i .3 ► i ,`t 31 � ,y hr•jr."; .}� •3 ,. 'R:.' � ' € _ ., '.Z3 �•}J`: .!•y� a.� `�'Ik F F��'•! �Y R ! 1 t. � ai3- } '{j .Y � �,« j a • w €� v �R • i _ �i a� '- l.fi � '3 S !aM , • '€.f - i s .f' \ €. i ice+ � f i k• `�` •S;l .Y 5 , , • L' 1 •• • � �' 1 r r } '�w 1 ; I 4 ' :�.Krr• i �'liW`! •!i►i r�`i^^SS"�"�.•'.. •:3 •�!�`,lr iy ' i - r� �' t . ` e i :! - �.y,,,,, s.,:•'w ' ` - i•;i Jiri Es•s ,�, tr } i` 1 1' €•�€Fa I _€ i i E "t.,.'r.�r••' + ej1l'' .E fa 1, , l , w 3 i ra , ., '.' r ' '�� • _ ` 1�f1•,�.Y •` (�ra��' moo• 'i F,,`•': t t ` r�'!#�§€ll�s '' ". ,; ,3 . ' 't' .. € . ., .. _ •'i',' a. • €,' , E �' L,a.€. y�•;` �' }" / i e4s.. it,.. j', j•'rE ;, i • r �} ! �� }1!►!3 ,r t . ' ` a s . ;= a;�+. ' r a rsr►• i3�1�' foie ^ i L f i�f AiZE . ' � .: .t#r•�' •1 S� i,,r ,r '. ire ra t t € , ,. •'.3 `•• rrt'■'M• ,. •° • F. ` €' 1 • .r '. i. t4, ,,. .'lir > , ■k s - P )r. mfyy,i• ,f `s r 4" v r i _ �`.• :F �!' ". !'r exr i tt � L r. • �..,a k ' �` - - ,!pAW 'r. {r !�r` s la;r ems, Lra� S•' 4 . ! f, i ,...,. • . it .• ' i ` jr .v` r• ' ! t t •-,, ; �.. r . €r �� [` I> `; . ! , •>a`.=` 1 ! ,. 31..r. `.,'. r _ -�: i e 5 i �.��- F l•3'3 7Mi'!r' �'�,y �,'[::. ,g7�.�ti •'all5ai,•F! ` : t•X .ti x r . f• .. .s. �i,°i`►� F � r �!F'� , i , i ._1A rsr f i'tr 1R€ id.l.►�t-" �#'i� ' s i ` ��r• }°'i `'�;4igqaa'!. €,''` t t • -:3 i1H1Y. li'�Y`I,y14 .- AY '••iF! jl 'fE,*, s,,.t ; i•i!•r+, / i.,ri•ti e: € r't` • dli;j aMj..i I• j;' - s i'1.Ij ;'•,f ',' a `'� • ' ` Ea, .1 . e Y •f€':«. Ti • i, .i ! ` �ii' ' • ` .. :.. Y ' 4. I, A.iV, ,� x ,�r 14 s€,rsr �' �, i • .1• k r• , • € ! _ 1��'e r , ! : F^• d r'/liair s # !gyp 1 ,...~1,.�€�r { t=.r r a 1i NNE} t s F� �' `0 1 r.Eo"`t"•"i!�ilR►"M"++f i f i t r!' s • 1' . ; r,. s .�., a tK is * i• iiY 3 F f/F ! j''•Li..r' .t,r,y.R►-v' i r • ` . �' ��.� a�,�, ,+</3.€,. a a•t�J1E(.� s !• ,iT J � i€ivtri•' v � +i�i'x ''"F a s � th •j' f ri r • i �F . �H;� . s „ ! 3., '' � a.Ir1�4.�! �r'..r . � � :'� _ ), iii�� !4w' • a} • ',s •i► Np• rl. €Ri" •.•'s' c i �ijl ..S ..,�M'r °,r '�i • ••!s+ .+° ,4 h•., i'Ji�••3/i+r' j 'lvrl •i . ••�Fi' .". µ A, r�I�l� 'i` i � T ItE • ,'e '�.:. q ^,En r'r Ea • fr. q L ' � 'c . ,ilia' a/ w i ,: �( �,e...� r � .�• s.} ",1'Ijs,�t• •I kll;M•,r •fa� F„ wi: E ' ! i4 r.l a{: 1fA 'cY✓J 'y'E ''�. r • h`, +`�'`�.: aYr t.0 . ' 7 4t J! f tr' a •: 444rq • ! . d i EI r •/ %' `, ` I }iw. ' it e E rs .ti `. ••-riFlj�r t ��« }.i�i.i?t r, ,.• 1 *„`ff; °•`il.f!'i •/ F t!� , ,a, 4"h y"+F+•• I•=Irs; _ ,�• i,:6rkir ,v> i!: �". =�ija., ' f 1`'r rZ. 4� I•� �E-i M. r,� •J �•• •• � ��~ � �ii rfa E - ,14!'•�llJ.� E a. F'. r' ... 1 s t h ;1'• vie ' s•• • i. �• 0LW FAA .`. • t } ':cif![ i= i 't ! �� ! F , \. �• L' "�: r•f:1ie .,kt .i .. T� f F��'+s •� it iY.�Ei. , _ , j�`PF 1., {,... � � ��jar.i � *n •q ` F#M } ` ° '� €. �: 7,, � �trj:. rr L � 1 i , t 4Rt •" f . , Nisi ,i . � F: ,? S)€' !•^ (�o 'i.�• �11i�ljii�v,�i•'' �, '�+�1W/•_ } � 7��!' f F ` 't 1 4� i ', ' r !' _ r�,' y31 � •i. L' �,� i �R` ��r.F �F� .F rFi �KS•ia. ; 1' .-M a } � I r j'i�g1'-��((a ,y 4 1�if xy7) Y €ii �..1��. ryF�.�� -`�.�+( L. ! � �!• � • .� `'iyl { !'- , . , , •�. j * 'r}i'.ii'E: �IJ j�i(j`" 1 •€ 't ! ilfwl�'MT` tILtiP'i E• F! f',jii)47*!, .. ` •ems i-• .,. , .`;"i..'. '�,_ �S.,oi€{; 'i,, e,,,j � r is �• ..{r 1i� , ` .•y .'i- ,. .'•r r,><' 'rF1,y%S, 'e� .ry. •;^' F, • 1, r - •; ,'�F .: , '•� f •'' § .i' f•' { sf;ri' h'°•`3 is y •'1 FE , . r- 7 .•�• e OFF v x ES is :,l. j fl: s . �F,rJY!lSR raeaalL •,yYt '1�v •wr.. ,{�(,,&OC�*.ilwwr .€ r ai• _' ; ,• -E Ft'• �t. .is f�rr !€itr r'`I Ir• fff s Y.!1' }} {•�k , i )nnrt'R.w ; .� •' • 'i'•i '1 d I "m, . . t a ' .iitl Y ` t. it + •' V> `.. 5f"J= ' - 'f• •'w?� i t �' +''�` 7 ',g/ r - `.lEf..� � • ,�' � F > 1 • %.� 51,'+ . � - .F . -wFls- •1 ' � e ,>.' ' a t `-"�,,� jj•.� e; {F Fr .,•Ii s..E.i r LF _ }5 s r�yi 3=. `� ►? . ;' � 9'�i3;�, F'�`� p i, w. i 'J ;�, ` ; �1✓�.Y .;5� r F ..' F + � ■ tilil�l:€l ��S 1 W 1 r r 1. , •'i�}� K Etil. r F �,,�,�, � F€=�`r = i y� "•F,. � ji41�f•. g• � Z# >� f i +•� ,� ,. t r, sdhc !�, �� ; ! i ,s ';�srti �' i wwyF, r!•+i R!�••rr� l d 'e f t t; .'.;'ef i { {i J•rp�'[ �:,Ls � � .F,�� r�'€� : r ; h:l�•#�; t `4 r,# vr,{,� �•• ,�y r a.€. i r r .0 r+lark ar'i} � - 'i F•,, .rr i3 [ r .!•FF: s. , i', , ••t�,i� ' �+riN"II�w.J rtiM ��t': i .r�fi� i ,-,, r •FE , •..{vii fff, li'.. t.y{�y#,#ia�+l�l�i7�"l re'1 'L�n } i.;8 :.� � � 1 y 1 i f Fs�s • `� '^ ��' . E �1 f y+ri �� ., _ ' € :.;��° v '�yt#'�t ��3�i'r !' ��F �r� �" 1/.,. ykl ! { :' e i ► } W i4: ti y^•� ',,1,•a ```i'ti1�, 't ! t. {r �4 � i,j, • >r', ��•i�r �'r --o •f 'j�'I �� `� '}` i� � � ? 'r�� : ! y •N' E'�I}w�.M.. fi L. Ak '` '�� •`j}j y !f�i N�- ,y(''f1'ii e '/R. i`�r,k; �.r•i �I Fk� f�"+er V E �i,�'` € �`K`ti;y� `' •i:,{ ar r� 'a t ��i!�ita• `�,E , ^sr,. �:'�ss. • rs,r.� �/`•J,F. �� i.,, f ,FEE •, t..s ri . •, ' �•4`f16. ��r}. �,'•' '� 1x! . K1ii4 r �.`� i. 13i/i •a 1 .RR�R1 �,�E,I ,�5 ' ►.��' ' {r �� F�r�r{ �e i'. • >'' F i` fie' �.�! ! $'thifp M LIKy�1� # r r�L►i�! y, ' ; ]yj��, ;}�' ,€ Rr ^ ,rAF • i 1 S� ,y, j rt�yR1Y■ � € Sri •S , .. •* "T }�ai' �11'i,.. (t Y �'•r, - wl��. .... ��•4 �� a n•'�i/i it eP wy r 1 f • fr %�.: •� �S Ff } jig, 1i.i F OF 1 'r ..• air `r; � Fi4:a ..�� f i, �a r .. =t €Ilw + ` i�i ' �! y � '��a . e '.rw•" fy i/� + F t• : �'Y 'a:�•. ! i•il�`. � � 1. €i +$'.' iryli : F . � s ,.F� €i; f .,�.i9s.i� - rt€� i = !ja � �r �•��'��t � € �� ;�i {i�i� €y i' r��y `� # �.. I.Y � � ,E• !, awe• • . !` , •.;, •"f # +!• i �. , r,iar :1.� {r.'.�s Er€ � �. ' 3. � ! Is, �' ••"�R� rl , F r y t € 1 1 A ., 3 F .... ` t r r,il , !)i! i � •' •_ t r i •� •ie"' •;'il,i� .r.y �fl .S. �i i ••1 � € -'1 aT- �'c' . ;,�:+ '*"r''�" e . "ref , ij �'r ,r • ,�}Pi � � j #• t '+ 1k ,€ t 1' i ��-,�1:• s .'�'� �„�!'f � 1 �F �6��a I F ; f��jsl ' '' + ' • i;�' - �� ., . r , • i.} .tii.i- ■• s, C �. 4 i��,r ' T.,; • • W • ia��a V! 'h ° 51 ,.lF iit � . i �� s;r • y^ , Y. �+' ,. •� 3!€�,''� i°•. �{ �*- .a ri• i .�'.r !=f,Z.i •.s•i:,rir=•,d •!?•° • •` tr. ! «iiE S ,Ff;,'�'F r+4t'.' r aaE ? •}�ry4 �, I N t .']].. ! I ' =r• }:° v�aElir'•�lar r�'¢t''Yi;`P ,." •i atd '�#is ��' r:q•r'!:''� ` qS /1, ' � • r •' rYi F ' " •�' / �,•;' ,* ; - ��- i ' is �f ' � i 's.x,g. fr � ,i z' •; ( f 'e :'s �,k•{i. ' _ �!if ;�1� .�' �€•'€" '� vl � �` g � , di w. r ` � !,?�Jra• r�5f 1 !� � . '�' a �{ t*'{,�_ < ,i a s �,� i yy /� !-f �; i'If r`.iiGT��, tti �. .. i"" �� r !+. €��, rf,i. ':7' �1� '�Y�i ..,ri• � k Ey��.. ffff Lf `.�1, J r';�1y �y� `F; t'• a, f i1a}� x `f] er yw,ri� £ ; e {r 'i se. /��I'#4, I�� +f - • r 3 `�i��YE"•�' •f„'•S"° �15�.ir6a' �Ef' e' , , �`� I} r; i �y T S'ry i'T? J i�.'I;�fgl�i '�' ,y€S! }4 °t•, rrrEl.a��•`a,�7ir t' = S Ir L. 4L .:�]]i►i 1' �,y 1p •pay r i , !.. € �� a!"`i i" • r >` . •'� 'L I ` •L •, ;di+€�. i'ry,'• '. Y7EC° J• L'! '�fi.s ee..l, ' w •, �k,f�` � RRF .� � 7 _sr Lp '•� �� i 't• ° .: €Syd , `1 �, a e-•�.' -8 ` - k F 3 : ya S ..n.lr .�i. �'/ w(s.�` ,ivy ri'.1�° ' •. i�`c •" L • li, ' • �a•�;w' , �''•' `'�:6;a.i•,=' � � : !• ` -.: -�.. ��Lly„_�%.`i�..� E, . r r ,�' . _ 'J ___.—_-------__---•- iti � .�t �, -- A_�--d„.-__..b._�.�:� . �rt�--:r • h .. . •E5'e€ t S , �'a `; :� . � .�.t •.ew - -_..,_ ......_•__.__.�y".._.r�• i�• � _-_.. .....�._ ....._..... _ ..,.,-,..-.• s r,].....[[.. F . �i - e h �, � -fa • } �ias t,jigF;Fi'{��'!'r`'•: s" ��• t� ef• ° ..;�'_= t, }.sl. '` .!. J.*}' f ! + •'�'•�rTa'�•,t�r , '' i ..'+' t"+y• �. *€: v �!� ,, 1 s r .r�+Si+r, Y €t • a" rt 1 • �� if--'=�afii�.E• 4 >r F''• qi�, F}T � 3 } ';� Rff,�{ .. r irJrt"3•''' �r i#s'.°i s {� . ■ ��_ J,( !. /» {r,..� E � J ' ;�rs'"It�.1 li �: �.�a. i� .aA(�*d}r .�.j ° SJ ,1!" �� :• �a.� :. .. F"` .\Y !, i 1 s & .'Ii• E y„�'!!!�!�' € yr. r ,�j r. ii�r" ,.g , } . ,t,at . fy';•�a�' . . Lrl° ! ,. i�dj �>i°�'i �i,f�{;541 �• ' F;3 `S , •,�,s _ ' V-t w •1#! �F,r-7 • � r-f .�r .41 sii =.�i �j..'rr: �� •S '1 eFti'��• ` .. "RFI%�1 € i'' � .. i .: •- � .. '. S'y�1#�,: •r�': 1,�� s -�'' 4'• J {, iy t• �.sts' 3 ';' ['tiis'i r' i►r �t ;t t� gV F. ,:; `A b__ ......... a.•...... _.._. a... .l...._................... ... _. .. _........... .... - - rrF�-h�wFiiti- ..N'� •'_..... .... .... ...................... _.. • 1!' ij',.,,4 �, i , € 11 E' } .,{E��3 t �r rr:' �r�1•r . • -: !� + k•ht;l� i ;• •- µ � �; . !. '•�'i ' ■.- ,., `Sir€,Y 'A.• r y�ii; •�� i•F. �ttR ' •t 'f - J' '•'F €€ 'r'`».' � .• �Fj i �tF3 ; `fff?;.'• .i, � i ...'�' � �.'• - r { fi• Y�,,.�'r�-` •aw � R,1 •►�►�'" •yt- s _ . �,iR �, ;��.r€r ,+:,,, r ,�F* is ' i , , y 11 X �.ia+ ,.T' iF 1 .f i 'rf• ' P' �,� L;ii • . I4 i�� Trj..s� ,5.. J f'�; � _ 1AP1 U= car u t ,uVp roger V INE211 tou-1 ►a-ti 400 R. f 9 Apffl 2007 Sam CvHrAd pity of Xal s*l Pig rid Zoning 17 2`4 St, E&q Re: mar c st d 1 Nurch Iubmt Tu=r consm1filZ watzr rights at the Villow Croa PTJD Dm Seto: The water r*ts mvo[Ycd with this propcrty are 2uA saWy owned by W?a4uben T =[. Tho o is shard with to anal mlific& Mr, Tumxm polljon woWd Mnmm way 50 of f to#ai water rigim. These would he wqubvd along wih the pwmhm oftbe pnV=W 5 nit WF. Any suss ns and subsequ at tha$ ncad tv be mA& involyh�& the water rights ref aced la Serf ern E paps 33,334 avid 46 of dw Effccts an AVicaLt� surd water u�s r . _ . m inc de a1� chi rcspccnvc Owaam As o= off ownecahip =Wu s., I request dam you please kmp mc* bA mcd ar the address he]Dw. Rogr L. 0'NOdl 1934 ScamCt. CA 92M4 Page 1 of 1 Michelle Anderson From Lavella Boylan [flboylan a@aboutmontana.netJ Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 1:55 PM To: planning@Kalispell.com Subject: Willow Creek Subdivision Kalispell Planning Board: I live on 4th St. West and am very concerned about the proposed 'willow Creek Subdivision, with over 600 new homes to be approved. The traffic down Meridian Road will double and it is already very heavy. I think this project is very inappropriate for the community and this area. Why are you trying to make Kalispell a big city with so many homes all over? It seem like you don't care about public opinion but just have your own agenda of letting anyone build as many homes as they grant, without thinking of the problems and money it might cause the city, and the people that live here. Why don't you slow down a little and really listen to the people and think about it? Thank you, Lavella Boylan 1314 4th St_ W. Kalispell, SIT 59901 03 2007 Yuma AZ April 2 2007 Kalispell planning Board 3 12 First Avenue East Kalispell NIT 59901 Dear Members of the Planning Board: #� r r APR 0;)� 2007 F r� r. ri } '�- � t Jr- . i L ISF_` L PL�AN� i !I ' � .�L .�O �11iJr- W e are Writing to protest the annexation of the former O'Neil ml property to the city of spell for the following reasons: 1) The present infrastructure is inadequate for the present use. We live at 1220 3'. Street West, West of Meridian Road. Currently, this area is already subject to many problems such as: a) The water system is totally inadequate, constantly leal�ng, and at tunes the water pressure is almost non-existent. b) The street is one continuous row of patches, due to grater main leak repairs. The curbing, for Which we paid, was never completed. There is nothing to establish a ditch line across driveways and alleys; therefore, after a rain large ponds are formed at the intersections With the street_ c) Current traffic flog on Meridian Road makes it almost impossible to access Meridian road from 3'd Street. Consequently, we have to use the alley to 2nd or 4t` Street to take advantage of the 4-way stops. Meridian road is already over -burdened With current traffic. Please consider what the traffic from the proposed additional. 600-plus homes Will do to this situation. d) Additional traffic onto Appleway Drive, which appears to be an access point to the proposed subdivision, will create one of the most hazardous intersections in Kalispell. 2) Peterson School. Will be totally overwhelmed by the number of students this development Will create. The current residents, as taxpayers, will have to remedy this situation, not the developer. 3) Lot size will be extremely important. At about 0.2 acre per lot, less street, alley and set backs will leave a lot of about 5200 square feet: With a 900 square foot house and a two car garage, there will be a very nmal useable yard space. The proposed housing density Would result in very crowded living conditions With little green. space. We request that before reaching a decision on the proposed development request and annexation to the city of Kalispell that you take a look at Empire Estates and its related problems. We expect this project will be more of the same. Two Wrongs don't make a right! Respectfully submitted, t William X . and Barbara j . Chilton 1 20 Street West K.a.iispeil MT _`5 9901 03/ 29/2007- 09 ::-4 7605725142 PILOT KNOB RV RESORT PAGE 02 ` 0 �f� April 1 2007 KaUspvil Ping. Bch . 3 � 2' First Avvntuc Fit iispeit 01 Dev .'Metnbas of dtt� Plamim Board: Ve: ue wr t g. to prott.st the annexation of the f6mulz Q;�eii mill ;�eM. tc the cxry of KAH90ell fOr 1JU fat.og reaw4si 1) Therresemt inftasumoture ii adequate;f10 the prm-.nr use, WC HYCA I ? IO 3'street West., wwr c,f Maridiat Road. Cu-1mid y, thm artm is ilrmbd� subject rep omy pmNemi match ,4v �� T�� water s��sti� tata��r ir��d�t�� ev�nd� �ir�,; �i � tix the w�t� lare�►ure i� . almost non -fit. b) 112e $ova is one C0qfiTAt16u Tt�w t x' p�zcizes, due to wnicr �r�tti,t� lzmk svpairs. Thee curbing for 'Which wo paid was "veer ; oynpitthi. �,h= �4 nothing to a stabilsb a ditch 1ftle Acmes drivtnv kk� and aber.,k; thmfort-t afw a raia'-IarizG Ponds are fad at -the inters=tions with the .street. I Cumnr waMG flow or meyi Tian toad =nakm it aftnos# impov"'sxbir to 41=58 Mchdian Road t oom dt Ism+ Co�utndy' 'me,-h4vc to i4the alleN ro �� or ��' ��ct ro t2i r�dr�ant � of the 4-wavao0s, Meath= ROM I'$ alrea& cvrL mat t"ffic: the traffic &=the proposed addifir mai 600-P(Us horneq &VII! do to tws situeltion. d) Addittonal t iOva onto Apptrway t?ri r, r.+.icb $ppem to he u accesR point to the prctvsed V14a arm mar vT. the mo M KaiiSpdl . 1,�ctcrstxn Sc:hi.�oI will be el oW tv oweinuiielni ed by � aumbv% of marts this &wdoputew will o . Thr. � wrren id nos. ��t t . payers. r;� hnVt: to tem�e�r his �trr�z�n, n��t the d��e��et wi; bee oil, 0 t' , impo=m, 4o iboat 0.7. av re per lsit. last stre t, N1 e' and set banks -A-ill. leave, a =% ofahout $200 square *vt. With .i X)0 .square ftt hove gad a bovo car gmge,, tore NN11 bo. ;i �e • W c- rrq wEst that �e lore , r cbng is dew�m on th r oplo atuf deve l=mstt reqlaest ad amid on . to d3e 1 x11)10 t` Kabspeii -that you take a iook at, =Pffe F-tt3fes xvd iK r ated -prohlems We expect dhi& py0*.t will he in(Ire -,If th a samc . ►ron s d.c x� `t rnu�k� x l R esptto,d�illy sub=med William N.- *ad Barbara I (1il'W4 l 2:0 �� Strzrt West S.aAspeil NvI"I"` '5990 i D E cc E 11 n �I Kalis� ell Plannu� Board U 0 9 2007 II 17 Street East Kalispell, Montana 59901 KALISPELL PLANNING DEPAUMENT Re: Purposed willow Creek Subdivision Annexation of the former O'Neil mill property to the City of Kalispell Dear Members of the Planning Board: We are writing to protest the massive size of the purposed willow Creek Subdivision and the Y request b the Turners to have the former O'Neil mill property annexed to the City of q Kalispell. Reasons: A subdivision of this size would GREATLY impact our already over --crowded city road. system with the shear number of cars that a subdivision of this size would generate. Extreme traffic hazards will be the norm on Foy's Lake Road, and the purposed exit onto Highway 2 and Appleway Drive. what about the purposed South end Highway 93 By- pass a.ss scheduled to be built soon? why is this subdivision even being considered when we all know that the 93 By-pass will be passing through right where the Tumers want to build this subdivision What about the "Impact Fees" for new development that haven't been put into place yet? If the planning board and City Council vote to let the Turners proceed with the subdivision before "fees" are in place, we, as the City of Kalispell will be taking quite a lose on revenue from that subdivision. According to Tom Jentz, city planning director, who pointed out recently in the Daily Inter Lake, any project that applies for a building permit before approval of a roads-unpact fee would be ENEMPT. Peterson School will be totally overwhehned by the number of students this development will create. The current residents, as taxpayers, will have to remedy this situation, not the developer. Lot sizes of the purposed subdivision would result in very crowded living conditions with little green space, and definitely do not match the surrounding areas of current housing such as the Stone Ridge area or even across Foy's Lake road to the south. Do we, the City of Kalispell, really want another `Empire Estates" and its related problems?.?? we do not t 1 We know that growth and annexation of county land is inevitable in the future. we are asking that the Kalispell P l g Board and the City Council tape a took at Turner' s Empire Estates and the problems it has already. we, as the City of Kalispell, will have p another depressing mess on our lands if willow Creek Subdivision is allowed to proceed. Resnec +,'u11v submitted : Max and Mary Ann whitington, 13?? Street Nest, Kalispell, Montana f ILI APR 09 2097 7�V KALISPELL HUlt'I'NiNG DEPARTNIE.NT 67(L 1101� zz� 10 v --wc, APR 0 5 2907 t ` = ,- t r`�I i r'�� `:�`�,4l� ems'_-: �-;; ,;_-iLi 490 N. Meridian Road Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 752-5501 FAX (406) 257-0349 4/4/2007 REF: MDo15-07. doe Sean Conrad City of Kalispell Planning Department 17 Second St. East Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mr, Conrad, I have met with CTA and the proponent of the Willow creek Subdivision a number of times in recent weeks and appreciate the time and effort they have put into discussions and proposed modifications to their original proposal. In a March 22, 2007 letter, CTA on behalf of the proponent listed additional modifications including planting a 100 foot corridor along the creek throughout the project area with a native shrub. and tree mix and moving development at p - sites No. 1 and No. g further away from the stream (sites noted on plan view, map provided by CTA, in an email,.. which I have attached to this letter). These measures are valuable improvements and will help reduce the risk of water quality and habitat degradation. I certainly encourage the proponent to pursue these mitigation measures. There also may be additional mitigation opportunities. others at Montana Fish, wildlife and Rams and l are willing to meet and discuss these issues at your request. I commented on the original subdivision proposal in two letters dated 1 o/g/2oo6 and 2/22/2007. In these letters I listed a number of fish and wildlife habitat and water quality concerns associated with the proposal. These concerns are still q y relevant. For these reasons, I recommended a Zoo foot building setback (measured as a horizontal distance from the annual high water ,nark) with a riparian vegetated buffer width of 75 feet, which consisted of vegetation that is not fertilized or mowed and includes shrub and tree species. VVith the March 22, 2007 letter from GTA, I received a plan view map noting nine locations where the proposed development encroached within 150 feet of the stream bank, distances ranging from 31.6 to 141.E feet: There is another location that was not noted between sites No. 5 and No. 6 where four lots (lots 367 to 37n) and associated roadway encroach beyond 150 feet. Besides these ten sites, I counted sic multiunit condos, '3 lots, and sections of ,cads that also encroached within the recommended 200 foot distance. Therefore, the most recent proposal shows development encroaching on the 200 feet width over the majority of the project. Recognizing this, the proponent has proposed mitigation by increasing the riparian buffer width. If the City approves a narrower building setback in some of the project, I recommend a minimum building setback of 150 feet with an increased vegetated buffer width of 125 feet in these areas. This would allow 25 feet, preferably the 25 feet furthest from the stream, to be developed into a p.athway and allow for lawn or other maintained vegetation near the buildings. Thus reducing the recommended building setback from 200 to 150 feet over the majority of the project would be mitigated in those areas by increasing the vegetated buffer from 75 to 125 feet. This would still require additional modifications to the most recent proposal at the ten sites encroaching within 150 feet_ The proposed planting of the first 100 feet in shrub and tree mix remains a good mitigation action to improve the filtering capacity of the narrower setback and improve wildlife habitat throughout the project. Thank you for allowing our participation in your planning effort. if there are any questions or additional information needs, please feel free to contact me. Since Mark Deleray Fisheries Biologist Cc: Wayne Freeman, CTA LandWorks NOT FOR CONSTRUCMON r. a F—M �MJRNER Ole! SUBDIVISION MT KrAkLISPIF;L PROJECT: Willow Creek DATE: April g, 2gg7 TO: Torn Juentz FROM: Wayne Freeman, CTA LandWorks RE: Raparian Corridor Mitigation Proposal With regard to the attached letter from Mark Deleray, with Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks, and comment number 31 in the staff report we would like to make the following proposal: Our client is in agreement that they will plant the additional 25' fact corridor above and beyond the 100' recommended by CTA with native vegetation along the entire length of Ashley Creek through the Willow Creek property. This will serve as mitigation for the development encroaching within the tog' buffer zone requested by Fish Wildlife & Parks. our client also recognizes the concern raised by Fish Wildlife and Parks that the project creates several "pinch points" in this buffer zone. Our client is willing to sit with the city and Fish Wildlife and Parks to discuss potential additional mitigation that could occur off -site. Through our work with Mark Deleray, it is our understanding of a desire within the environmental community to create a GIs database of critical stream riparian corridors within the city of Kalispell and Flathead County. This database could then be utilized to be proactive in acquisition of fee simple title on these identified corridors or conservation easements within these identified corridors. Given that this particular corridor is somewhat degraded having been a lumber operation for many years, we believe that this section of creek is not necessarily pristine. However, our client seeks a solution to the perceived impact of the project as well as wishing to provide a jump-start to the above effort. The project impacts roughly 1 '/2 acre of the 150' section identified within Mark Deleray's report. if we value land in the Kalispell area as approximately $50,000lacre, our client suggests that we propose mitigation funds equal to this value of land. Proposal Our client proposes to contribute $` 5, 000 at the completion of phase one of the Willow Creek project to the city of Kalispell to be utilized in creating this GiS database, or to be used as, acquisition funds for fee simple title or conservation easements along sections of critical riparian corridors within the city of Kalispell or Flathead County. The city can either implement the projects or offer to a third party such as Flathead Valley Land Trust to implement the project. We request the planning board to giVe the planning staff the authority to waive condition number 31 of the planning report in favor of this approach. so . ,*cnwooa P,.caa f ok rr��n, NIT yr?l Q _37 i . To whore It May Concern We are writing in reference to the approval of the Willow creek subdivision proposal. While we are not opposed to growth or a subdivision in that area, we do have some concerns. we live in Lake Hills Subdivision and already have significant traffic that goes by. We feel that to increase traffic on this road by 1400 cars per day would be irresponsible. One only has to drive the road at 8.00, 3.30 and 5:00 to see why. As the traffic stands now on Foys Lake Road, unless you widen and make there put turning lanes in it will be a nightmare. When you allowed the other one across the street in without making a turning lane you already have made a mess on that corner waiting for that traffic to turn. Not only will the increase in traffic affect our everyday living, but it will also decrease the value of our residential property. We are zoned residential and we don't want commercial size traffic down Foys Lake Road. Please have the developer reconfigure the subdivision so that there are not as many stops and curves within the subdivision itself and also stay with the bigger lots of I acre or more that is esthetically better and the same as surrounding areas. Have them make it a straight shot in and out of the subdivision as to give residents an incentive to keep the extra traffic in their neighborhood and the highways. We also would request that the lots not be annexed into the city and if they are that the current standard that the community has for lot size would still apply. To put it in simple terms, 528 homes on 0.2 acre lots will make the area look trashy and look to urban for this area. Knowing that growth is just a part of where we live, we feel that we still have a responsibility to our kids to preserve the heritage of Kalispell. Growth and beauty in Kalispell can co -exist! we are asking that responsible growth take place... Please don't let the greed of the contractor overshadow what is best for this area. He will make plenty of money with 1 acre minimum lots. we do not need or want that many lots going in! It is ridiculous for this area. Thank you for taking the time to read and reflect on our concerns. I hope that you will be able to not only look at this from a planning board aspect, but put yourself in the place of the homeowners around the area that this subdivision will affect negatively. Sincerely, David and Gretchen Harrington 752-8517 340 Lake Hills Dr. Pagel of Michelle Anderson From: Jenifer Hanson [ferbresnan.netl Sent: Tuesday, April 10= 2007 3:07 PM To. rnanderson@kalispell.cam Subject: Willow Creek To Whom It May Concern: We are writing in reference to the approval of the Willow Creek subdivision prcposai. While we are not opposed to growth or a subdivision in that area, we do have some concerns. We live on Meridian Rd and already have significant traffic that goes by. We feel that to increase traffic on this road by 1 400 cars per day would be irresponsible. One only has to drive the road at 8.00, 3 j30 and 5:00 to see why. As the traffic stands now it already makes it a challenge to get out of our driveway in a timely manner. We know that we made the choke to live on a relatively busy street. As house prices have risen in our valley we had to make the hard decision to compromise and live on a busy street or move else where. We chose to stay, but certainly do not want a momentous amount of traffic increase by our home. Not only will the increase in traffic affect our everyday living, but it will also decrease the value of our residential property. We are zoned residential and we don't want commercial size traffic down our road. Please have the developer reconfigure the subdivision so that there are not as many stops and curves within the subdivision itself. Have them make it a straight shot in and out of the subdivision as to give residents an incentive to keep the extra traffic in their neighborhood and the highways. We also would request that the lots not be annexed into the city and if they are that the current standard that the community has for lot size would still apply. To put it bluntly, 628 homes on 0.2 acre lots will make the area look trashy. We are in the electrical contracting business so growth is part of our livelihood, but we implore you to do it responsibly. Our family has a significant amount of heritage in Kalispell. Logan pass was named after my great, great, great reat uncle (he served as the I st supervisor of Glacier National Park), Logan state park was name after my g reat, great grandfather and my great, great, great, great Uncle Tool was the first governor of Montana. Not only that, mygreat, great grandmother served in the place of the First Lady until uncle toci was married in 1890. As you can see, our family has served and lived in this community and state for generations. We have three small children of our awn. Knowing that growth is just a part of where we live, we feel that we still have a responsibility to our kids to preserve the heritage that our family has whole heartedly invested in. Growth and beauty in Kalispell can coexist! We are asking that responsible growth take place not greed for money on the part of the contractor. We do not want that many lots going in! Thank you for taking the time to read and reflect on our concerns. l hope that you will be able to not only look at this from a planning board aspect, but put yourself in the place of the homeowners around the area that this subdivision will affect negatively. Sincerely, Lance & Jenifer Hanson concems for Foy's Lake Rd development Page 1 of 1 Michelle Anderson From: Grout, Amy [agrout c@mt.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:22 PM To: planning@kalispell.com Subject: concerns for Foy's Lake Rd development Planning Board, I have recently become aware of the extensive new housing development proposed west of Meridian, between Foys Lake Rd and Hwy 2. 1 do realize that the community is growing and new development is necessary to a point; however, 1 hope the planning board and city council will more closely consider the effects of this new development, As a resident of S. Meridian road, I am very aware of the traffic issues that already exist, and although I applaud the recognition and need for traffic signals, l am still very concerned about the amount of traffic that will be added to S. Meridian. The presence of Peterson Elementary School makes matters worse, as I feel there is way too much traffic now, let alone with over Goo new homes being added. l implore you to reconsider the configuration of this new neighborhood. As I understand it, the road through the new neighborhood, from Foys Lake- Road to Hwy 2, is winding, with numerous stop signs. With this configuration, I doubt that it will be inviting to very many of its residents and thus fear most will exit the neighborhood onto Foys Lake Rd and proceed through to Meridian or 7th St, thus creating severe traffic congestion and safety concerns to residents and school kids on S Meridian. i do understand the desires of an aesthetically pleasing neighborhood, however l believe the plan should be amended to make it more inviting to residents of the new development to drive through their own neighborhood and out onto Highway 2. I feel by making the road through the neighborhood a straight and more direct route with few stops, residents would be more likely to use it and thus alleviate some congestion on S Meridian Rd. Unfortuneateiy, l am unable to attend tonight's City Planning Board meeting, but would ask that you re-evaluate this new development plan, focusing more on the traffic congestion this project would present for S. Meridian Road. Thank you for your reconsideration of this plan. Sincerely, Amy Grout Resident of South Meridian Rd. 755-1 99 April 7, 2007 City of Kalispell Planning Board Via e-mail Dear Planning Board, I would appreciate your consideration of the following concerns regarding traffic circulation and the Willow creek project. As you may know, traffic on Meridian Road, south of US Highway 2 is already bad and this project as designed will make it worse. Meridian Road south of center street is a residential street that passes Peterson School. It is not an appropriate place for additional traffic. It is possible to make improvements to the Willow Creek project that will minimize the traffic increases on S Meridian Road. Need for New Minor Arterial street My primary concern is that the proposed north -south route through the project that is proposed to connect Foys Lake Road with US Hwy 2 is a very curvilinear, collector street designed with primarily residential frontage and numerous driveways. Though the application does not specify the locations of stop signs along this road, I can only guess that there will be two or more by the layout of the local streets. Any opportunity for the general public to benefit from another route option to US Highway 2 from Foys Lake Rd is lost by this design. I believe that this project presents the opportunity to IMPROVE the situation on Meridian Road by attracting a portion of the existing Foys Lake Road traffic to use a Foys Lake Road -US Hwy 2 mainly linear, minor arterial, with limited access points to the development along the proposed route. This route would need to be similar to Two Mile Drive or Whitefish Stage in design. I have shown an approximate improved alignment in the graphic on the next page. The goal of developing a minor arterial street thru this development is supported by current Kalispell Growth Policies: Policy 10.4. Discourage routing heavy traffic and through -traffic in residential areas by creating a more thorough grid system when possible. Policy 10.5: Utilize and reserve arterial and collector roads to carry through- tra ffic. Policy 10. 7: Reserve adequate right-of-way for designated arterial and collector roads on lands proposed for new development. In attempting to design an improved roadway system that would include an additional minor arterial street, Policy 10.6 also states: "Provide access to individual lots by way of local streets to the maximum extent feasible and avoid granting individual access on to collectors and arterials. " If this improved alignment was chosen, this would most likely put the back yards of the development along the new minor arterial route like most other developments along minor arterials. Of course, there is also the more attractive option of houses along a local street that is separated from the minor arterial by an open-space/bikeway. This is a very attractive inedium-density development along Wlut.efish Stage due to a greenbelt., bike path, and service lame fronting the developmezit. The side yards of Houses are oriented t.owlf-irds the street. M this case, t1ougli House fronts would result in an ev eii better appearance. � r t F ; .WNW Ar won.- .w.� r Either way, I think it is important to recognize that a free -flowing minor arterial that offers a good alternative to Meridian Road is needed here. The only way to cause a diversion of some of the current Meridian Road traffic coming from Foys Lake Road is to provide a quicker route to Highway 2 without delays like new unnecessary traffic signals and long waits at stop signs. This idea accomplishes that and gives Foys Canyon traffic (approximately 3,750 cars per day) an alternate to the already crowded S Meridian Rd (5,570 cars per day at Peterson School and 9,580 cars per day along the side of Albertsons). It is also important to consider that this is probably the last opportunity between the arterial roads Meridian Rd, and Dern Rd / W Springcreek Rd (site of another fatal accident last month), where you could construct a new minor arterial boulevard. This potential new minor arterial boulevard, if unimpeded by the "friction" of stop signs and driveways, would most likely have been the route for those involved in that accident as they were going home from the Christian Church on Foys Lake Road. My family does not use Dern Rd because the intersection at Highway 2 is so unsafe. Unfortunately, the next intersection to the west is not much better. You might have the idea that the bypass project will serve in .lieu of a minor arterial connector through the project site. while it will help to reduce some of the traffic on Meridian Rd, studies have shown that drivers do not use interstates or expressways to get -on at one ramp, then off at the next, especially when there will be two traffic signals for the ramps at the US 2 1 Bypass interchange. Besides, any traffic bound for the Kalispell Hospital area from Foys Lake Road will not benefit from the bypass. The applicant's traffic study also mentions that US 2IAppleway drive "will fall to LOS F by 2013 regardless of the Willow Creek subdivision". The proposed mitigation is to restrict westbound left --turns at this location in the future. This will only make the situation for northbound Meridian Rd traffic worse approaching US Highway 2, as those drivers heading west for Lila will be diverted to Meridian Rd. A proposed, linear, minor arterial through the willow creek site would do a lot to encourage this type of thru traffic to avoid using Meridian Rd then Appleway Cyr to head west. Restricting westbound left -turns at US2/Appleway will only exacerbate problems at US2/Meridian. Criticism of the Traffic Study The trip distribution diagram for the traffic study is shown below. I have included a further breakdown of the percentage of overall trips (shown in pink) on additional segments (those that were missing from the report), the existing daily traffic (2003 data), the existing plus project daily traffic, and the percent change in traffic to various streets (shown in yellow) in the project area. ---------------- F oys Lake Road -�'�,`"'�'� ear a"-) Street west - l e i t,5 V, C.4. � + [ - r . -• Actual current travel patterns would indicate that the amount of project traffic being distributed to 7th St W, 2"d St w, and Center St seems to be high. I believe that a more realistic trip distribution should be used, as follows: In either scenario, the following minimum impacts will be realized at build -out: Read Segment or Intersection Increase in Daily Trips Foys Lake Rd, west of St 55% Meridian Rd, at Peterson School 25% 7 St W, east of Meridian Rd 44% 2 nd St `IIJ, east of Meridian Rd 23% Center St, east of Meridian Rd 10% Meridian Rd, along side Albertsons 4% US Hwy 2, west of Meridian Rd 16% Intersection of US Hwy 2 /Meridian Rd 20% Many of these impacts could be reduced by creating the minor arterial boulevard through the project site thereby reducing the traffic from Foys Lake Rd that uses Meridian Rd. While the traffic study does a pretty good job analyzing existing and proposed conditions at most of the above intersections, no analysis, or mention of impacts to the intersection of US 2 / Meridian Rd is made by the study. For this reason, the study is grossly inadequate when you consider that this intersection is currently functioning at Level of Service E in both the morning and afternoon peak traffic periods. The lowest score for Level of Service is F and if no improvements are constructed at this intersections as a result of this development, the Level of Service will drop to F during both daily periods. This is a nationally recognized unacceptable level of traffic delay and congestion according to the urban planning and engineering profession. As a result of poor level of service at this location, there is a large amount of current diversion to local residential streets like 5th Av W, 2nd St W, and 7th St W. As soon as the traffic signals being required of the development are installed, this additional "un- met" demand will relocate to the most direct route, partially negating the higher capacity of the signalized intersections. Also as a result of the newly signalized intersections, the prevailing traffic speeds along Meridian Rd in front of Peterson School will increase. This is not a safe situation for parents dropping off their kids in the Meridian Rd turn -out or those kids whose parents would still encourage them to walk. Location of Proposed southeast Development Roadway connection to Foys Lake Road One simply needs to look at the distance (370 feet) between the intersections of Meridian Rd with Appleway Dr and subsequently Center St to know that the development proposal for the southeast access and Foys Lake Rd is a terrible idea. The proposed southeast access is only 175 feet from the future southbound bypass ramps. It is Inevitable that in the next twenty years these ramps will be all -way stops or traffic signal locations. If you have ever driven in any urbanized area where adjacent intersections are too close together and there are heavy turning movements, you will know that this is a bad design. There is no reason why this intersection could not be moved two hundred feet to the west. The view looking soot hbound down Meridian Load from in front of the Finish Line Casino as traffic waits to approach Appleway Drive and Center Streets. It is not unusual for traffic to back-up on a daily basis all the moray to the Albert.son`s parking lot. This location is avoided by marry motorists, but lit the event improvements are made, additional traffic will return to this location. Traffic trying to turn onto Meridian Rd from Appleway Drive tnttst, wait for courteous drivers to let theni in. Those that turn left are in an unsafe turning situation as they cannot see traffic comitig from their right when southbotind traffic allows th.ein thotigh. This is a similar situation to what could be expected if the southeast, development access is located too close to the southbound bypass ramps, as is currently proposed. Lack of Review by the Montana Department of Transportation This past Friday, I spoke with Jim Freyholtz, the Traffic Engineer for MDT assigned to review this project. He indicated that he is meeting with other MDT planners in Helena next week to make decisions on the proposed accesses to State Highways. Both US Highway 2 and Foys Lake Rd are State Highways, and therefore, there is no certainty that the north -south route thru the site or the accesses along Foys Lake Rd is acceptable as designed. It is premature to consider this project for approval without any approvals for the entire access to the project site. It would also be inappropriate to approve this project for more than 120 units without a condition of approval that would assure the northernmost access connecting to US Highway 2 can be obtained. I am very uncomfortable not knowing what that roadway design may look like. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. I know I am just one member of the public, but I think there is a lot missing in this design. This project is located in a unique position to make much needed improvements. I plan to elaborate on these concerns, as well as architectural and density issues at the hearing on Tuesday. Sincerely, Pete Wessel 121 Rainbow Dr Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 257 -3'149 Pete Wessel a@, hotma l l . co m vc` w. If R. M" �1 rR. T.r W. r ......... . w . .r ^ v. . . . . . . . . . . . . We �. y, KLL , J=. r/ v ... . ,: .. n WAV >n uy. ' y l.:.:::..... a'' r w Y �a mayw; < =' . . N AIR w. ........... ?�T :ems f: rr , <aj za r .....� ....... ,.., n. ,...... ,....................mow.......,.^... .r„ ,:... ,_ r,„„ r.... ,.,. . �. - ........ ........ ......,...... „_................ ..........r..„.. .. .,...... .a•, -ere - � r: . `""-'� .. .. .. ........ .r:. •......--�,::''":•,::: is .. /::,:. .�� ..e0l .... ... ... z ....... .. .... ..........,, ... .. .. ^.., r.. �, ., /'.... ..✓.. .... ....... `"��M:'r `ram. .... ., .... .... ... .. ,... ^ ...:...... .... .., . .. .. ...... ....... ......... ✓ :.:.^ '::ram is e;;C�• ^... .. C .... r ✓n..�'.�: .. ..... ....... ................ „.......... ........�....•. •.y: :.,: �........�,�. . /fir :y<, ,`fir"�''? •,yx' . .:.r •,; ry�C r' -a -. .. .. .. .. ✓ / .. ..... ........... .. .. r ..... ^ . .. , . \. .... ...... i•. .rT . fj✓,�r, r.•+7>„ ..r'.. :•w'a N',:`'`a',.r.:.✓•."✓`w"'>� .. .. ... .... ..... 'v. .. .. .. ..... .. .. n .. .. /, r . '\ '.''"'ram='. �.�n`'v': "`'%� � `�::r''.�''^ �.�•'::� �"'\ . ...ram... 01 ffillv r:,, c•i:,... H ti <? ^ ,ram ``-'>•M' a/•'"` , " >'.>.. .. .. .. _..,.. � � ... .... .. .... .. ... ..,. ....... ..... .. .... ;•r . ,�,.,� .ram=^.., r.. .V•, w Ron r r.... .... .... .... ............ .. . ,. ...... J.. ... , r�, .. ... -.../T •. ";:::,a ` ''•.zip .i.... ^. , a.; ` ........... ,., ....,».;e•,a. ,:;.. .. .,'./ Ham•... "✓ ,-.. .. ,�.... . \ ate........, .. ..,_.. , ....>�. , .. ..... ........... .... .. .... ^ fir.✓.. /..•/ .N':i :`;mow✓ ..�., ^•, j'; ."y. \,. .,,'7=":^r z-.:.ice-<:' . � �.' "•. mow.- ,e . h!•r J :�.: .Hb1a.$anic" "i-�r/.r: �., .y:N G'.'%x.��zv: •:i:�: ...,"4. ."" Yl.=i`%i:.;,-v"..:•.:w�...s::',rn?raw:`•w �,.. �"i ,Yn.. V 'v � ✓ . ✓'`" ". 'v use'.. �' �v;..•:..,: r OW ............... Donald &wren Cromwell L �` i.1 �' lME 340 McGregor Lane, Marion, Montana 59925 (406) 858-?498 April ?, 2007 City of Kalispell P 1 anning Department l 7-tad Street East, Suite? I i Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE. Notice of public Hearing, Kalispell City planning Board and Zoning Commission April 10, 2007 -- Ashley Heights, LLC. Dear Mr. Sorensen, We are the homeowners of 702 Ashley Drive, Kalispell. Our single family home is located on the western end of Bismark Street and Ashley Drive. We are temporarily out of the area and will not be able to attend the hearing. However, we would like to respond to your notice of public hearing letter and provide you with our input for the April 10, '2007 hearing on the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LLC. for annexation and rezoning. We object to the proposed zoning change requested from Ashley Heights, LLC that would change the zoning of their 8.5 acre tract of land from R-1 to R--4 (Two family Residential). As you are well aware, the area directly to the East and to the South of the 8.5 acres owned by Ashley Heights, LLC. s already zoned R-4 and Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense from approval previously granted to Owl Development and others. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem with Owl Development and other developers because of the small lot sizes, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads to provide safe ingress and egress. As you are well aware, although Owl Development reached an agreement with the City to limit the number of two family lots as a condition to receiving their final plat, there were significant problems that subsequently developed which resulted in several. lawsuits filed against Owl Development. We do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of County R--1 , as long as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding degradation of services. We do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex into the City of Kalispell with the R-4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current zoning. A change of zoning to R-4 to allow for two family residences is totally unacceptable. Let's learn from our past mistakes from S unnyside, Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving this zoning change. Respectfully submitted, Donald L. Crom yell Karen L. Cromweil F ! U " AIR 2907 KALJ�P ELL PLr N't'41 G DEPARTMEiN City of Kalispell Planning Department 17r-2nd Street East, Suite 2 11 Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, April I� 2007 P � -- Ashley Heights, LLC. Dear City of Kalispell Planning Cornmissioner(s): <,,.,,-- -,..,.p Date: _ f � We are homeowners in the S annyside Subdivision ' and would l�K'e to comment on your notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City PlanningBoard and zoning ColnnllsSlon.'. April 10, ?007 regarding the proposed request by AshleyHeights, LL C. g for annexation and rezon mg. We object to the proposed zoning change that would g change the zoning of the S . 5--acre tract of land from R--1 to R-4 (Two family Residential .The� area directly to the East and to the South the 8.5 acres in question is alreadyzoned R4 t of -o accommodate awl Development's request for zoning change some ears -.� g g Y ago. Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense andr it 's in the best interest of the Y e do not believe City. The density of this area has been an ongoing proble m because of the small lot sizes, overcrowd. g g p ing of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate ro ads Dads to provide safe ingress and egress. We do not object to the annexation of the roe w' as 1 - property rty with its current zoning of bounty R.- l long as the City is confident that it can provide services without ' of sere p thout a corresponding degradation ices to city residents. It is our position that we do not need to create anot her Empire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex in to the City of Kalispell with the R-4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and co . p consistent with its current R-1 zoning. A change of zoning to R-4 to allow for two family residences s is totally unacceptable. LeV s learn from our past mistakes from S unnyside, Empire Estates and other over ly dense communities by not approving this zoning change. T hani you for your consideration in this matter. r Respectfully submitted. f f .mot ' I X Subd' v s-on r1olneowner PropeMr Address. ` � k'jf rn E E'E r,- Q- � 7 L U u 9 2097 K,ALiS,PEr _ PLA- N ING MAIST�v r_'NT Date: City of Kalispell Planning Department 17-2 nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, April 10, 2007 — Ashley Heights, LLC Dear City of Kalispell Planning Comrnissioner(s): We are homeowners in the Sunnyside Subdivision and would like to comment on your Notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and zoning Commission., April l o 2007 regarding the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LLC. for annexation, and rezoning. g We object to the proposed zoning change that would change the zonin g of the 5.5-acre tract of land from R-1 to R-4 (Two family Residential). The area directly to the East and to the South of the 8.5 acres in question is already zoned R-4 to accommodate owl Development's request for P q zorung change some years ago. Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense and we do not believe it is in the best interest of the City. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem because of the small lot sizes, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads to provide safe ingress and egress. we do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of County R-1 ,w as long as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding degradation P g �` of services to city residents. It is our position that we do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with.... overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex into the City P R.of Kalispell with the -4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current R- I e zoning. A change g of zoning to R-4 to allow for two family residences is totally unacceptable. Let's learn from our P past mistakes from Sunnyside, Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving this zoning change: Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, tiup s cie �Subdlxvrls.io I I Property �-Address: 2 0 7 1 DLJ KAU'S ELL PLafq li%[G. DcPni� �ir21T Date: 6 7 — City of Kalispell Punning Department 17 -- 2 d Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59941 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, April 10, 2007 — Ashley Heights, LLC. Dear City of Kalispell Planning Commissioner(s): We are homeowners in the Sunnyside Subdivision and would like to comment on your Notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission Aril 4 . g p 1 , _447 regarding the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LLC. for annexation and rezonin g. We object to the proposed zoning change that would change the zoning of the g g 8 . S-acre tract of land from R-1 to R.-4 (Two family Residential). The area directly to the East and to the South of i the 8.5 acres n question is already zoned. R4 to accommodate Owl Develo me ' p nt s request for zoning change some years ago. Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense and we . y do not believe it is in the best interest of the City. The density: of this area has been an ongoing problem because of the small lot siz es, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads to provide safe ingress and P gz' egress. We do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of Count y R 1, as long as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding p g degradation of services to city residents. It is our i position that we do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with th overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex into the City of Kalispell with the Rw4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current R--1 zoni nIn Achange of zoning to R-4 to allow for two family residences is totallyunacceptable. Let's le 'J learn from Our past mistakes from Sunyside, Empire Estates and other overt dense communities b a y v not approving this zoning change. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, � t Sunny side Subdivision Homeowner Property Address:. 9 W) E C [ � � � R 0 L)9 "USPELL PLAN�1ING uI'-:rP�;RT'0, 1P_ it'lT Date: ►-I _R 5 -- 0 7 City of Kalispell Planning Department 17 _? nd Street East, Suite ? 11 Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, April 1� 2007 �- Ashley � � y Heights, LLC. Dear City of Kalispell Planning Commis sioner(s): We are homeowners in the Sunnyside Subdivision and wo uld "like to comment on your Notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and Zorn . g ng Commission, April 10, 2007 regarding the proposed request by Ashley Hez hts LLC` g � . for annexation and rezoning. We object to the proposed zoning change that would change ange the zoning of the S . 5 - acre tract of land from R- 1 to R-4 (Two family Residential). The area directly to the East and to the South o the 8.5 acres in question is ahead zoned R-4 f Y to accommodate ��vl. Development's request for zoning change some years ago. Sunnyside subdivision is alread y too dense and we do not believe it is in the best interest of the City. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem g g p because of the small tat sizes, overcrowd' ng of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads ads to provide safe ingress and egress. we do not object to the annexation of the roe with ' . as 1 � property �Y its current zoning of County R.-1, long as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding degradation of services to city residents. It is our position that we do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex into the' City of Kalispell with the R-4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent . p nt with its current R.-1 zoning. A change of zoning to R-4 to allow for two familyresidences is tot g ally unacceptable. Let's learn from our past mistakes from Sunnyside, Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving this zoning change. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, S unnvside Subdivision i iorr eativner Property Address: As it t �r_ `R, 2007 Date: City of Kalispell Planning Department 17-A2nd Street East, Suite � 11 Kalispell, Montana _45 9901 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, April 10, 2007 — Ashley Heights, LLC. Dear City of Kalispell Planning Commissioner(s): 41�6 We are homeowners in the Sunnyside Subdivision and would like to comment on your Notice of Punic Hearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and zoning Commission, April 10, 2007 regarding the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LLC, for annexation and rezoning. We object to the proposed zoning change that would change the zoning of the 8.5-acre tract of land from R-1 to R-4 (Two family Residential). The area directly to the East and to the South of the 8.5 acres in question is already zoned R-4 to accommodate owl Development's request for zoning change some years ago. Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense and we do not believe it is in the best interest of the City. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem because of the small lot sizes, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads to provide safe ingress and egress. we do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of County R-1, as long as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding degradation of services to city residents. It is our position that we do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex into the City of Kalispell with the R-4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current R-1 zoning. A change of zoning to R-4 to allow for two family residences is totally unacceptable. Let's learn from our past mistakes from Sunnyside, Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving this zoning change. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted , Sunnyside Subdivision Ho eowner 1� Propertv Address:Ic r April 10, 2007 City of "ispell Planning Dept. 17 2�4 Street East Kalispell, Nff 59901 Dear ispell City PI Board, I arrY responding to the fourrequests by the Applicant Wayne Turner fat the changes to the property owned by the Charles and wynona O'Neil Family Limited Partnership on Foys Lake Road. The Application h n as pnw rated by Wayne Turner has some m ideal errors of admission. He states on Page 3, won h, "There are no known hazards on the site." This same statement is rated on Page 4, Section I. 1 beg to differ with this statement by the Applicant. This property was a portion of the former Forest Products Co. sawmill site. During the many years of operation of the sawmill this particular area was a portion of a mill pond. This mill pond area was filed in as the operation of the sawmill changed and no larger needed this maul pond. This area was filled in with bark„ wood products, meta. parts from unusable equipment. This fill area could be as deep as 20 in places. Fill was also placed along the banks of Ashley Creels. Some of this f Ili created the sip baxcs that are referred to by the applicant. Please re&r to the aerial photo taken on Aug. 30, 1972 by western ways, Inc, labeled Exhibit #L This fill area also shows in the aerial photo taken to 1980 by the same company. Please refer to Exhibit #2. As you can see this trill pond covered a major portion of the mull site. A requirement by the Planning Board should be core drilling of the ' ' al areas which were filled for the protection of future buyers of this property and the city of Kalispell for liability reasons. The land in this area and other areas of the sawmill site have a high water table that ronfinually fkzded in the spring. The balance of the acreage South of Ashley Crew also has areas of fill in several places. The largest area covers approximately 3 6 acres. This area was the anginal mill pond, This area was filled in with bark and other wood products. Aber it was filled in it was used for lumber storage. Other fill areas shover as light patches on. the 1972 aerial on Exhibit #1. Areas along the creek were also filled_ This fill can be observed on Exhibit #1 and #2. Itis stated in the application access for this site will be through the indusbW area to the North. However, it is not stated what the inuse will be. 1 would think that it is highly unusual to allow residual access to cross an industrial site. The only access to the North would be onto Appieway Drive, as shown on the gal labeled Exhibit #2. Highway #2 is appmxinWely ISO' or so away from this access. Most vehicles are traveling at a fairly high rate of speed as. they exit from the highway onto Appleway Drive. Appleway Drive to the East 'is a very narrow road that can barely handle the currentvehicle use. f believe that this some access is proposed for the remaA der of the. SO/TO 39 d CO g ia-ii a L1oo ci E {,1 i P99ZI.5Z90b P V • �; [. I PIR7 ! 7R l PM Page Two, City Piing Board, April 10, 2007 subdivision, as an access point. This access will Create traffic congeMon a very serious safety concern►+ The Petitionr ` on1n states the deed for smaller lots. However with the record number of subdivision requests for small lots with annexation approval that have already been granted pr6 ary approval 1 question his supposed need for high density lots. A r& g to the paper approximately 6,300 small lots are waiting at this time for finalplat approval. The developer should be required to present substantial evidence as to the need four the change to allow this zone age for this project. The applicant gated in his&pIicatign.&mB=cdnit Derelo on Page 25 that "'The Applicant concluded that the adjacent property owners, general public and the new residents of Willow Creek will benefit from the requested relaxations, rather than be negatively impacted by them." Actually, the adjacent owners property values will be seriously and adversely impacted. R- 1 zone regulations were followed to the letter for Stoneddge the subdivL*%'on directly to the West. They are not been followed in this proposal. The Applicant is asking for 9 variations to the regulations and has not Presented evidence as to the necessity for these changes. This plan does not conform to the neighborhood. The adjacent property lots to the 'Lest are 1 acre in size or 44,0 sq. ft. The Applicant plans to back lots of approm' ately 14,000 sq, ft up to the lots in Stoncradge that are 44,000 sq.ft. in size. It appears that he does not plan to install a buffer zone, but plans to nu=' mite haw many little tiny lots that he can cram onto the property and bw the tid audacity ' o cW m it won't have an adverse eff 3 The Applict wifl be the only one to benefit $'orn this v&dationA The Applicant in his Major &bdiyisI*gIZrefimiMallica ion answered N/A to the 5 questions regarding his requested variances. I believe that he should be required to give a more detailed answer to each question because a subdivision could be planned for this property that would not requwe the variances that the Applicant is requesting. The Staff Report on Page 33 Section E refers to the Zffc9s on AgdWWm and ' c 1tMW Facilities. q`he March 1 , 2007 letter from Mr. Turner Ws to address the actual facts regarding the puffing site, water rights, water right ownership recorded pertaining to this pumping site or POD. The details are My spelled out in a document titled ` Settlement A,gre=ent' dated July 17, 1987, 'Phis doewment was recorded under the recording #2000291114250. This pumping site is the main POD for one of the water ruts listed in tWs docunwat, The mement,s listed in this document are not shown on the Preliminary Plat for Willow Cr . From a legal standpoint these easements must be revealed to future buyers of the lots in this subdivision. Three of these easements are very clearly detailed and directly affect this property. They are limed on Flathead County records as Cerd cafe of Survey No. 8698. A 3 0' easement runs from the POD along the Forth property boundary to the property 9e/2;e 3DVd 00 DNia-iina aooma-lTm V99ZL9Z90V EV : G z LOOZ /7,P /PA Page Three, City Planing Board, April 10, 2007 line ending at the Stonelidge. Another easement crosses the prop!rty from Meridian Road to the POD, A turd easement rugs in a North/South direction on the boundary fine between Ston.eridge and the proposed willow Creek subdivision. This is a 60' easement with 3 0' on either side of the property. Thi s 3 0' easement on the Wil low Creek side will directly affect the useable space on the west end of the lots that border Stoneridge. I have briefly described these . The recorded document spehs out the details and allowable uses of these easements, W. Turner's letter dated March 16, 2007 would lead one to believe that he will own the water nights at this POD and that this letter should take care of the problems with this site. This is not true, If he has an agreement regarding water rights in his purchase agreement of the property he will only receive a portion of the rights at this POD. 'Three other entities also ovum a ire. I own a portion of these rights, the 60 horse pump and improvements at this site. Roger O'Neil also owns a. share of these rights. He faked me a letter regarding this POD and asked me to read his letter into this public record. It is as follows: see attached letter Page 43, #46 of the staff report requires the transfer of ground and surface rights to the city of fi spell. It must be noted that only the portion that Mr. Turner wil1 acqu ire at time of purchase of the property can be transferred. Page 44 #47 of the staff report requires the pump station and any associated mainlines to be removed prior to the fiat plat of phase 4. when property is purchauml it is pu.rchamid subject to e;dsting easements of moord. I sincerely expect that the easements regarding this POD will he honored. As an owner of t� water right with this historic POD site, I do not want my pump equipment,, my undergrowid pipe or any of any Unprovements removed from this site. I hope that you will consider my comments in your decision regarding the requests presented by the Applicant for review this everting. He has requested major changes that will meet this area forever. He has not shown compelling evidence to �~t�antiate the necessity for these changes. He is simply Ong for the R-3 none change to allow a higher density on this property. This will benefit hina, but not the existing neighborhood. Plea follow the zoning regulations and deny his requests as presented. Thank you for allowing me time to present my comments on the 'Wayne Turner requests this evening. Sincerely, l L y Marry ain 90/60 99Vd 00 JNIaiins awma-lim P99ZL96900 EV :0Z L00UN/60 I . I-0i , ..y r' .. R..r#• . . ..e t-e�.,iFfls' }s, )t^•s: F.: , i, `•+ •e,,� r , .i.=• , ! "' fi {` ,: r =. , .,;'�i[; )+ fr ,. [_l�rytar a F r . fiy' - w .• _ e •t' a ' Yk �i' cif, t `' ,' .r 'i iL`•' = i i . f . „w, .i... w4. r { ,• k€ax r••' i` ., ',r,y,• .r.€::.,..i ! ..Sr , , :! L r +14p i i� i (.r •, i'€'''i�� -}' Y ' i i -Yi f'• . [ - . . .;, f.' brijY€ 1 �{ ,r Y,,: .. f°..3•`• k .Kk ' i' r �{ : y:" :T''.i ),� _ 1; t t y •; '.. .Y I ?.`�f 3 I's i •`1 "7e ° € .1 • ii '• "i • i i' S' . s Y-]- .�`41. [ •S ia, \F s4." •F .i' i`£•'{ '� '.i . 1, �I i # "f f r k 3 €t ' Y `E s.` • i • e, l 't t . ' a i Ile .. r 4• i n �t� °jF F' 1 r s rai. "s s , iF F:' • r s $g / F, i,1 3 1 F r. k �•L-:: _ 1 ti'E �°i � 'irk• . : • 1i' r �r.�r 4' ,'F' 1 r _ � 9 ` s#• a,''; r S{ � � i,i` `, °� !a €'C' € i' � °� 7 � •s.' t ii ,x •r r7. i,� S�� , r €St ,f:•�, ( ' E-i'' 7i�`. �' ' r'' '1"Q{Y . �5 . �. 'I € a', €, ,e• .; -i�[ T s `_r s•� { .t• # 3,.51 i�a a {,i y {' s�1 - s1:`i �s: y-t _ e€ y'` .6 i`t: i•_ a P,i • Er' l=! �� j•1' {16 ,A F g'� k- IF> _ 't t i 4 bi. tip%` i rF Lei !. ' �I'(E P e a R t Ir<�•'' f'F ' Ax '4 v- . r-t 4 '•iif f - :I y r` }_, , 7,F ; 't r� "s ` L n L. 1 :ll1`,. 'E 1r �A . L' i _ ,{ • F' i i €" a i 1 . •F •r .s e,, I 1� , ' i •T a �{ y i E i r .�' ' 1 : •L. ;' °Y,. _ z. 1 3. _ '•;� i r s € i ri. ( , { G u ,•" '.i �• F•L Fs•' , • •. f. s, t is' • F I.t °+3y'c= '€ ` • f i' ,•i ? :'/•€ `'!'` j i °t s ,A; it i• F it'! Se �' i' : . .=F,• .. ie .•'€' Fs, •;i jS ai i ii:-► i' yfr i "'•#"='6i s i t' i'•=• y r r "' .. :4 �y s: i L'' Y{ } 'fir' •►.l r ! 4t. .�i/ c F•ic 1' � � _��` �t: 'i � ,k� I �, •- 1 jj i • °'i` 31 i' ` M iF � t } ` ;•' `5'4�, l,fs � S 4` � w r ' • 1. " �' Y d h = e i '�'� j],•"1 11! x rr'-- iflE `! I '/ a P F Y�°,` F R •lFAi .� k .i € ! '�11r '•i' 'E.� E `%• SFL € r. • i' { kF'i , riy : �•.1r�c# • el"I", 'I. _ , r i ¢ T 1 �- _'P , i! f'. r. F r 4 7 .1.. r.,,•..r , , ri. fix: " * w �a r €IA1 ,F . , .,E 1 ,i € J'h r, r i,. �€1r 6 �e., 1 F .. � 'IC - it .a _ s nrf 1. {; "• : �. •, r �fr•€ �.t =tii t •' f i; ,�; L •'s.:. -. �,€� ,,� .((�< i ,d?�'' � �j t'�� {,�. i� h '>•>�,.,�t. r�.tt+.., • , ,. Er. ,_ • ,: r i,� 11�. i`i'�"�'�'�e�l�� r 3': ss{{ £ =.),3 ;.F .€ �f�€ ; w,,,. <• `I'r. '„ e�-!s -'r 1A. ti'. )�� i'� f' "i.. 3f rF a#,{r= r ka,I j.e`! if` >�r' ?' 1!, r €.s, a• :. r = e� 3 + et , . F'.. ! iR'" .L < i 4''i P,.i. vi4-g+'; :f •r=' i I .� ¢ 1 s'i3 # � s' Si €i r € :�n .r :i€ xFsi�. 11i €' i ',lf. ": .TF �* {{ l• r i iL:r,; �.:{ ■ •F� ,►i. Iy+ E' € `ia ,,:1 �wt. 1 i . .h`€"p�s ii . i '. •; h, 1' , i€+ < � :•. ¢ !1` #.Ci! .s�d # •;•j#" T f .:�!?s .' _ a'1' .,r•><;�,.,I .><. �rIl ?' 'tii'v' $:': 1.%,_ i1 i4 '' , Vj 1 ' F,�.F'- '.€. .al :• { a 'i!`3 <#I: :.. i €� _ £ . 1rF '[rA t1, tLA� •F! € •`Y• t 1 11... V.i .. :�,,.,>ti , »�.ir...:r= . 3r Irll:. :1"', ,'.'' �t`3 . r� �' �!€ ('+ ,+Is .; ,F ;€'E; F3 r � r s iI;t'i, , f .� i �'P1Q € €,rt ..r '}. #i. A -.�• { .•a,e1I y€;€�I € , €. r s 1 €-,r.F 1�! F t, Fla_ " ? t ' ; : €e y ti c.'.F• ' z y {[ y "iF '-3b` 4 }�j ( 'F jl.�• r i`'ae' , E N, }{$1!+ �s A 1 r I• %i "f ,° ` c r . �d� c€ F3 it • .a + •�s� i. ' ' FI`/F {{•P '3 • Fr: _ , ; �', i ' x ' . !t' ti .� ...c Ei..F M fikr�tri.it Er,; r, �r µi'yrF 5�.. ii F, •Y ;n ' d. % ,� :.!•.. v.$! .,€. � ,! �,. 'F �'>.... , :Y:.: .'fir:, i a. �✓ 1....•S :y€ _ 5:, i i {. of .;h Y.. i• }.ir 's i, '. j.yv ,+}+ - r l F..( 1.;..,. E : Fr .i r9r 41 : 1,#. .ri 4' € F , �h "Y€' s 'r-° 4 ii°i. `k;k, i � :� , Lv. s 4 r R <,,i a ' �, T k t.: r! ,d _ 'I,• f € ► t € i,. !r ' - `f. ; . *3' , ; ` :� -„ 1�:. r i€�f :t#•;�4 .r' ,„ s p ,,. i , •� °`Y r r� €'.• sh'1 =-..�a. t .. T € . :E € .. '•"„ € �r ,�� . F =:r .{� . t. 4` 1 iM4�: �r i•� s 4 : . 't .: .. - i' ♦'s'.. ,r: ' R: `, •> •3� a 1' .! -, #' 1;• '3 Fr,I r. •k fl' t '� sl : I#•rt .,• s;g;.c p f" �{ra F - lr�;- f. ,Ei`s`�::'#•s F, { E 1•.� 1' 1 s.=pr•r }i' itF a . ° Fi• •• #'F} +Y i ,i 31h t�"€ s #l�xF Lis ■SY: ,°E !R+ '# F :.t "! • ' } s i <• - _ .• _ , ' ,. 9 h # e' } 1 1• { fy i € € y - F _ I k 1 +f =1 f,e• y� A-1• ' l Ih j ;i� �!':� ' +� k '' €'!1. F, . A s t,• ► A 6 i'.j k •rr K ;.tt �,= r. 1`':• r' i t�4' L • ' s. >r. •.x '{., .. € _s ;jyp/ •sr'.`.e., s' 'atl. �:€ Yy ii.,}.. ` �Y . #�II#i` �a .�la €•i. s-.i•`a>3; '-`St ii-! ,€: - ', I+' !'" e . 'MSH O S'1; f r F i r#+ ir�'!s. "d' a 6. F Y•♦ y F I y#Ll {I ,i•' € f :, _ a • i ° ° • I .�3 '•�(r.i r4'" •{$'; � -. €? s .�1' i ri { .j r'. y ' ,y !" •Y F - Ilir ,t .?, �' '! i �E J � "��J",I,�,-'�j.�.�',s • € ;t 1 i�. My i= '# S„ `:}f; !i. i Ii`- i +. ' f [ �f � ��} , , F . � ,r,t . ,- z : €i .+i't' `. ti,I . p'�e{F r: , �' ,, € -an •;-r y:1 ..�{ ,� >+I � €Ni ,i€tr�iT . €€�t , F ... ' S ' r t , . ..i{�7a:, . its r�;, I !_° ii if,'j Er. .�� x�F.f'€ -<l s �'S # w :aZFI.I it?:si F•�, ix,., • :1 k€(F. '�` e: .€ ,i�i 1 t•r 1' }, • I +j '�r'�i s i. 5 Ttt.F( '•€,! '••iS 9I, i • ,*' €�•�,1+€rwfi� i # y, '` iY1. ` * �' •` �! E' :fa� ,� ;_ �LC{;; fir. }}��, r,� •e1 y J` .i '; gg: •, I'` . , • $ , €. < f i i• i t .rl !ri i` P �. C i ,a .t1#• 'si -,j 'i !'4 1 €`� #r!' 1't ;';,�' i. / /a+A�i1t }'+ia0006—�" ' Y i ,rC i i 3.3J4s1,1f•Ifvliirdr, !E'y'`° Prrl•'.° ti•i Jr R i.r •_ It �^ i S -. r ,r 7rE�€ 1� i � rjp €j',yj4 a y aF•','�,.-,,i��'1t�'� F*", 5 Jf � ' =}f .iI60►F t �• - �'. '';'� . i` s•r�i' `•q 4 r!';'._ .; ,�'.•y } .}� IT, ! i {" ` �j �t {� a r sb,� A :rr ! �°; j '; s.r 1 r 4 � &k, s.,ls i l�,•:, d i ri it �;. I tl 't i�. -I;E"''» n r ' y E € ik.�, "� f t i °.. i r N € ` 'Iir • r.' 'i(. li f' S l r•F `; �!,- {!' ]': ," Y i t V f. i'€ '#�• z '�r. �' .�'o 14; : a,. . ■ i J F 7f tf: r!'' �•. . c .f 4 [) �! 3' -� I fry 17��! ;il .r . "% .�''ys 't„I.- {,ii, l,y,..., }'. k Yr�EC',. �. .3' 1..•�'j.. {'. .'i �.ry',I•€- •fia'�i1 1 - • # 1 !! �''c`' f! fr• F° rIr 1 r F �i 1' iif • !, rF `;.il �` Aii ' : •t. , � . ° `+ i y)7 Lit }r. • 3rt r' 1f i , s i,` € ! Ir !� lI�;, • 1 " ►1 _ 'Ikri 6, �i +i`■ � i' S' F ks 1 �1 s i i €.! :AI Y +�.-'• Y.r. F s, .s( ! �f €, k . .!' �tll�: �s 'yI iSi7�;i1F,#`,s'{,;• Isi �'€ , , . K. .. %.,'.: •.. `*��V. . € '■ #'Ir. a i(',i rM. .fit . 't t' %,.I ]. p_,, .� ` !;-,� �j�-'�e; j�iyly j�7yyi. # ,•' , �• �J;t , i { . � . (r, f .. . r� r r - . - + $, I.. .. , i � ;jol' r.l, 1: ,y `'-i,i'+!; il' `F •€ i • €i F i; , ! .�1J E k 1�� 1eIQ%'"i• s.•fi'v , Sir' �F'. Lt .!-j',.i #» . r : '•iW i , , . : e, = F f ` >F i �'' .�I •1rF {, �F.i4�F�4, J 1" E rlrkT.£f- _'�!' •)�'s•� r 1. i '\ P ' ! € , i 4I..� ,'y, ' •�<. ►. :l'=1 ,' --, . ..., i;.i h t r,,, q- , Ef 6,r t •�:'€`:F,t' { rips +�, .i� €,[rw `�ai 7€� d' s..; ( I3 ; + _ rr •; 5� •�. , - e. .. , ,r-!••rilrr,io� 1, ,4r s �`'. Y•, i f',sl' a s s S'.i�.�[i1jr rs r , ,3 T . (.' r, 3 `. E .. ` ri;. ' . 1€',' : �.. S R h �' ' ! i € "�.. ,�r�+ li 7R !f ■ {, "eai.!!it * %" 1; .r i, � , 1 ' F .i; .,"r. !. F ,€ d . c . '4 �. ? =i. •-�!}'a .� 'i3 F- V ,fy T' iIi•1' r) .€` '.#tF ire If > i`r 3' ]11 • '`S'•} , , '4! 3 ` •£' n _ .0 ' !io x, F• t i'E i€, i _ t r _ _ € _ ,i i Y i,' si - ,:�wrfa ...: �'' ..111 ��/= r S�� ` [ 3 i • .fxF 'Iw .€ i f. i.I I _ •1 i 5€" , rn i f. • ` ;'. [r r r , , t ,� .:y 1, r'Yaw' . 'r' -' ' ,y�f ' <{ j -}'' , ` F a 't." i A.!"; 3 t . it',=T',c' io •�!' krF'i� r. 'F - ,.. - 1 .1.`€.i .r..,, 1 #� .. ;. .:FI. F!'a'� ;'`iL"?+• 'r4 s i t > ,11 i € F.1 ,,i,jo,. , ,. ! . ' ` f . s r!ti? t! • b. V�o 's '' " „b: .ilu i1'r'; s'€ ° 1�►i, wj iej'' I+': ! I , .. , •Ili I .%';Ali.1•i,d. !.',rat .,•r' I'i .,key€r ii., . S:.,,r1. ,:gi'ii > f, > " f € - . .. � . •1, - a 1}^'fi ! { �.i�i :V •F .'iIW .. '4'`'' fir• , ! .' ;/'31 y' f . 'r`:sf'•' • r :Ff#- ` i . , •1 in ,hi�•ii. r-r •,{_ ., •? {� { ! r•F (',•_ ,:apfgF •• _ ,ri, €.r.a'ij s y, 9 �� S. i �.'i' r , !. , €• . �rR�N€'V.. •4n•�. ,Sa °�i,A r. , i�x''r. ESQ 4Rr' ei ' ¢ i€i- i 4 tr i.>; ••Fµ°,Y •T' i - 'Ir i• , ( , .i% r �} • E. .... , .sa f . .. !f..' ' i 1 , • • i r i - y" ;''`R r.:� "rR'� b. , ' €. 'yi1' 'i3rt s - , , ,r •` I.,..• r. - .5, .€l `�~'' > y. , „ , i v - r ] tif. i,,,, 's -ss y a .k,' , € , y = ,"1l+'..se ,Y€ `F, .•, si. i, 1• . >i� f .s E• rYrn �' f,' i':riy r!' _, r w> ,3, L +sg' . ' 'l .;�... ,i 6. € =FS- #R e'3: .I #.,�W M1 le f i _',rl.a:F,.-[[ir° ; e. t .t'' r i ; � i ,vF I'=i, i. .i' ' .� •E r " s3'�+ i'!K �qi fir7k l� #,�C'• f• i`I° ��' 3€', I ♦•r' _ °ii• �1 i �14 s.;, t°YI'F,4.;„{y�E ., :e! ..) j;.,i s i;Gl=>' F:t.rir `; € f1i: d•' {''F`,;' d.} ?�''Ni 11 .; '1.,'k'' j3t a , ss 'i''7, . f• • .. - E: €• ."! ." }€1. y 1 Ij€'f q i� ' a' i ,jf €' 3` •i�Yt.t`.€, • ,.f . sr : •,d€ + ; . 4. .: e € f }� f 1 = "k { c. € }� y1 .` ' . k' . lr ti { i1Y •'I E " Pit; l.i14w.�ir' ]•i T� I� i f of °:i.m S , Yy iiwaA irf i"+,£ r q�7F� f L.'► 3 ,.. ..:i • " r'! i�f� . i �""i i[ Y1 •!F iif t` 6,1 tk jra ri•1A►' y �t !. iy}p,, •: tl�€'� � f�j.4.1m,-I z .f,i Y�+'��. �.r.if SrH � ` r•# "''' �M�I{�F#= >IVF.:,. ,• h ■_ - I€,. „"4r'Sg ° i4il ". , 4r PI '.,. i J.., �, [,� . fiF ! �.I •a' �� y, '.11f+�!' .,.•'-.;r€, '1� ,r,, k��.. , �b.,s' r€ii4*. • 4 ,.r ,r"" �. y�IL ,k 4€: +,• r. f,• .A.rl,, •!'° .s11W' ::..1. A M[r+�""-_ - ` €r �} L� i i i, • ,�h`�I, . , :+.e.. ,,I r• A . .°..' ' € I- �;, ,A; .€` r!� � S.t ' ° -Moo A ,,,,A,, d 11[ '!^:�'(,.I" �i= `Y4... a,, i o ..i'. {� ."', S'S" "r s'' i = is F 3F I 3'�s .k„i'�O' .` :1 .:1A:"` �r e f, 'i,' •.1., r,p . , i ,-' ri•.�► ` 4y` i. . I F, i aF {~ i, �[' ' F!€€.; e `'#• =: 'e' +,F ;_' R •i F's -ir°dL., •k. {# it'L I e: ,pi}/� eif,'t 4}3. , ii'1I1.7 • r r ..i u�. r — , y. 1 •_ . .'#�s f f€ ql' �k• ? • F. , �' €; r.r i!; :i+s:. • I'I t`y��,'�Fn ,�.IjrER F.'. fYF M•�€I{ •I' ¢4'`rt "�r. .;,. i Fs#,6,r r'fgf' 3. ,€ 1=y4¢ i, ■ , - . 1. t'F��1^l °rlf f r,]s A � •w° •4i1',YV .*;t i. 1 i*w ;', E , • i ��sI ii . E .. �.' 4,§O. . �i =a€. jtf!- ,Y ". ,t w .r 11.. •iy R` ►a € € . _ _ " y•.. i ;F €L .'!'•. ;q . aF�' Fr• .3r-y I. ,•ii€j.4.b,i ' y,.,�a �.. �i . ,� k+ a 'tH`' i i - - �j� j�;jrrr;4•l, x' ,'�j .":I`iE e �., j )NA .Ili''W! a.r €_,I '€'b: :,}i s`LiI:. •..1<' r. �,, � II,� "'1 1 •y kylt �' .{ _ F `A, e' , 60 } ,� 6 !T+'•f S ' r kft€r' tF'.pri. 4 , .`�1!� r,Pktl y0 -T 57,�,i yo S I • f i I. 'h I y� f rr' f 3 ' f €i w r.r _ ;� I € 1:€'I f i �e • w 4s1�"' (jf tt s = : H �lr*+! '. rl•a' fftN::i i. t" ° r, [ r��/1�1 c r , . , �. <_ ; . )'Ii. tA..t-• € 'ri�R !i �4f F r � �ss �/ ;i .1 _ ki'� -� . •,.. 1 -€.,.. r d ; r, 'F' _€ y / '� :rt{"Si9 `i 'I , } f S ,3,V €Y'�A i'°f i •k'�f '1°' 1� f >� .ram'}' 4 r wii' ' �.V , j • •i; ./ .. 'S' 1 �y •. !y} ,4, i': i= t€r `i p i ` �:• il.;". �[t M€ ..". rk Ui' 1.: "k �' ` .. i d • _+ '"':; "li l,w.1 • R €4'- �r 7. �R€`..11 i s# . A' y :�s- •-w:- #`,i ='o.tf .....{ 1 's i r ,1r `i•> f . i. i 1,�.,. . € `.f •'!'. 'J € 1s F f; ,� ?-` J, , 4r r li�� :N =r €w .€ � . Y f . I ;pllA€ . 1' �£31; �; . y, i �j Sr'• €F .�`" 4' } ts:. I . ' r• w� € 1 �• t: �;�t� F =! €' • • *t_ 3l •• 1'•' "i <- •! ,±•s„ E] 4`i,? <. k 1 ii rr,yi*l- 'i . t3 i ` >s ':,, f� "11[€ S_i •x'• E }" r•, '�wf€s . w w a ++Ir t �'. Y •.:1} ' r • r <.� �k 1 �. ,€.€ ' ,� I. i=. !€ Z. a j F 4 F ! Ill .•I. tF ,i c T,A€,3 , ,, M �iti .+/R�! . rl lr If r' =aF 3 € . • _ .r1w; �yCi•1% F�f` ,,{ o,{,' •ii.,Is,,;,'.'y( ♦ .,,i�•'� y., [:.' ' € t i( ,� €sf 3ii1' .AFC'.€ .,!*Aj��,•• -j. I rr,F '1'L '1 �' ' }r>� �1ri:!•'�'ff$ y.rl.', _ _ ,Y• +} iii.� 'yt'wr t .F.1 i t = F f . .,. `.. - 10,= , � ' 1�r "F 1 :*'tf €'1•aS' 6't .a€( •''S Y{+t£• #, r .•y=f? • .r•• y r #- it #`• , •Yr '•� µr.� rsaIt k� �ti . r 1€, r ,$F�y •Tri' i �e ,r�/• r _ A• i6' i L�' x r ;• , F; h 3 "I 'i'': 1 6 •Rh 9' ' . jr 1'r; (w ik'{f "V;,% .4 Ft . y� 3 ! !Sv " i ft- € s,..€ a.4 t= s1'. 6; , k�� , i F.: s. •E+ ., / ., i i i , 3•a 'i € ` • r' -. a,{ • V {I -1 dv r,3.• �{1. =r�1�'�'3 1 4 al..ip - �,s•'•, !.,, , h.,. F .I.�`ir --I51.• .taw F_ . +'•�.,[' ..i, : F' €_ ,6, AfP . "',`!p [° <L• 1 �,ra., . F' / {�" .a i€ij� ., rr i E S {. f '. F+L C �`i .{ ii ii I • i'O" iR!W �A •• �r, �r . € ft Iwi•• F rY' , i. �It I ... I i I. r 1i1j�1 . r? r � �+ - r s l i .1 « € ' ttt r Ywi' s. {fM!€W01, IWIN € {t# r 11 F'r WA _-- `E'�!is•' Ipt'FF.,-.,=•°i1Ft,.4 • Y •, - -}' {F �''I� y 'J.A . . r, 11 �! i '!,'`'1t€tl,'F 3;.., €. ,.. { '.� € F<E 7j R': 3�7€.IT',Sr� •'�{ ' i E ! a> ,I • sd.111 € ,.S1. , '.1. .y it .,,4- [ •'rr' �`.., , >!.; ! 't+'�>' `,`.► i►n�:r ,kFt,r! [ :: y ,e�,(i lfe , yii.�1.10 ti i;el ,.i., i.' S€: .1S�INd .'i�+x 'i4 * 3 i r, '' s } : 3 si, lrr�€ , " r'° i ,t t' rF k '�, i":i- `r'g;. {-w=r'.l� 4 W =,3 j r 4: ►;svrh,s' ". € €-�',' . :: #i •1€ lfit• i..,l` we A;r,, wi yll� .,.,t s.� t 1. v�i�j; Fgg'` i. ',1Y,r . �' , •'1 3!"'"' ! 3' 1 j , L Lr •.;.w ""!"' . e. { 3 i 1 wL,k . Yp 3 I j ,4, ra> y.I xf,'€s!. ' .F.; 1. • '`jrkl. 7>< r€ r , c ii�•, =i "• r�'.. }€ 7 ,+'•<. A .5 :•°1O;. .€ f 'eeEEI�.v3�rr. 1- 4 �t,k � ;ok T # FI k' L . F >> € kl' i[jy'. k L `..Sr�1 .S. . �t � 1, y t , I. f C'i� I ;i l r .JE;• r= >, 3 `� + i i .€� 3 '{rri . i 1.. F y ..R'. ,I t F k E [,- t` � j�j,�#r€ € rl, { air ; , `r_ j;, w' .. t . € �� L .11 ; f %-, F , 1 Y i i €�' R i ! s. ,}. lirsl€ r +t'L' Jr ,I `• a.#V*.Jr rf a t , r #> .1 ,1 . F : 4` € - '' 4 + ' . F3 ' 4irr�!` .[ .. - ' - .i4N•i+'�i►t`�"' ;ty yri :e.= f e ' �' : {lyi il{ 3x C7' { € I fir' • i, e5•,. i*,�., , �'' t, i u€{L€. is { € i € y'.,,� :,' " E r i , €-=r€I' ,.� . : r,t =. s`.#,r. +�W.: 44 . ':I i �, �'`• F t , A4f . 1 ,�i . •ri•`. r.A ` A . , • �+ f € 1 .€,it` si'{Sj'i' _ 1�y „ '., •i • : y €._ i ?i.� {,.:r q'€A f"j/: -1 %, -1 . '+' iv ..! ?*_ N . - i�.` i L ,:iyl� Il i k 7r !• y► ' rf. i 'y i :iE r( TI fS.l, 1 ",f.A r .:�FikY ,:+i s �°!1€ 1. F3R € ';s'i�,: 4 • .. 3:r f��`JJ�{,,.. rF f �` V. €.. . , . `;' k'F 4RL':€I F` i . t 1 " ! !I", �,.t . if :�€h , .,, € e , € iiij ~` r ,, £ , • -. F . Fi �•' i£ •t, .i ,r ,}4:i ,€c jw' ?r Y .. :. Ty}irl,; �lir}:F :_.r F' = �1 pyy •i' '.sti .r+;£F `FIs i" ''f ' ' _ _. {..: . ors pj .� Fi� `ir, ^F s+ '�'RF 'r Y i �� >Rt ' •, it 1 { i -y,•9 (�Ef+.�f4 •z' ''i{;` I Lil I % lil P ' j { i r 11 ~ it r► , n i .f /! • ham.. r7 * .7i .� �h� i. esr .`t. - L ,1 e 1� t ,.rae-. °Y `,' ."►' - . iiy. s, rir`rr'°' ' {€1'1'.i i�,� n+!N{'.` . ,E,�{"'+ f , i .1 r:i. ar 'i'f '. �- 11. ,, fir€Ji. ir, - ( ..1F , Mk F • + }' . ! 1'i !! Yf # t! 4f .' e yf r i « ! .... �s e TT . . , ¢ " yt C. !w i y - � . e i ;`.l. yr. iF'. S ' It . i * ; € J e,f •r ;'r:,;,'.t''`` s ',F'•e*'f ; 'ifSjt - € '•' # ,' • ii i y [Ir yy a[ i a w ,. }. ` ,F.` 1 +: Si 1, ' ' C-#,,,I- t : ° ",r , ' r r ' 1 iy. € =ii �i. 4 * °`y. ; R' a 3 . -1 � a'I ` i.i{i It tl i F , �,.fir,1 3r`y= I 7�+ Fib a�•'i�' �, `E '`Yf O' ^I� i�, "Ift' i; i {i �i'e* ii . _ r ,i y�A ': , . ji ,i r. s r: ,; y. "c . ° " do i �i,•�q �c � :� rC•k!t ;•'S 1 '6€'i s I'.4"I ' , r _ , . f,.Y�`.i >1,i � F}€ t4 t� 1. .6 y: , a A V a tiY+E Y .1'}}7. 5 4° . ) �i r ` F �j 1 r .. i" 7 r � i. s�a .i . . v#s!1'' , rks 'r ' '.•'s s �•;�_�,)- � ! +>I j:'7k ' " ; [ "► y V Nk, € r •'€'= =r'r<'•i a ` } ' r rs i , i ` tq i+ , =i', 1.- ..,, ....,il: .` . F ,i. = 1 a .l�F.f IM 'i+ SY fr' 11 F 1` r, + {'_3rr "F' _ s'F. t +':{ Ii +,4 �}+ ii Si *i i r r• n: r f - s: _'if I , �H r `�: �iy, r. 1 #�.S Tti., r. r ri 1y f tp Wwww"T41. qrl! r:' yr, , i��i if i_t141,�,. k # r �! ��M� ' f : t �y�„ �6?1•:i *tk _�ili '4��t�0"` " ' , ' ��J ,}!r .i €i .t .,�( `r{F Eiyr t �,3; °a h. € i 3. 4f 4 , #. it 3� _ �,� •, F r ,.. ,p;li:•. ,r:r..' 'T •F. �_. € 'F Ft fi.. ; +, , �. sy r r �.• i'•r' i S I i 3 °• 4 ., r - . s " e • y� �E �. 7 F "*� . i� ,fj *_ v 1 i]. ..a.-3% r ,r` ''[� s F •• •�" r{'�,i iNa '- ;?#�€'-f rl° •s ; � , � ._ � t t• _ _ :�'.!. _ .• .�5� .3 a'li �f., r . �.. ��'rt11, li t. . g i F .i ' S Irt' is AF .i., .r C,F a - $ .L a !r Via` 1.... 'y • - r++•. 't�" r• .{ 1r ;s. .€ .. ` . s", }S • f _ {a`� •'� .!' `' ''' ;i'€', : ikr ; ., .: .; a , M. i,., rs ,:s, y �. ii• "L: +- y_ z" ' am ', .E,' qie :�€;t gi;li . F.' �a .r. j t;Yi ; sa '• 'I 'i - +' ,�'.`i , . - r7 i► i 3f �.W:r-„ka _y. ,,a"._._......_.. -.a .._ r t vSi'f . s`'y +4, . • .i, .r i""'#"?°,#, ,b a .. .. _.._.... ... ...-..� .._.�J___..._..........----...._....�"_..... .rw."..._....r. _. _... _"._. _.....,�.R„.,„„„�_".....w"...-.._..._...._.-.._......._... Er; €die€f,'ft+;;s .1i-i.,+. 1 ., ._'_._.__._...�.._. _.._-... _ ._._..�....._.". -. ......_._.._. '---.....----__.... -- ya �� `' i :t. i i' F'u — ,� ' i.=' i ._ .. "^: r-.n .f•Ci,:. "� iss ' I 7 .y. IF .�' •-i ," it. [ {t Ey.1! F �i. > i`. .! i + , .k , f € 1 h: , 4"v. i ��R7 I;A ru wr1;./ ' -"�' jS t .� 1 r i f' 3. '�4. � rS; , n.. . {'I �st & 4�. �a } , e� 1 I Y; r • l�re ,'%�. �a" a i ; ::i,- .ir F a • -'y ,lc 1' d ..++• ��pr�y y : w ,,_ �- "i'-a t �`'.r'¢i(; .. .;€ yr�l�°+ '�r; �-` +, ., ..;.: f.• =i,y.. pr,: = 'r,- •*�y; s� 1 :: a1Lrr' iiLR1 ,E` •i#f , ;! F ! 'i' tr+I � r tad'' '• , is :,. i , a i : L ; f ' 'It` E 3' 1 _• • @'� .. �Ir V� y ii Ok 11 ..1 •�, f ,. e ft-• k k ,; s. , yy�. .N,i ,:, n ,,.; 15 ,.{r 1 { ■ it r a,'iI, . i f� .,N''!I`e :K .Fi, • . l'/"..� t I- - $ 1 dl' ' '�WS. , A i• •'A• a €ti ,ya .€ I t.:,%a , R� `t y' T.h 'i rr` �Iri , € .. µ t.`e .•''h.4 _ _ : ,oi 4E< Y� .fir .3 fs. -i •>5 } � L r�'.Fr€ �;LEFi '+%3 t�'' ,pR -.�.: - - , _. ": �',3r 6 L..S-r } ! s„' •r € E ;. �r.1 'It y£017W -II p)` .' .FE:. F'{i"E ,: =rv{,€�.f €><( 'L �' .. i-."f"� `` .{i�v;t( I .p€ r ,£,.At .." - •€ ,, 3h i,y�#§ t" • .$ 1 j * .' € .i.i. 3; ,$ ` .+._ b:%' :. o: / •. , 'r�� Yry.{.a (� T'°, -! i .i L1! a i ! ` #£ ��% f I�' •�_ s � �� .( [�:7 !f' I .`£ � . 3 r � ° 1 �! }1 w 1S r F : .try yI:. i to �j. +fi ';'€' J' 1 i si 1._ . q ' t ► .s.: s L hr„ . y 1 p i� ,L ,j , 1,! tirr F .. N,��• cr,':;, ili"r°'t' .:!• #�,�1€'e`',t hFi;w..>:.. .4xI - i-, ke t ! `.W. 9 i t�!: i , s • y'il i•,1 ,€ r �. «.+>,t.'`� ;.�f€ air rN� f*:.:.>.L, r 13r,.:: r.:i ,. i �i[��: �., s �`�'(i� P`, y1 ` 1 � af`: ysw �i. , "4 ! tip :+.* •a ,'r> + r tAPI uz u r u 1.uV P mQger u r4 ma 9 Apf'l 2007 Sam Ccumd City of Kali! ll Pig and Zolatg 17 2n4 St.,. Sit rwjma1l, ITT SM I (Ou-t PaWOZOO R. I Ra: der dated 16 Mamh W07 fr= Bbbc= Tw= wo=mkZ vmWr rr$hts at the W-111aw Crc PUD Liu` S►a Tjw water dghts i =VOIvcd 'wit is ptW art saki owl by WP�ubed Ur=. 1� is sWW wft foe ad al cMides. fir. Twn= pordW WOWd xqxesm 091y 50% Oftb total water 69W. Thm ward be wqWmd aloes with the pwxhaw oftbe pmperty 5 pit WF. Any diw=k ns and mimgtmu =cd to be mado WVOMA9 dW watOr riffs r &mud inn Secdm E pao%* 33,34 agid 46 of the 19f ects on AgdaiLUnul =4 war UWx fadiWes M st imiuall cbe rcSPOcWm Owam As ova ofihe ownership mftm, i ran ftt you Pkaw k kftmecdd at dw m below. r Row L. 0 )Noii 1934 ScenesCt 92024 90 /90 39Vd 00 IIG1IFE GOOMQ-1IM V996L5Z;90P 6P : 6I L006160160 Page 1 of 1 Michelle Anderson From* Lavella Boylan [flboylan c@x aboutmontana.net] Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 1:55 PM To: planning@Kalispell.Com Subject: Willow Creek Subdivision Kalispell Planning Board: I live on 4th St. West and am very concerned about the proposed Willow Creek Subdivision, with over boo new homes to be approved. The traffic down Meridian Road will double and it is already very heavy. I think this project is very inappropriate for the community and this area. Why are you trying to make Kalispell a big city with so many homes all over? It seems like you don't care about public opinion but lust have your own agenda of letting anyone build as many homes as they grant, without thinking of the problems and money it might cause the city, and the people that live here. Why don't you slow down a little and really listen to the people and think about it? Thank you, Lavella Boylan 1314 4th St. W. Kalispell, MT 59901 L APR 03. 2007 D 0'—Pfl I?--- KALISPELL PLAINNiNG L rRT NT I IMS jow 61 Yuma AZ April 2 2007 Kalispell Planning Board 312 First Avenue East Kalispell MT 59901 Dear Members of the Planning Board: n�?Wr r-- f � APR 03 2007 We are writing to protest the annexation of the former O }Neil miu property to the city of Kalispell for the following reasons: 1) The present infrastructure is inadequate for the present use. we live at 1220 3"d Street west merest of Meridian Road. Currently, this area is already subject to many problems such as: a) The water system is totally inadequate, constantly leaking, and at times the water pressure is almost non-existent. b) The street is one continuous row of patches, due to water main leak repairs. The curbing, for which we paid, was never completed. There is nothing to establish a ditch line across driveways and alleys; therefore, after a rain large ponds are formed at the intersections with the street. c) Current traffic flow on. Meridian Road makes it almost impossible to access Meridian Road from 3'd Street. Consequently, we have to use the alley to 2d or 4"h Street to take advantage of the 4-way stops. Meridian Road is already over -burdened with current traffic. Please consider what the traffic from the proposed additional 600-plus homes will do to this situation. d) Additional traffic onto Appleway Drive, which appears to be an access point to the proposed subdivision, will create one of the most hazardous intersections in Kalispell. 2) Peterson School will be totally overwhelmed by the number of students this development will. create. The current residents, as taxpayers, will have to remedy this situation, not the developer. 3) Lot size will be extremely important. At about 0.2 acre per lot, less street alley and set backs will leave a lot of about 5200 square feet. with a 900 square foot house and a two car garage, there will be a very rn n . al useable yard space. The proposed housing density would result in very crowded living conditions with little green space. We request that before reaching a decision on the proposed development request and annexation to the city of Kalispell that you take a look at Empire Estates and its related problems. we expect this project will be more of the same. Two wrongs don ' t make a right! Respectfully submitted, William N . and. Barbara J. Chilton t220 3"d Street 'Nest Kalispell MT 59901 03/ 29/2007- 03: 54 76 5725142 PILOT KNOB RV RESORT PAGE 02 TY uxaxa - Aprij AM " 200-7 11 pia=iug. Soa' 4 � 2- First Avcnue Fast Kajii101 Dev 'Mernbm of tht Pk miM Boyd: %-"c ve w&tzg. to prott.st to anrimt on r►f the fonTwx 0''Ned ttjV protmr tc thr, City of KAHWH for th fo tlowiug reams: � er tes r t ux ast tura i s Madequate : fart the pt nr u i "e i�r at I f s ? `� e � r: cr f Mwidimk Ru d . Cu-1 mid Y" thm areas ilreWy eject to nmv problems sigh .11 i) The water .e.,i=ster IS tat&lly inad ale- 4owtuntly Borg,, eu at times tke water 1)t tare is almost non-exWent. b) J'Ue Sreet js OU c tirMtZu$ T�-Jw () t patches, d= tc voter tunsa leak rva&ir.. "rhe curbing- , for .which w o raid, waa reti e' 's-o mpleted. `fie �s ttnth i nq, to estkablisb a dill line Aam,, dri veNvxvR and thrxef �r�} after a raur.. ame pow ire formed at the iwel =tinn-� with to .street. CwTenr u2iftc flow on :Meyidlian Road makes it alinost impossibly to ==ss Mchd ian'Road tom 1 " Sq= co" zt+mtly, ,we,h6v w to ' the~ ell ey ray , "d or �1' Sit M tAe 3&art xe of the + • f the traffiC from the proposed ad&final 600-pii-s h o m. es vv'R! do to this sitntxfion. d) Additimml tmfTic, onto Appkwsy MiNt., *M6 4pp=S to ht u aowx point to the pro s bdivi,4t1=: wia arm one (Ffthe mod hU&4domo inOrw�ctoag �n KaUSWI. 2) '�ctersan 'School %vill be tout• ovenvhe l nied by The o bcr o1'.tins this dcvaiaLTww will orcm. Pir. currmit r es.udcnts. as taxpayers. wI D haxit: to tvmady li� s ituaNion, aot the dowoloperr Ir��( ; itv vviU h► d oi 4t+,, i rt r rt wt. Al 1,boit 0.2 av r e prig 10t, lest strt L 01 cy and set backs %Aill. Ie ave a Ir-)t of about 5200 quarx. fivt. With a X0 square ftt house and a two car gmge." 01&-e %Nrt11 hr � viell, comAtoris wi?h. linJe gmen avace- W e raq u est that ��Qre hjf � &Cimon. 0n, th c"(%velmn t req%&fti &M mieomti on. to tbee 6ty Q t` Kabspell .rat you take a iook at Z pae F.A*es %ad its til ed prohlems We expect this pro� Nvfl) be ino'l . ;�)f the smc . Two wrongs don't xrke a ai r+ gvsgt�otfully. subtzutttd, 12:0 ,m Strom W Kakspail IT 59901 Kali ell Planni.n.g Board. II� 1 7 Street East Kalispell, Montana 59901 Re: Purposed willow Creek Subdivision E 0 E 9 1 AM o 9 2007 KALISPE! L PLANNING DEPARTMENT Annexation of the former O'Neil mill property to the City of Kalispell Dear Members of the Planning Board: We are writing to protest the massive size of the purposed willow Creek Subdivision and the request by the Turners to have the former O'Neil mill property annexed to the City of Kalispell. Reasons: A subdivision of this size would GREATLY impact our already over --crowded city road= system with the shear number of cars that a subdivision of this size would generate. Extreme traffic hazards will be the norm on Foy's Lake Road, and the purposed exit onto Highway 2 and A.ppleway Drive. what about the purposed South end Highway 93 By- pass scheduled to be built soon? why is this subdivision even being considered when we all know that the 93 By-pass will be passing through right where the Turners want to build this subdivision? What about the "Impact Fees" for new development that haven't been put into place yet? If the planning board and City Council vote to let the Turners proceed with the subdivision before "fees" are in place, we, as the City of Kalispell will be taking quite a lose on revenue from that subdivision. According to Tom 3entz, city planning director, who pointed out recently in the Daily Inter Lake, any project that applies for a building permit before approval of a roads -impact fee would be EXEMPT. Peterson School will be totally overwhelmed by the number of students this development will create. The current residents, as taxpayers, will have to remedy this situation, not the developer. Lot sizes of the purposed subdivision would result in very crowded living conditions with little green space, and definitely do not match the surrounding areas of current housing such as the Stone Ridge area or even across Foy's Lake road to the south. Do we, the City of Kalispell, really want another "Empire Estates" and its related problems??? We do not1. r We know that growth and annexation of county land is inevitable in the future. we are asking that the Kalispell Planning Board and the City Council take a look at Turner's Empire Estates and the problems it has already. we, as the City of Kalispell, will have another depressing mess on our lands if willow Creek Subdivision is allowed to proceed. Respectfully submitted.: Max and M Ann. whitin on, 1322 4h Street Nest, Kalispell, Montana �'Y � p a APR 0 9 2007 KALI PEL PLAN{PIING DEPART► E-INT 11-� `6�t 6�f� k , 2c, APR 0 5 2007 # L `~ 490 N. Meridian Road Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 752-5501 FAX (406) 257-0349 4/4/2007 REF:MD015-07.doc Sean Conrad City of Kalispell Planning Department 17 Second St. East Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59991 Gear Mr. Conrad, I have met with CTA and the proponent of the Willow Creek Subdivision a number of times in recent weeks and appreciate the time and effort they have put into discussions and proposed modifications to their original proposal. In a March 22, 2007 letter, CTA on behalf of the proponent listed additional modifications including planting. a 100 foot corridor along the creek throughout the project area with a native shrub and tree mix and moving development at sites No. 1 and No. 9 further away from the 'stream (sites noted on plan view map provided by CTA in an email, which l have attached to this letter). These measures are valuable improvements and will help reduce the risk of water quality and habitat degradation. I certainly encourage the proponent to pursue these mitigation measures. There also may be additional mitigation opportunities. others at Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and I are willing to meet and discuss these issues at your request. I commented on the original subdivision proposal in two letters dated 19f9/2006 and 2l097. In these letters I listed a number of fish and wildlife habitat and water quality concerns associated with the proposal. These concerns are still relevant. For these reasons, I recommended a Zoo foot building setback (measured as a horizontal distance from the annual high water mark) with a riparian vegetated buffer width of 75 feet, which consisted of vegetation that is not fertilized or mowed and includes shrub and tree species. With the March 22, 2907 letter from CTA, I received a plan view map noting nine locations where the proposed development encroached within 159 feet of the stream bank, distances ranging from 81.6 to 141.6 feet: There is another location that was not noted between sites No. 5 and No. 5 where four lots (lots 367 to 370) and associated roadway encroach beyond 150 feet. Besides these ten sites, I counted sic multiunit condos, 23 lots, and 7 sections of roads that also encroached within the recommended 200 foot distance. Therefore, the most recent proposal shows development encroaching on the 200 foot width over the majority of the project. Recognizing this, the proponent has proposed mitigation by increasing the riparian buffer width. if the City approves a narrower building setback in some of the project, l recommend a minimum building setback of 150 feet with an increased vegetated buffer width of 125 feet in these areas_ This would allow 25 feet, preferably the 25 feet furthest from the stream, to be developed into a pathway and allow for lawn or other maintained vegetation near the buildings. Thus reducing the recommended building setback from Zoo to 150 feet over the majority of the project would be mitigated in those areas by increasing the vegetated buffer from 75 to 125 feet. This would still require additional modifications to the most recent proposal at the ten sites encroaching within 150 feet. The proposed planting of the first 100 feet in shrub and tree mix remains a good mitigation action to improve the filtering capacity of the narrower setback and improve wildlife habitat throughout the project. Thank you for allowing our participation in your planning effort. if there are any questions or additional information needs, please feel free to contact me. Since X Mark Deleray Fisheries Biologist Cc: Wayne Freeman, GTA LandWorks NOT FOR coNsTRucMmw TURNER SUBDIVISION INXILISPEL-VI-J. MT PROJECT: Willow Creek DATE: April 3, 2007 TO: Tom Juentz FROM: Wayne Freeman, CTA LandWorks RE: Raparian corridor Mitigation Proposal With regard to the attached letter from Mark Deleray, with Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks, and comment number 31 in the staff report we would like to make the following proposal: Our client is in agreement that they will plant the additional 25' foot corridor above and beyond the 100' recommended by CTA with native vegetation along the entire length of Ashley Creek through the Willow Creek property. This will serve as mitigation for the development encroaching within the 200' buffer zone requested by Fish Wildlife & Parks. Our client also recognizes the concem raised by Fish Wildlife and Parks that the project creates several "pinch points" in this buffer zone. Our client is willing to sit with the city and Fish Wildlife and Parks to discuss potential additional mitigation that could occur off site. Through our work with Mark Deleray, it is our understanding of a desire within the environmental community to create a GlS database of critical stream riparian corridors within the city of Kalispell and Flathead county. This database could then be utilized to be proactive in acquisition of fee simple title on these identified corridors or conservation easements within these identified corridors. Given that this particular corridor is somewhat degraded having been a lumber operation for many years, we believe that this section of creek is not necessarily pristine. However, our client seeks a solution to the perceived impact of the project as well as wishing to provide a jump-start to the above effort. The project impacts roughly 1 1/2 acre of the 150' section identified within Mark Deleray's report. if we value land in the Kalispell area as approximately $50,0001acre, our client suggests that we propose mitigation funds equal to this value of land. Proposal Our client proposes to contribute $75,000 at the completion of phase one of the Willow Creek project to the city of Kalispell to be utilized in creating this G1S database, or to be used as acquisition funds for fee simple title or conservation easements along sections of critical riparian corridors within the city of Kalispell or Flathead County. The city can either implement the projects or offer to a third party such as Flathead Malley Land Trust to implement the project. We request the planning board to give the planning staff the authority to waive condition number 31 of the planning report in favor of this approach. 0180 Cottonwood Road 7 Bozeman, MT 5971 8 �� '.��3.5�71 � �406.555. � �❑ EFax: 406. 85. 031 �tAvw.cta,proupxom L�2=4ti-ctagLoupxom To Whom It May Concern: We are writing in reference to the approval of the Willow creek subdivision proposal. While we are not opposed to growth or a subdivision in that area, we do have some concerns. We live in Lake Hills Subdivision and already have significant traffic that goes by. We feel that to increase traffic on this road by 1400 cars per day would be irresponsible. One only has to drive the road at 8:00, 3:30 and 5:00 to see why. As the traffic stands now on Foys Lake Road, unless you widen and make them put turning lanes in it will be a nightmare. When you allowed the other one across the street in without making a turning lane you already have made a mess on that corner waiting for that traffic to turn. Not only will the increase in traffic affect our everyday living, but it will also decrease the value of our residential property. We are zoned residential and we don't want commercial size traffic down Foys Lake Road. Please have the developer reconfigure the subdivision so that there are not as many stops and curves within the subdivision itself and also stay with the bigger lots of 1 acre or more that is esthetically better and the same as surrounding areas. Have there make it a straight shot in and out of the sub -division as to give residents an incentive to keep the extra traffic in their neighborhood and the highways. We also would request that the lots not be annexed into the city and if they are that the current standard that the community has for lot size would still apply. To put it in simple terms, 528 homes on 0.2 acre lots will make the area look trashy and look to urban for this area. knowing that growth is just a part of where we live, we feel that we still have a responsibility to our kids to preserve the heritage of Kalispell. Growth and beauty in Kalispell can co -exist! We are asking that responsible growth take place.. -Please don't let the greed of the contractor overshadow what is best for this area. He w411 make plenty of money with 1 acre minimum lots. We do not need or want that many lots going in! It is ridiculous for this area. Thank you for taking the time to read and reflect on our concerns. 1 hope that you will be able to not only look at this from a planning board aspect, but put yourself in the place of the homeowners around the area that this subdivision will affect negatively. Sincerely, David and Gretchen Harrington 752-8517 340 Lake Hills Dr. Page I of I Michelle Anderson From: Jenifer Hanson (fer@a bresnan.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:07 PM To: man derson@kalispell -cam Subject: Willow creek To Whom It May Concern: We are writing in reference to the approval of the Willow creek subdivision proposal. While we are not opposed to growth or a subdivision in that area, we do have some concems. We live on Meridian Fed and already have significant traffic that goes by. We feel that to increase traffic on this road by 1400 cars per day would be irresponsible. one only has to drive the road at 8:00, 3:30 and 5:00 to see why. As the traffic stands now it already makes it a challenge to get out of our driveway in a timely manner. We know that we made the choice to five on a relatively busy street. As house prices have risen in our valley we had to make the hard decision to compromise and live on a busy street or move else where. We chose to stay, but certainly do not want a momentous amount of traffic increase by our home. Not only will the increase in traffic affect our everyday living, but it will also decrease the value of our residential property. We are zoned residential and we don't want commercial size traffic down our road. Please have the developer reconfigure the subdivision so that there are not as many stops and curves within the subdivision itself. Have them make it a straight shot in and out of the subdivision as to give residents an incenfive to keep the extra traffic in their neighborhood and the highways. We also would request that the lots not be annexed into the city and if they are that the current standard that the community has for lot size would still apply. To put it bluntly, 828 homes on 0.2 acre lots will make the area look trashy. We are in the electrical contracting business so growth is part of our livelihood, but we implore you to do it responsibly. our family has a significant amount of heritage in Kalispell. Logan pass was named after my great, great, great uncle (he served as the 1 st supervisor of Glacier National Park), Logan state park was name after my great, great grandfather and my great, great, great} great Uncle Tool was the first governor of Montana. Not only that, my great, great grandmother served in the place of the First Lady until uncle tool was married in 1890. As you can see, our family has served and lived in this community and state for generations. We have three small children of our own. Knowing that growth is just a part of where we live, we feel that we still have a responsibility to our kids to preserve the heritage that our family has whole heartedly invested in. Growth and beauty in Kalispell can coexist! We are asking that responsible growth take place not greed for money on the part of the contractor. We do not want that many lots going in! Thank you for taking the time to read and reflect on our concerns. I hope that you will be able to not only look at this from a planning board aspect, but put yourself in the place of the homeowners around the area that this subdivision will affect negatively. Sincerely, Lance & Jenifer Hanson concerns for Foy's Lake Rd development Page 1 of I Michelle Anderson From. gout, Amy [agroutmt.gov] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:22 PM To; planningkalispell.com Subject: concerns for Foy's Lake Rd development Planning Board, I have recently become aware of the extensive new housing development proposed west of Meridian, between Foys Lake Rd and Hwy 2. I do realize that the community is growing and new development is necessary to a point; however, I hope the planning board and city council will more closely consider the effects of this new development. As a resident of S. Meridian road, I am very aware of the traffic issues that already exist, and although I applaud the recognition and need for traffic signals, I am still very concerned about the amount of traffic that will be added to S. Meridian. The presence of Peterson Elementary School makes matters worse, as I feel there is way too much traffic now, let alone with over 500 new homes being added. I implore you to reconsider the configuration of this new neighborhood. As I understand it'. the road through the new neighborhood, from Foys Lake Road to Hwy 2, is winding, with numerous stop signs. With this configuration, I doubt that it will be inviting to very many of its residents and thus fear most will exit the neighborhood onto Foys Lake Rd and proceed through to Meridian or 7th St, thus creating severe traffic congestion and safety concerns to residents and school kids on S Meridian. I do understand the desires of an aesthetically pleasing neighborhood, however I believe the plan should be amended to make it more inviting to residents of the new development to drive through their own neighborhood and out onto Highway 2. I feel by making the road through the neighborhood a straight and more direct route with few stops, residents would be more likely to use it and thus alleviate some congestion on S Meridian Rd. Unfortuneately, I am unable to attend tonight's city Planning Board meeting, but would ask that you re-evaluate this new development plan, focusing more on the traffic congestion this project would present for S. Meridian Road. Thank you for your reconsideration of this plan. Sincerely, Amy gout Resident of South Meridian Rd. 755-1299 The goal of developing a minor arterial street thru this development is supported by current Kalispell Growth Policies: Policy 10 4: Discourage routing heavy traffic and through -traffic in residential areas by creating a more thorough grid system when possible. Policy 10.5: Utilize and reserve arterial and collector roads to carry through - traffic. Policy 10. 7: Reserve adequate right-of-way way for designated arterial and collector roads on lands proposed for new development. In attempting to design an improved roadway system that would include an additional minor arterial street, Policy 10.6 also states: "Provide access to individual lots by way of local streets to the maximum extent feasible and avoid granting individual access on to collectors and arterials.„ If this improved alignment was chosen, this would most likely put the back yards of the development along the new minor arterial route like most other developments along minor arterials. of course, there is also the more attractive option of houses along a local street that is separated from the minor arterial by an open-space/bikeway. This is a very attractive medium -density development along Whitefish Stage due to a greenbelt, hike path, and service lane fronting the development. The side yards of houses are oriented towards the street in this case, though house fronts would result in an even better appearance. ! W*41 - 0--apaim Either way, I think it is important to recognize that a free -flawing minor arterial that offers a good alternative to Meridian Road is needed here. The only way to cause a diversion of some of the current Meridian Road traffic coming from Foys Lake Road is to provide a quicker route to Highway 2 without delays like new unnecessary traffic signals and long waits at stop signs. This idea accomplishes that and gives Foys Canyon traffic (approximately 3,750 cars per day) an alternate to the already crowded S Meridian Rd (5,570 cars per day at Peterson School and 9,530 cars per day along the side of Albertsons). It is also important to consider that this is probably the last opportunity between the arterial roads Meridian Rd, and Dern Rd 1 w Springcreek Rd (site of another fatal accident last month), where you could construct a new minor arterial boulevard. This potential new minor arterial boulevard, if unimpeded by the "friction" of stop signs and driveways, would most likely have been the route for those involved in that accident as they were going home from the Christian Church on Foys Lake Road. My family does not use Dern Rd because the intersection at Highway 2 is so unsafe. Unfortunately, the next intersection to the west is not much better. You might have the idea that the bypass project will serve in lieu of a minor arterial connector through the project site. while it will help to reduce some of the traffic on Meridian Rd, studies have shown that drivers do not use interstates or expressways to get -on at one ramp, then off at the next, especially when there will be two traffic signals for the ramps at the US 2 1 Bypass interchange. Besides, any traffic bound for the Kalispell Hospital area from Foys Lake Road will not benefit from the bypass. The applicant's traffic study also mentions that US 2IAppleway Drive "will fall to LOS F by 2013 regardless of the willow Creek Subdivision". The proposed mitigation is to restrict westbound left -turns at this location in the future. This will only make the situation for northbound Meridian Rd traffic worse approaching US Highway 2, as those drivers heading west for Kila will be diverted to Meridian Rd. A proposed, linear, minor arterial through the 'willow Creek site would do a lot to encourage this type of thru traffic to avoid using Meridian Rd then Appleway Cyr to head west. Restricting westbound left -turns at US2/Appleway will only exacerbate problems at US21Meridian. Criticism of the Traffic Study The trip distribution diagram for the traffic study is shown below. I have included a further breakdown of the percentage of overall trips (shown in pink) on additional segments (those that were missing from the report), the existing daily traffic (2003 data), the existing plus project daily traffic, and the percent change in traffic to various streets (shown in yellow) in the project area. Figure 3 -Trip Distributions aa V vkc " U..& Highway cgg M;�'''C. �:: r � .. �b`•n`:� ram. >-. rY� C M, 20 a West 'R Foys Lake Rid a�-sw t4l X +ems -T- Actual current travel patterns would indicate that the amount of project traffic being distributed to 7th St W, 2d St W, and Center St seems to be high. I believe that a more realistic trip distribution should be used, as follows: April 7, 2007 City of Kalispell Planning Board Via e-mail Dear Planning Board, I would appreciate your consideration of the following concerns regarding traffic circulation and the Willow Creek project. As you may know, traffic on Meridian Road, south of US Highway 2 is already bad and this project as designed will make it worse. Meridian Road south of Center Street is a residential street that passes Peterson School. It is not an appropriate place for additional traffic. It is possible to make improvements to the Willow creek project that will minimize the traffic increases on S Meridian Road. Need for New Minor Arterial Street My primary concern is that the proposed north -south route through the project that is proposed to connect Foys Lake Road with US Hwy 2 is a very curvilinear, collector street designed with primarily residential frontage and numerous driveways. Though the application does not specify the locations of stop signs along this road, I can only guess that there will be two or more by the layout of the local streets. Any opportunity for the general public to benefit from another route option to US Highway 2 from Foys Lake Rd is lost by this design. I believe that this project presents the opportunity to IMPROVE the situation on Meridian Road by attracting a portion of the existing Foys Lake Road traffic to use a Foys Lake Road -US Hwy 2 mainly linear, minor arterial, with limited access points to the development along the proposed route. This route would need to be similar to Two Mile Drive or Whitefish Stage in design. I have shown an approximate improved alignment in the graphic on the next page. Many of these impacts could be reduced by creating the minor arterial boulevard through the project site thereby reducing the traffic from Foys Lake Rd that uses Meridian Rd. While the traffic study does a pretty good jab analyzing existing and proposed conditions at most of the above intersections, no analysis, or mention of impacts to the intersection of US 2 / Meridian Rd is made by the study. For this reason, the study is grossly inadequate when you consider that this intersection is currently functioning at Level of service E in both the morning and afternoon peak traffic perIt iods. The lowest score for Level of service is F and if no improvements are constructed at this intersection, as a result of this development, the Level of Service will drop to F during both daily periods. This is a nationally recognized unacceptable level of traffic delay and congestion according to the urban planning and engineering profession. As a result of poor level of service at this location, there is a large amount of current diversion to local residential streets like 5th Av W, 2nd St W, and 7th St W. As soon as the traffic signals being required of the development are installed, this additional "un- met" demand will relocate to the most direct route, partially negating the higher capacity of the signalized intersections. Also as a result of the newly signalized intersections, the prevailing traffic speeds along Meridian Rd in front of Peterson School will increase. This is not a safe situation for parents dropping off their kids in the Meridian Rd turn -out or those kids whose parents would still encourage them to walk. Location of Proposed Southeast Development Roadway connection to Foys Lake Road One simply needs to look at the distance (370 feet) between the intersections of Meridian Rd with Appleway Dr and subsequently center St to know that the development proposal for the southeast access and Foys Lake Rd is a terrible idea. The proposed southeast access is only 175 feet from the future southbound bypass ramps. It is inevitable that in the next twenty years these ramps will be all -way stops or traffic signal locations. If you have ever driven in any urbanized area where adjacent intersections are too close together and there are heavy turning movements, you will know that this is a bad design. There is no reason why this intersection could not be moved two hundred feet to the west. The view looking southbound down Meridian Road from in front of the Finish Line Casino as traffic waits to approach Appleway Drive and Center Streets. It is not unusual for traffic to back-up on a daily basis all the way to the Albertson's parking lot. This location is avoided by many motorists, but in the event improvements are made, additional traffic will return to this location. Traffic trying to turn onto Meridian Rd from Appleway Drive must wait for courteous drivers to let them in. Those that turn left are in an unsafe turning situation as they cannot see traffic coming from their right when southbound traffic allows them though. This is a similar situation to what could be expected if the southeast development access is located too close to the southbound bypass ramps, as is currently proposed. Lack of Review by the Montana Department of Transportation This past Friday, I spoke with Jim Freyholtz, the Traffic Engineer for MDT assigned to review this project. He indicated that he is meeting with other MDT planners in Helena next week to make decisions on the proposed accesses to State Highways. Both US Highway 2 and Foys Lake Rd are State Highways, and therefore, there is no certainty that the north -south route thru the site or the accesses along Foys Lake Rd is acceptable as designed. It is premature to consider this project for approval without any approvals for the entire access to the project site. It would also be inappropriate to approve this project for more than 120 units without a condition of approval that would assure the northernmost access connecting to US Highway 2 can be obtained. I am very uncomfortable not knowing what that roadway design may look like. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. I know I am just one member of the public, but I think there is a lot missing in this design. This project is located in a unique position to make much needed Improvements. I plan to elaborate on these concerns, as well as architectural and density issues at the hearing on Tuesday. Sincerely, Pete Wessel 121 Rainbow Dr Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 257-3149 pete—wessel@hotmall.com n.. s IF 4'A R29, 2007 � Li n f i r.,..; 4 I Stephen and Cheryl Wilson 348 Blue Spruce Lane Kalispell, MT 59901 Larch 26, 2007 Kalis� ell City Planning Board 17 nStreet East, suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: valley Ranch Planned Unit Development Dear Planning Board: We recently received your correspondence regarding the above mentioned development and are writing to express some of our concerns. We have enclosed- photos ire- took of the. property being proposed'for the. development, and you will find references: to the, photos.. on. the, enclosed., plot. plan.__ Photo #1 shows 2 red flags - the one on the left is 100 feet from the north boundary of the property and the one on the right is 20 feet from the boundary. Photo #2 shows a red flag 20 feet from the north boundary, where you see the chain link fence. Dote the yellow stare warning of a buried gas line. There is a 3 -cable electric transmission line buried just north of the gas line. Photo 93 shows the weeds and ground cover growing on the old slough that used to non across the parcel. Most of this area is too wet to even farm. Photo #4 shows the ground water that came from the area in photo 43. In the Enid 1990s water flowed across Ponderosa Lane at this point. There is an on going drainage problem in this area. We have many concerns about this proposed development. but the issues that immediately come to mind are as follows. 1. is the 20 foot wide designated park area at the north side of the proposed development adequate to accomrn.odate- both the buried utilities and .the walking path that the developers have indicated will be along this corridor'? In addition, there is only a ten foot set back requirement on the back of the lots south ofthis corridor, which Will add furTher congestion. 2_ The "buffer zone" between the building lots on the north side of the proposed development and Ponderosa Estates should be a minimum of 100 feet. 3 . A public 'walking path is being proposed along the northern edge of the development within the proposed 20 foot designated parr area. How is this to be maintained? An area of public access in such close proximity to the wooded environment of Ponderosa Estates is of great concern to us, primarily because of the potential fire hazard this would create. 4. As shown in photos #3 and #4, there is a serious drainage problem that needs to be addressed. Is it prudent to put in a housing development over an area with such serious drainage issues? Your consideration of these concerns will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, '11'�eryl and Steve Wilson �• s . : �.>� -t. �,r.,�.. -� �y:+,-.: ��,;••i►� . •-, '� � S.„-, �'.r-•��r.: �'f�S:.s�'�',� �. r_.x.'-�:.:.-- t �-r,- r'"u.' -.. - 4 iks+O.::iu � 7•': �s-'f '' i ,r. ..,.�'.•j-•�_ Y r.y: .. „ :.. - r _ . r _.F�. ' w •ti�:.�'-t,'�'��_ `M. � .� � ''1"7'� � �l+.t..� �,Y..�. _.t�� hi K. �IG9' W,�;7t��.�•.. � ts w,y,.y ', -�:'= .+� r• •� f;,.�sv. -.�� ,,�`. ��!'"Y C-4r^-:�` S �..�:c,� �• tir�i171 �7?.• � � ..�.1. _ ;� "-�.; .� �.� , r: , :�,:, *�" ,�. `�+�lr�• 3�' ..�f*i,.7� . .'� -'�wii�.:'• '�" � i�: it`�`` :,�.:. y'� . ""� . � : 'y�y� �"' �,4p„�,'�•s''"� _�.: � � ti • - _�1►. �'. - ter'•:•. 'S �:..f Jam• '-;� �� ++:•:r,��;l..• .:A.+r"�r�-. t r F ��3.'.. `��!tP'••#s 'v •�� i' ��'• -t,' � . �.i�►�� l r•i••�. � `7�F��r.;..; '�, }, 7'i it e.'` _L� ��,w.�..� '�•`"r- try •'E w�:. � ,•�� i ..��5., y� .'r.R�•^"�•� --i�.w'.:� r �.r.r„rr; �.�•.tr.'�` ' r„iLc;•. L �, �r� ��-.•��. �• i rr{ ��-^:1.tr•'i"'��r•' :� •..�si.� xr� ai•L'!''+� � '+�. �,��'• - .iq Yw+,a, +Z'!, .- r 'r4 _ _ :�• {qi4! �r ..r � ..i.,�� .�.'��`.,-' a rH•x%.,+. t .{1��µ; � ��:'�"••1�� .F.r.yd 3 r�- s� ' �.'.•,r .�' •7•.:�q[ •�� i � -:: � `4 •�: ;"'1l+'f+'y.�, �� • tic '�'i;� �` .r. �.`, � � .`A+�'��`�$,�,•�J` °,�+,*�: „ 'rP;.�•: *3•��e. - � .� tn�•, �� I ; y • ��jaian �M� f��•' �'+� n'.' 'v�S�'y� . •.� ^.. J � 1, » .... �z•' irr• -rw �. ��*r Y y� . � «frtt 7. : ;,.i�. ►T ::q :� � 4`.r •'�i �:, rT i .�, �. '�.".'�' S .�- �.°I!1%. �-. [ sir �,•w.. �e':Y� :i�r 1' , �t" `.,•�-•Q+�`�Jl.4r�+. �,:e ..i, `• I'L� •err �f"....1.e'.. . rs sfi4y .'G,.'.��. - - . 3'f't.,� �"'. � t T ' :� .. • �*�*T.• 7 �� }"'...: �;.�...�,• : ��,. { � 7 �� L,r,•�.'~ !�"'_ �� t ; Jti_ s.�f ,o -.. ':�,'�,`,"r�'1�� . _ f y�+•t!•S ,l�.r � :�, ,w,. `, .�"�. ��+' '.t-'��;~- - �,�{'.;r�" •:� ��',�r�hEr�x ��,= yt:;aw'1•�.: i+�,wr, '".�} ��, :�ra.. _� pZ.� .^.7 .� 1 * !r •'., s• ,'c= ?-�. ",rir,.y'�tl.'f:• Yr -_ry �' • f ��[�6?'fJi�a�T:i .T.!. :r . i i>,.~�: 3.L . -..; �.�til� y� ...ri.: YI' •^ti` -Y='tom• r [', :i� 1 :.{.;rR• .• itaM+,�' : ' �i •^�d�'^�-RL^/7' rr #�.' i?i. � ti r� 40 �.• : ,• } 4"Cf r.. !_ ,r+,+.• � .'�;{. .. �.• t� '.�. �r-"�� r ter• ��+ j � ''�: -:,..�i� !; �` �_�:^ +'y��,'erFi:� �• '�� r� 7 ' �..`-_-. ..k +a;. {y� �..►w .�, �� µ ,�'+'•�+' '+i['K •.`� `'. Tom.- "'�p. .V S r •''..:.Y�it�+Iw:i �.ia F 4 .-r• a s•, `'s.u'.` 'Y: -' �.tiE' - - .•�•_� _ .i ��i- '., Ti..:ty,,; i.K l:.`�"' .' yi�!.7':T -'�• :i T' i •� _'j •r<��l; .r �y�"}i!_'"�r Y� :_r . .a.. = 43r. ..h t _ r.:�~ ��'. - �. ,�.: w •;t • . ) '+�L••. ,a•�tit., �yI![� f-�:''' �Fu.� .. . _ - 2rk. S'�:.,' [ , y:�i'� .,R- .. '_ .�.i..ri� ::n: i.r? .. - • _ ;'� �SI :'_�1-F�'-� Y _ . �i+� }•r-• u^' '� -U: � �ri ..!4. � r • �'. ,J� _;#.::'i-•' Y - 1.1'��,."y�y^'►•..y,"►y'L. �t•� �• � � - = 7.'1i.1 [ I i1 .�+�1.' .<-..Y�.,-. ,`'�.��-•',�..,' .f*1 - ..r� _ •ry..• �'1a .k _•3_S_i.. v. i-• ',� k.rY'! iI? Y+ r •4',•.gCq.... - •'��.i,r-'.� r-'F. �f L �...+•� �-a.. r.i['ir -� 7 -�'V'! � .. - - .. _� `err •Y.ii.�l'��T]`:iri: 'rF" ,i'rl '{,.�� r'�i3h�»'.�� 1�' ... _ �� L !ti J• �:.`� i .ati�+-R.-a7 !i '��, �'s..ti� '�,}:.• �K■fir � ...-4;. .;. l .l' - t � , �.. `'1_.. �:•.'C/?�3i �4wa try .'�Y� • .1- _ _ _ ' ., - . w�Yr^ 41 y i - '�'�` ` � ' .,r'.• •r.- '.nl= �In:+ ' i.r n--Y''• JrCi .. •� J , •- =r. �'R � M 'S y :_• .. -1 .. ��. i.. ~•� •S -, 4¢, ` �,•.1. r '-+:• •Jil. :*� , -' •..„ a yy '• .a 3r 1, _',F •' ...� +r .Y� 4�# Li •n :r:• - -- " _ _ fF.:.. • Y•• .:! .1• �..• ,,j _ �.. r04' ;�.#' �'.�yrl +C. -{.(►# 4 L i .. �.x.•.. -. �• Sri~c• :i.�it�r. - +. . '`y'x• _ _ -. t��'�'r•y� '. ..:r 5 "r -\-tRJ.i '' - .. . -'� -1 �' ;;tir- ��. •�rr.f^: ; 1 ,. r- - t :{ _ry �. t��_ •. J:e[•f-:.•: rr� .,c � ��x:a. � .. r7Sr - �. �s`7:r•y�R/��. •►,try f`'.' ^ '.v...; � " -+'f. f•.a- ...� f: r,f• ?w k {* i r t•�" �• .. +� ~.r'r .. .r• .R•.. �r•.�. "� Fr:Yt- ti, �� + .. '�,. `}� - � - y ._. i x•''F• .i-.�i� �' .'1. -�r• '.ry �' ,r• -` •.� _"H? .t;t '+cti-1� .� - . Z'J l7;tk.rrfl• '`.:+^-rY.,7r, ,,,, 'A1�r�t�t .t u�•. _•`iSe-'- �� - r.'r ;�"[. _T e_i .a4�-.J i�i'1f+.� ��y�r��..w�r� �%1. 4, L� ~ •t. k. t'=a. ... •� _ . ., r H �� _.l'►- T. ., - � [ � .y..-• �_ �"{• y..�'�• �vya� _ `,�-�+f'�."�I .�{1 r�-+.� ' - '-�, 1 : _ �-.' �'�• Est''_ i I � �1 ..f• `� .•� .. ,. - .` . i Yi ... '+ ' . .R� .... _. '•� '`ram'--i L-. .. . •.'. .. •f ��'� �. .,. _ •Vi:•F"�'�►� i"+y��4i��i�M��;1�`�'iL.`� .. .. �i�� ..- � A 'f' �� . r . t; .. �` tL: ,.. .-a.r - • -' : �'C.-IS�t_.�rw„�rw�..�''. y��' �L .�� _ . .. .- .. . r.. i .... ., f�`•• .T, s.' '•1• .. �. .+.•ti• � L7:�R,� � fiw►.."Y �Slllt"""33 i'S•S°y� r:.�rw V:.�".-: . w.' ,w- a-�_'.�"•.y. -.�-.e-".-.w.''ati,.....,,;,,,�*" .::.�..w..r _ - :esi�~ - .. '14 �,,:•- -�'- - °•max _ •:y�:�_';:�^i ° r �a _ �q� " S``z'" sir•.. 1.r `: '.:." E i s•"°� � A.: s .c Tom:, df -xr- - •4 •W;t, 'yam' .`'VI�Yp`+'= .-s`�W - - '��e,. '•"�F b-; .. •#''r�'•� .. ..-+.�*' .A x�:� . `-�n-`+�T�."r..�'z' �.:•-� '"a`•4s.' ip`..�i...i: � e 1,...+' �. . a .. .L_ � Ate. _ _ ... e. " '•:: �° ..s, :^" r,t a>ems. �.. teE: - :�-: ".... .r ...� •� w „'r j"3„"' .:-.'.:;` _ tz• ,'�'Y;'_ "w.k.'ei` ,i' .r - _..�'.° --•-•• Fes'-. '•+:r��.o.��«�a? _ '�'� `.,�'� - - _ s %:r-� n�.�• T - .. i 4 :."�>`!rF K " „�"fY^:- � �.f� --4.•2•x,Yo . �C,:."•' ,°; � _ _°'x- ra :...� �"'- ;�i Sk�4'�,°�` Mi•- .;r. ,.-. - ""y•• •sic•." °- - - - .. cS-:=-.,,r a =�.•s H:> �:.:. .,.,�,„ - .•••, .a,,•. a A.-w.'.� 's�: ^n..... R,k( _ ... �t'•_ y. _ '.'� 'p:w .t^^°�'�r"�S`'�'� we+` •`i�w'-: r k`•"'7i'f•••,r. = +:.$7...'":�,�nt,,,5;g:, .f�'::.?'� ., �*r,�':n. .. _ - .. �'°.;• i �.`-'', Na•`rF��9.S«,� -', -re •�e, ,�, -?•. ...fi.Lr�q _ o-9' .max v.v. e�}��: f/'r. s. .. Y, 'b+' . ..•@r, f•w- ��•'-, C"•` _!j. , .. []`" •.. .:�Y:i. a .'we �^:••; p- « £ ywMg, :, _ • ,�.,°.. %! - - - . �.>' ':. a'�ii•s�, as4.,� .a .i �a�. .. y. '-�.�_.e."w'.,�..,. _ .�:~ kxv- .....- .• � _ �• a F •� fir.... ey.,� -�d.'-- t,n';'S4P.• :N :>`'"off ... -x,. ,.t..- .. .C:-•'Yl'.�• �2'-. mow^ '. F"•�':. e4i'.l:Rrv. �tr-,--'..• .. Ze ..,. :•8..w -9w ye�P na�r'Pe•.i-s�•'....T:. ,+r.�vF,•r- n'^•3 '- .`'#^� ° - . - •r'4"'• .. ,•ram:'. ••� .aYfw'�;•'°R •,:,.i.Y :-�.�' '-✓+CwR�°=r" Y.i.. f".^"� # :.�',,..i%. ^ ° yY w+F[J�iv.�• �'�$� C.•. 'i �� Z ira °. x^•' .,,fir, .�.N . �'i- .. . _ � ..ti - 'K, ry . jc � , I ' r= . ,.wa.•i@r's.e ;r 7yY' ..qy. y,.�+[..+.": .-'➢: ° , _ - ib.. •5.� r ... a .�K3. :- �.+a• X� 'f2��`d, w�i„' _ °oq.7.•-.b.°�' " x7.•". _ . .. c•�3 g< ^ r1 •.. � F �� '• ,,, wi x q,F � «"R'i••...:r.,"i. .`r' ; •� '" � •" • - "_ - € s .E•" .. ;��',ds;._.�Y ;a` _. ..=;�. �I[: �� _ �� r ;��;3 .,rt 'sr...'- �-r �y " •..y;^s.:i' �, ..i_ _� � .. d. . e.4? .�'.:'•.S . "3• {. `F. -.•y •tl..-w .F•' r� „_�`py;y' ^"+. :. •.J-�L".. ' ",h" . •'y : .. ' - _ '�« • ems. t. - •.,,, ^_ » ?.`wi`r r`• • a� �° �_ _ y .. _ ' f • � �Y� .sue"it: �>.'4y; :.... �•^.:•••- A.r�: 1. 7j 1 _ .. F. ., ..'rrc""C-�;•�J.,., iY' my _ �•..+.i �:. -.i _ arks_ .,. �• ;. � - n � � .^? . ' -� R . _ _ . - "^+r^"`. ..• �q c.:ti :5,,,„ • r ••^d a -�'+a � d w. ,t..,y .w•". �.a•.. ... , J � - w . - � . «.l ° -.M'� P•'"`" -. a�f�wsa'L-aq..- 'w�.;,r' _ yr• � ,� -,' "~ (` �ai �«iT - '. "+SF • .. • . ,• :s . � � v.,: � . _ .. "r•r i.«�� ••�•9` ;., i `. ' :: ,..;ryw��y°.;�:�`�wr�� •c- .. ,�� "'"'i.... � �r�w_•�y, � ' '" e ��:;y-«:.6 �'.- '-P'!O'°�R........ °. v�n1•v' ��b�'+v„°a--d«','tiik•, �'•aie. '1°�':,�^LLi'7K'•`... 4iA�..�. �k TW iy-•,w..". .. .•'_ - q�.': ° ,.,..mow. x. °+r�°r, i••A+:....w �.,°.k..�'.y `"$. °'.$- •.., ��-ti w^+'..L'*.i:,�' ..��",�` !•_'.. ^.t .� Y•�. .. ^~:'-.ys•.a.r^i��r •.•fe"p, .^"3 .-,• ".'�T....„+y�`ti��f�_•�d�� .w�. •r�'�4 'w' i'y�. ... i - -•`.y ^,` -..� .. - -�., ' - J.._Yr:,. x:k`s; . _ °"'ter•: W�...,a• �"„:. - -- ' r I•.R.> a d>"'r ,-y;"•'" rw=dr` „,.: _-Z+�+rZ,,,ppvv- - „t';&+.:'y.Y :.9�, it .i'..:. 3,a, f "a"?'; b. s-•...1.;:'.. • ,� _� ,fie .�.,,. �+ie•.;c,. • _ °. ,•.+[..c ,. .,.,..... !` �•�°'�.�:• •v''w:<N_.',w��,�-.fix 'l•�. .. �+K __ :,''�w • y E Y .�• _ . 11--y��`` �•t6�ir,'� yR �i r. s•�� .�."�'Ss�': Y"" -6 _ �' •_ .. �w HL M: : %-e.. - �. ., �'��Q; � �.. F • ... � '.1`�v. . ,f. ,r. f � v rsr.' . - :'fit ��'°��): • ` , . Za•;% .. �"F " �i },� _ i.. i. •1!^/ ��• eLvi.x+.`Y •.3• sl .� �. �: l ... . - .. : ,f.,. .rw, .zir'.' � 'Y^.+..A ..:.-`y„RWTI!• �... dew : • ", ' r • k� .,.. � w.•Pa^rne.•e�'(•„rM.+'•rC]yr yry�.,a.,ia+ ...w.M.'i+Nr+•'� w+�1.' e'..,.[y., w .. _ °....,' - ... ,_ tl ; .. .• .u. a � � w r. ., s. ° x ,j: • 1'E'' Y .. ``eeY v •�j� � .. . • .e .7 �.• r� E b • _ a;: i. .{• s. - 3..K•a•'. F .i � ,. - � i' _._:: ��•A:'`aavv�� r,N aeF�^ �-':.,�V z4 .....__ ..- ! ,.:.a49,w• F°�''�i xi• "lri ::'r' �:i«n?•,yr'r��Rf: `•. •' �.ti. - r<{..' - , .'ry, : _ i� •5••^ii , A•e " �: .. .. .. a. Sgy1•�;: • _ L6•�sd+.v:ts;: .•i _, ' ?:j c •.:i: •aJiJ.4s ., - r r • • - � y„.::a ,�zrr+. .. .. " .. r.•l ya ievw t�-•• :: a,�; ., .•d ry,��:..-•at: �i;.``•'�'... - .° .. y . i:•. _ • • �..� fir, wa £ <• .p,9'; � + _�? ','-;-r• R'i.. - i,.`T'r,••wr.' F s , -•� .fix .�•• e :•,�, _ �aed•vt'..�i.: i-�%¢"• :a�,,.. •.:e _ n V.:F! �,��y~p� .� 'e1. fig^- . P.`.i •,�.. � .w •">• , 7,1 tk jA is mal" ON yeti... .,y`!.- 'pl .m '� • •'Y+ _ `z[ •a„ { .r.° �€: •�••.-a g a"�••, tea-' e aY-4�r'�. T.p4...'..1.* .•Ifir� .i^-.•Ry.y�. j.r4li�' � " F. .,�., � ,r'�.,"i «• >�A.Y i inn R � Y.ww.li+n.9'.xe •Ai Y=•K. Ywe%L�..1i '�r' Y�`�•/:�'. �.a�p�iR�, :.., ¢= M f ai y'• - . r `�`. , fi e` [✓$' , . r • wT"z• a Fab `•71N' ..:g.. , �. 45+�' • j. .B ryx .. a .g rrti�- , vyt. is '� a},.., � E�. .. ;•�li'a'` ^�K%`/; h:"m➢5 -.:• l�: i� :a •�C�Y_ °` 'f �"'� -�jy� ��«i�' � '��"°' .Ayyf•• •�Y:'w .%..,�. eR y. �"t"'�'' .. ., - .e .. . �yST!i� : ':.g •i.�ra '2 e •�:� " y= �'�' �#.: � _ tl '""'S� tr: -�yW.. �•rs x��F' _ - �">R'.. 1'°•igi"'>. '-:�' bJ F'��F -.'y . . =s -`p" �' :- . J ' � .iR YE: Ffc. - Yy- .;�. � � _. °�j. R'�. `°' s•.•:ssra , . [. .. i ;'•:yi'-��, .r.�.Y,..1.},. •`"�" ;i.•��.�p� F., "`fwAr .�i'.. °',F h,�. x�:�4 - _ . ' {' � . .'{ +�S.•i`; 13-y[i' •� i 7G�a -•' 1 s` -'7r' i`: -' .r"-�f.a'r a ._ 's .. i.....•" �:,. �`'" - - _ r.•;��:r• y;. •.-;a!`Rke r'�,„ �w:4� r Ft .� ��.. .� E•sk�.= - .� �4 � .'p• •-,E�•.. '`a "w�.•a : i. v.1 �.V l'.^'Y': _T'. yc'. �ev�'r .]K• "F�'d•�h^'.ya-•. � .F .y1 �•r; fY^ ,4p'�•i�3h., mod'. n. �i.e�''_=^' >'i :V 9h.`'K. «f. "-°F ter. �g'Si' .«1"�[F" °�:-�"�A'�'y.'-�j�.. _ "-S c '-!i ter' �Y r d • r°,r °�°F. H.•: C�'�'•�� k _ . •' .Rf ?�7�''�� i +'S :•: �K� ".,32 •r. •7' r °..� } _ !y qy .i� ^�'�` -.4 . •b: Y ° >� �. � q • "� • , a , £, .. _ . °!w �� ,-. _ :".,i:' F `1 ,� 6. . •�" }�, k�.... .4 • .� : � _ �r � .wd-�{IT �.--�V•�.e Iti.•.F..: A' z '4' s • R4" . - ».�p `mot -Pi... �?� a .#: r% 'i•' �': K'siP{,' Sri A f./� .:ii� � a� i•". �+P.�• � ftf. � �•Y� �� _y. 'f •` .,�� ."y� � f'- i�::e'�} d 7 � ..p" .,�?'� a sj-��'...€.•; _ �3 �µ ce�rW. _ i' G: .i•e•"' • v-�eR'[�Sa ` 15y'��i' .�G •i:°r' * 3'`°"- y$; .ae''�r7.a ' r'`".#:'+s. .. .:%- i^• Jib•'' �1'�,�'?' - '.i . .' -� •-roS. i. r �. � °�a r •� .r � �,,�•- yr. ...•. _ "T . ,•y,�° .�epp�"_..;+,:. °.;,�. .M- 7M ,{. y1![. �, .i�•.. - ..i`„°r -T."-. g•:a„-.�`1"ti.ri.ag•ie ".�e.:°,sw.•• 1. is w�•�•s,- ; .xa .F C: w.d, s .'&a q-i�„, . rY.4�!-I,3 • � m- i . Gy� �S �i.E'r�P •.,• ' i'6 �..�1��• f' � �^..... •� f a4��; ��,�^.:��• �! •.-•. F` '�i•�..• "S 9. Ci4 =. Fri iY.°�y� '• P' ::%! �'C ,l.• .t '� (V,. �°l..e :�; .`,]:.r y K�.• it^"S-rt 1 i.•4.:.. r%- .. i . a�• Rny v�' i'• SmMI- �' • � -I• �tl� � •�� .E -r .. ��P'zr�bi.:S;,,'�•�¢-•.. e'. ,�.,�. - 4.�F5.. },... .: �•'x.. - .�i��` '��. .lye ,(-'. :� ;� i°. r• .�:r � _ ,��,..�;� ... y•�r'. - �;Y•.s • s _ ?e.'•°l `'a,•;rr.; L �g•'v: ate'?• .'::��• 's". �Y�.,d �"�; a`i�ib' '�^� i� fa .. «Cry .: r•y .' ,.: �`' �'� 1 7W °r_ �'S"' ,l,•.� � ':.;r =•� i �•: �a.;: ,ems• rvra s+' r! �'4-, it �•^-•'•�:� `''•.'�° S 4,':. .. �,.. _ r�. `.�«A.�: ^;�'�J�. ,�'�,�.� •� i .-a t��Y�is rr. .erg sue..., �:,. ice- -• r� rBRr •t9•"�A^'�'r :�s :¢ S• � �4'.>1 �'i._y�e_•:c'°e : �"f�"•4,'re. •ifr.• ;F'�' �E°'.i •�.,1�•J �y'.lP: A••s •�F_'_ ,'Y'' X.n _ OR �'�.J,° ��'k _ -d�,r. y -r7' f � yxAan."�.�;�.. � a"•,r.�'+,1p_sds'_.y.'. Rr ��e.. w : c,. ,y.•. _ �' w �' ^,o%�..: «q.l r•" RR �a''' ��f � •1']n•�` q�-" '�' a'�s? 5 a ' 7 e .�i'> '" fY.. yy� �•i� 'r.i+:"w�i .�>:w .�,�C' .t: "f,_�'ir �.: �. X 4. ... y, . • •," i1 F" .r N+'J:. �it�''C S:' L �N-. � f'.}'•.. � t..l-Y" .J•. E � i °i: • � rE ��w�.y�'�:+�f �°�d_. �y �� ;��r ie,�i •" �r a# �.'�ei r.Y M6"rv. �'� �... h..4 .., [�. �`y. sm �"F"� rr�•i3fr.'"Q•��'��, rY`�'�"ice .+,•' •� U.S. HCHWAY 93 TIT iI ! �'Y�• t fey �: .: � �":� = i • _ � .�"—' ' .-•---- _..._. _._. � . ; � a c �►! r _ to s R � i , � ' ! •<, _ •FLLCr Y 4 r1 'Ot__ {, 4 � -•1 I _ _ ... � . i r l_.1 tir;�n__L let, It '_� Park -Aria ' � ,`l L ' ' + r r r s , r 4 } -'L ,f - - 1 ^ "SYQ 1! - '•i�i fl - L• 1y'j 11 to t4oflh a -+a�xr -�fhr- �� 1�t' , 1-4 `4 _ - rr►xura - -- IM . � r • • , t a � �}� , � r , l � , �' � I IRItiY11 �IiiYS1 ilirflin'6 � l'•' ' ca TIZI �- ` _ Ea p { f�" �� ' fk j ��' `17 [A {�Y " f �� y iL? it i*•q Yq` �, t i �, • ` +j� #�r i . < - p "' F @ m � [� �D C3 C) CD tj p� = o tt�#tt !„ � {�,r (may �+ rmy ,a 4 - - f 1 • ;4 _ _ .•` _ ^ i.1 li 4R1 ilk t L _� Jr..s .. s M �? @ II CL 0 r _ rn co ' a w ��!Iri !"►��C� r fl t �F % (: ,r r j• :I �� " �L i� 1V V1 y m "�• C '` n 4 rr r- u it-�sa- a -x. ; ; ��a i 01 ' � rj r� �� n D [) ifJ m j/� [-•i CD 0. cn i � . I � Et ► �; Q � t �` }��fr � � r 11 fll ton °Q -0 CL '{L�Gl (P (A AD19 1 '' I ak 4 ! r ,- 1 a - '��•_ _ l 1'!g� 1 j;. R+ 0 !A 41 j ._..., ,i`-_ } �, :r�. I�jl,��y •, Y f ._ ��. = � f{ fff,,��f .� f.�is. Ikr '1• k, " z<i+ - a�c►r*tn wuuix' 3L 6 ..ne. TPACT 6 �T w rAvr+" a.warr ■�sxa zua,sr r. r.. 9 ; n t� n m 0 CL c) 1►�1 �_ �v� a r _ L7 0 tft �'•� •.• �� •� •` ti• t y ■ r 1 F r i CD �J � � , , g� 1 a e t a ` 1 • ' {p f ❑ a �� a i a l l a F N t a :Z3 7 r C, F a - IJ 11, 1 -IT, t ' 1 PONDEROSA. ESTATES KALiSPELL, MT 59901 Flathead Valley's Finest Sub -Division • 4 Miles Noah on Hwy 93 March 3o, ?007 a 2007 of Kalispell Plannin Department �,� (�� " f � � 4 i `f Attn : Mr. Sean Conrad 17 Second Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Gentl earn en: On Friday, March 16, 20071) I met with Mr. Sean Conrad regardingthe PUD proposed During our dp posed by Gateway Properties. Du g discussion I emphasized that in no wayis the Pon Homeowners Board connected with Ponderosa Estates th Gateway Properties 1n the development the Valley Ranch Planned Unit and construction of Development. Last summer Gateway Properties briefly . P y met with the Ponderosa Board and said that CC buy prole" adjacent to our d they J development. They explained what the `� then gent on their way. Some individualsy �n�ght build and. on our board did express some c streets lot p concern regarding water tables, lighting, size, etc. But In no way did we makes specific regarding anythingGateWa p fic requests Properties was contemplating. Therefor Ea on page I of their P e, the sentences Section �, �.e., is Complies with a request Board of Dire � by the Ponderosa Homeowner's Directors."' does not apply. I have discussed .this with Mr. Brent Card of Gateway Properties Inc. and he h afore mentioned sentence was laced as agreed that the p on their PUD in error. Please do not. con Your future deliberations. consider any of Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Z,4� �v Mrs. Elaine Crahan. President Ponderosa Estates Homeowners Board copy to: Mrs. Sharon DRe�r�ecs ter Mr. Brent Card Ito ful- April S, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd S treet East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the 4W current zoning density of SA--1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in, the proposed project known as valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 west. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1 + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and west Reserve Drive. we all own lots within 150 feet. Please refer to Montana Code Annotated 2005 as follows: 76-2-305. Alteration- of zoning regulations - protest.. (1) A regulation, restriction, and boundary may be amended, supplemented, changed, modified, or repealed. The provisions of 76--2-303 relative to public hearings and official notice apply equally to all changes or amendments. (2) An amendment may not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and voting members of the city or town council or legislative body of the municipality if a protest against a change pursuant to subsection (1) is signed by the owners of 25% or more of: (a) the area of the lots included in any proposed change; or (b) those lots 150 feet from a lot included in a proposed change. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE CL ! of r Zz 4v F47VD& 1:<, o iJ A L 1 i VT OF L L Z� L/ s7 9 April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 west. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way g way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and west Reserve Drive. we all own lots within 150 feet. Please refer to Montana Code Annotated 2005 as follows: 76-2-305. Alteration- of zoning regulations - protest. (1) A regulation, restriction, and boundary may be amended, supplemented, changed, modified, or repealed. The provisions of 76-2-303 relative to public hearings and official notice -apply equally to all changes or amendments. (2) An amendment may not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and voting members of the city or town council or legislative body of the municipality if a protest against a change pursuant to subsection (1) is signed by the owners of 25% or more of: (a) the area of the lots included in any proposed change; or (b) those lots 150 feet from a lot included in a proposed change. LOT NAME ADDRESS Fo-r l FsY ft'r�l/ihs l"GT PHONE April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood; wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 Forth, Range 21 west. The 50.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High -- way 93 approximately 1 + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and west Reserve Drive_ we all own lots within 150 feet. Please refer to Montana Code Annotated 2005 as follows: 76-2-305. Alteration- of zoning regulations - protest.. (1) A regulation, restriction, and boundary may be amended, supplemented, changed, modified, or repealed. The provisions of 76-2-303 relative to public hearings and official notice apply equally to all changes or amendments. (2) An amendment may not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and voting members of the city or town council or legislative body of the municipality if a protest against a change pursuant to subsection (1) is signed by the owners of 25% or more of: (a) the area of the lots included in any proposed change; or (b) those lots 150 feet from a lot included in a proposed change. LOT # DAME ADDRESS PHONE �A f � ►ram .+" 7V1 ++ ••_• - r r � f Zl�t f i ZA yrr� ! J �r 1 E � `�"_ K ��,5Rc10/ April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, NIT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R.--1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be'described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 west. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1 + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. we all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE /vN &rc) -755 � POW i �c�e,l� �� 1a3 Ckesth„L' bL/f1C ✓Y' LLCP,4 � 9 - 3 � Z of 9 0 April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA- I County and R-- I in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project mown as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 Nest. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and west Reserve Drive. we all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME ZON Z 3/v ADDRESS PHONE .7� e-w '::� -;� / /`7 / - A 'r / 7 e- :) ZACT __1 � d" ��' 'I, 4:�-- April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom menu We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-- I County and R-I in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 193 Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # DAME ADDRESS PHONE 4LI 4, i "*Z - 2 3 3 1'7 �4, � l fa _ A jy A' +' a � �r1 C --✓ � ! { r � . � ,tel�ir �-'� � `� � L �f 1 ill �`1 :' ��'�� 7I �/�� i/�F •r � f ; .� 'C1 3 / �i'�� `I �' r 7 4 f r �,.1 �. L r �� 'ri � r/f��t U 17, A/ j April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tam. Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project .known as valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 west. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately I + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and west Reserve Drive. we all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # DAME ADDRESS PHONE A/7 5— — 4/a fuc 17 �r�� • err �"r x t oe r r '07 C 7 I' l / if AL � ,r7 IVf • fir/ R- 11�7 `�]] �. 77-,(��J ""7 r ,r•� .� I��"� fl ` rt' 4 rLlr�/U f f•�� -�� r r .i f R � 1 1 1�'�r�-' i_ } �b April S, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project Known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High -- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # DAME JTe v12 QJ(So �Ictin� �lSo/� ADDRESS 3 7 S! Pe*z�r PHONE 7S�- _7s(___ 60 5 9 April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom fentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2DC in Section 19, Township 29 Forth, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1 + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and west Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this developmente. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE J \.P - ? J07 T � r r. C? �� C._ s (T Department w 7' r.i Suite 211 i s�?e it '�)901 Attention: Tom .lentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoninu density of SA-1 County and R-'l in Kalispell City growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2SC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1 + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE 61 �J !3 A 21 ce �/ b 7� U1 1-vL April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any chai.-f� current zoning density of SA- I County and R- I in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the -Oros- eluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract Tract 3, and;: Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east sdk. ' way 93 approximately I+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and Nest Reserve DriN.e. lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any current zoning density of SA- 1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the pro- t = .* eluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 west. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east sii t L Y _ r : - way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME ADDRESS P Li N G A �9,- roc. q ,kl,A r0.u� .c 3, -m F tY y"uGz GA�.�. Ka k S5'qat 1 spt�I oa'-,1 April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA- I County and R-- I in Kalispell City Growth proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1 + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. April 10, 2007 To: The Kalispell City Planning Board Please accept the following detailed comments on the proposed Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development being developed by Gateway Properties. In brief our concerns include the following: 1. Failure of the applicant to comply with Section 27.21.030 (5) page 66: Standards for Planned Unit .Development District (PUD), that requires specific information be submitted as part of a PUD application including subdivision documents and other essential information that has not been provided as required. Details comments on this are provided in the comments that are attached. 2. Failure to comply with state law 76-2-303 MCA on annexation hearings which allows that a municipality may only conduct a hearing on the annexation in conjunction with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation when the proposed new zoning is comparable with the existing county zoning. The proposed zoning of R--2 with a PUD is not comparable with the current zoning of SAG 10. 3. Failure to demonstrate that the proposed density and relaxed R- 2 standards proposed under the PUD provide, as is required, that there will be an improved overall site design or comparable public benefits in additional open space. In fact the relaxed PUD standards provide for an equivalent R-4' zoning with little to no public benefit. R�-1 is the classification associated with the Suburban Residential classification called for in the Kalispell Growth Policy, which the public was led to believe was the future density for this area unless significant public benefit was to be provided for increased density under a PUD. A PUD under the R-1 classification would allow for 3 dwelling units/acre not the 4.5 proposed. A PUD for this proposed development should demonstrate the significant public benefits and improved site design should include elements that: Create an increased buffer (100 ft) between lots for lots 170-189 which back into a steep ponderosa tree covered slope and lots 7-18 which are in an area of historic drainage problems and an area with existing trees that should be retained for buffering. • Consolidate internally (as opposed to highway frontage) public park facilities in excess of the minimum required of 10.59 to offset density increases requested; • .Assure that trail systems are scaled compatible with proposed trails in adjoining subdivision and that they include and provide connectivity to parks and trail systems in adjoining developments, 0 Provide greater buffers to adjoining development in exchange for requested higher density internally, Do not allow for stonn water or lift station facilities to be considered a part of calculations for park facilities or to be sited so as to interfere with the optimal function of park areas, ' See attached Exhibit A chart that compares zone classifications Detain existing trees, Address areas of high ground water and seasonal flooding. 4. Inadequate transportation Infrastructure or solutions are in place to address transportation Issues Identified in TAC committee discussions and in the current new draft Kalispell Transportation Plan. Conditioning this development on the future development of a full movement intersection is premature and allows for speculative development not consistent with the predictability and time lines that a PUD is clearly required to provide as part of the City of Kalispell Zoning Regulations. This application is premature until comprehensive transportation guidelines are in place for the development being proposed north of Reserve Street. For example, it is of concern that the Sliverbrook development at Church Drive was approved with the assumption that an over -pass would be built and yet now it has apparently been announced that no funding for this by-pass exists 5. Staff recommendations for a series of future amendments to the PUD are not allowed under Kalispell .honing Regulations 27.21.020 (7) Limitation on Rezoning or under requirements under 27.21.030 (5) that require certain information to be part of a PUD application not future amendments to a PUD. Missing information and issues proposed for future amendments include. phasing of the development under the PUD, a park improvement plan, location of parks, development of a proposed assisted living center, future parking and, signage plans, and a street connection for a future full movement intersection. Encouraging and allowing for a series of future amendments also opens the door for amendments for other uses than say a proposed assisted living center. Lack of deadlines for future amendments may result in the inability to make adjustment to lots, parks, buffers, and streets. 6. Potential inappropriate citing of the proposed future assisted living center in an area where height, noise, and high groundwater may create unacceptable problems should be addressed now, not by future amendments to the PUD. Each of these six points is addressed in greater detail below. we request that you deny the application before you tonight and direct the developers to address the incomplete information that is required to be provided as well as the'issues raised within these comments. This application is speculative in nature given that road infrastructure is not in place to serve it and time should be taken to create a better and more complete plan for this development. 1. Incomplete PUD Anplication due to failure to submit Subdivision documents required by the Kalispell zoniniz regulations for a PUD apnfication Section 27.21.030 (5) page fib: Standards for Planned Unit Development District (PUD), of the Kalispell Zoning Regulations, require that "The property owner applying for a PUD district classification shall submit three copies of a PUD preliminary plan which shall contain the following information. If a PUD also involves a subdivision, the submittal shall also include the :nformation and documents r eauired for application stated in the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations." (Emphasis added) The Valley ranch PUD clearly involves a subdivision and yet the application submittal file does not include the subdivision documents required for application under Section 27.21.030 (5) page 66. A list of issues that should have been more clearly addressed as part of required subdivision documents like an environmental assessment include: identification of historic areas of seasonal high groundwater, groundwater mapping, clarification of proposed ( but vague) "underground" storm water detention facilities and issues of high ground water, lot and parkland layout that could be problematic given areas of high groundwater, and lack of information regarding the source of city wells that will provide water. The well issue is of concern given the potential for problems under recent court rulings that may result in the lack of approval for new appropriations in the basin_ New city wells are proposed at the recently approved Church Drive subdivision but it is not clear if the city has water rights for this development. Subdivision documents are needed to inform a decision by the planning board, the city council or to inform the public wishing to comment on this proposal. An environmental assessment is an important subdivision document needed given significant ground water issues in this area. This application should be rejected because the PUD alpfication is incom fete and informedublic comment and decision. makinc4 can not take placewithout this information rovide-d. Incomplete PUD Application due to failure to submit other documents re uired under City of Kalispell PUD Regulations includine the followine required under Section 27.21.030 (5) 2 page 66: Standards for Planned Unit Development District (PUD): "(a). Proposed dimensional layout plan super -imposed on a two to five foot interval top_ogr4phic map of the area drawn to a scale not less than one inch equals Zoo feet showing all streets, buildings, open space, lots and other elements basic to the development;" Comment. THE SUBMITTED TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IS DIFFICULT TO READ .AND DCAES NOT PR VIDE IMPORTANT SLOPE IAIFORMA TION NEEDED I.NCL U.DINC SL OPE INFORMA TION FOR L 0 TS 170-189 WHICH BA CK INTO A STEEP PONDEROSA TREE CO VERED SLOPE AND LOTS 7-18 WHCH ARE IN AN AREA OF HISTORIC DRAINA GE PROBLEMS. THE B UIDABLE AREA OF THESE L 0 TS .IN C ONFOR ANCE WITH SL O.PE RE ULA TI ONS AND NA TURA L DRAINA GE AREAS "- It is im ortant to note that such information is not o tional but that the code say this information "shall be" provided. 27.21.020: General. The following application and review procedures shall apply to designation and approval of all planned unit developments in the city. (1). Initiation of Application; The land owner shall submit an application to the zoning commission for a change of zoning from the existing district to a proposed PUD district or for creation of a PUD district on annexation of the property into the city. The aj2plication shall be accompanied Ly a prelimina plan containing.the information required in Section 27.21.03In cases where the development will be executed in increments, a ochedule sho :vines the tune within each part will be filed and completed, shall also be included in the application. 3 SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH MISSING SUBDIVISION ANAL YSIS FOR THESE L OTS. SINCE BOTH AREAS ARE TRANSITION AREAS BETWEEN VALLEY RANCH AND PONDEROSA ESTATES THEY SHOULD BE REDESIGNEI? 7'O PROVIDE ,4 LA GER B UFFER FROM THIS EXISTING SUBDIVISION AND OF THESE SENSITIVE AREAS. THE PROPOSED BUFFER AREA SHOULD BE INCREASED FROM 20 FEET TO 100 FEET. (SEE MORE DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED BUFFER AREA BELOW) (b). Proposed locations, areas, densities and types of residential and nonresidential uses and structures within the area proposed to be developed and. maximum height of buildings or structure; Co err m en t: WHILE THE APPLI CA TION NO TES THA T IT WILL ALL 0 W FOR A A 7M UM OF 3 FEET .INB UILDTNG HEIGHT IT .DOES NOT ADDRESS AREAS WHERE USE OF THIS FULL HEIGHT WOULD IMPA CT VIEW SHEDS. THE STAFF REPORT REFERENCES "ECELL.ENT VIEWS OF THE VALLEY FL OOR AND BE POND " .YET THE APPLICA TION AND STAFF REP OR T FAIL TO IDENTIFY AREAS WHERE HEIGHT LIMITA TIONS MAYBE NEEDED TO RETAIN IMPORTANT VIE WSHEDS. JUST SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT; FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE INITIAL PR OP OSAL B Y B UCKY WOLFORD LIMITS B UILDINGS .ALONG HIGHWA Y 93 TO ONE STOR Y HA VE BEEN PROPOSED. A SIMILAR HEIGHT LI ITA TION SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE PROPOSED ASSISTED LI THING CENTER THA T IS PROPOSED OSE.D TO FRO UNT HIGHWA Y 93. (c). Proposed plans for handling vehicular traffic, paresse'W'agye--..diSp0Sa1:, Arai age,:= rater�supp y-- s p rim .6r t a�tment and a he pertinent site, eVe opment eatnre Comment: THE APPLICATION IS L4 CK-TNG I'll]" NECESSARY DETAIL FOR ALL OF THESE ISSUES' PARKING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRE NO ON STREET O VERNIGHT PING AND REQ MIRE TWO CAR GARA G.ES AND TWO G UEST VEHICLE PARKING SPA CES ON EA CH LOT NO DOCUMENTATION IS PRO VIDED TO SHOW IF THIS IS DOABLE. SE WA GE DISPOSAL ---A LIFT STATION IS IDENTIFIED AS NEEDED AND SITED WITHIN A PARK .AREA. CREDIT FOR PARKLAND SHO ULD NOT BE PR O VIDED FOR THE AREA USED FOR THE LIFTSTA TION. DRAINA GE NO INFOR .A TION IS PR O VIDED TO ALL O W FOR E V4L UA TION THE PROPOSED STORhW.A TER SYSTEM OF "'UNDERGROUND TANKS - '..NO INFO"A TION IS PRO VIDED TO DEMONST RA T T HO TV S rt OR.MTEA TER GENRA TED B Y STREETS WILL BE HA.NDELED AND IF C URB .AND G UTTER WILL BE USED TO DIRECT THIS WATER. WA. TER S UPPL Y. NO INFOR MA TION IS PR O VIDED A S TO HO TV A PVA TER S UPPL I SYSTEM WILL BE .DE VEL OPED AND IF THIS INCL U.DES THE DE VELOPMENT OF NE PV TVEL L S T'IYA T HA VE E.1 9S TIN G TEA TER R [GrHT A V, 4 IL A B L E .I N TH.E AREA 4 AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS CTS TO EXISTING WELLS IN THE AREA FROM THE .DEVELOPMENT OF A LARGE CAPASITY WELL.. SITE PEIZaIERT'ER TREA TMENT AAD OTHER PERTINENT SITE .I E VEL OP ENT FEA T DIRE' NO DETAIL PLANS HAVE BEEN PRO VIDED. ALL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PROPOSED ARE LEFT TO THE JUDGEMENT ENT OF THE DEVELOPER AND A DEVELOPER APPOINTED COMMITTEE. THE PUD SHOULD SET BASE STANDARDS THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED. THE RETENTION OF EXISTING TREES THA T BORDER, B UFFER, AND PR 0 VIDE SIGNIFICANT CHARA CTER FOR THE P ONDER OSA S UBDI V1ISION HA VE NO T BEEN ADDRESSED. Elevation drawings which demonstrate visually the general architectural features of each proposed building or architecturally: distinct. group or type of buildings and the, site perimeter treatment. Comment: NO .DRA WINGS 114 VE BEEN PRO VIDED. (e)- The plan shall show the boundary lines of adjacent subdivided or unsubdivided land and the existing zoning of the area proposed to be changed to PUD as well as the land adjacent thereto; -emeraton- of covenants in detail proposed to be made a art of the pUD and P shall be enforceable by the city council; Comm en t: THE STAFF REP OR T PR 0 FIDES NO RE VIE W OF THESE CO VENANTS AND THEIR A DEQ UA CY OR .ENFORCABILITY BY THE PTY ANALYSIS IS NEEDED TO DETERMINE IF THESE COVENENANTS CO PLY 97TH 27.22.030 Design Standards for Single Family Dwellings OF THE KAL.ISPELL ZONING REG ULA TION►. THESE COVENANTS OR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS THEY ARE CALLED BY THE .APPLICANT DO NOT PROVIDE ASSURANCES OR DETAIL AB D UT THE M INT INCE OF COMMON AREAS AS REQUIRED. IT I S NOT CLEAR WHA T PARK AREAS WILL BE CITY PARKS AND WHO[ T ALL BE COMMON AREAS ..h1AJNTAINED B Y A HO EO WNERS A SSO CL4 TION. IT IS NOT CLEAR IF A HOMED WNER ASSOCL4 T.ION WILL E VER BE CREA TED AND IF IT CO ULD HA TEE ANY TOTING PO DYER. (g).A-,stateltent-ecpressingthe Order in high the d vela went shall .occur and est* ated p ime.`f r�-'compleling the development. In case of a phased development, estimated time schedule for starting and completing each phase of the development shall he provided (,emphasisadd-ed); . Comment: NO PHASING PLAN IS PROVIDED AS IS REQUIRED. IT ISNOT COMPLIANT WITH THESE RE ULA TIONS TO SUGGEST, AS THE APPLICI4 NT HAS, THA TA T SOME UNKNO k N FUTURE DA TE AFTER ADE O UA TE TRAFFIC INFRA STR UCTURE HAS BEEN B UIL T B Y DE VE'L OPMENTS TO THE So UTH, THA T I THEN THEY WILL PROVIDE A PHASING SCHEDULE. CITYREGULATIONS CLEARL Y REQ UIRE THAT THIS SCHEDULE BE PROVIDED AND COMNII77ED TO AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION. (b). Adequate provisions shall be made for a private organization with direct responsibility to, and control by, the property owners involved to provide for the operation and maintenance of all common facilities, including private streets jointly shared by each property owner, if such facilities are a part of the Planned Unit Development, and in such instance, legal assurances shall- be. provided- hich show that the, private organization. is: self- nndd.toacc m fish xts p purposes,-- Real property taxes of the private streets and common areas shall be assessed as levied pro rasa to all privately owned parcels within the district; C'o m m wen t. SEE COMMENT ON AB O E. THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PR VIDED TO NO PROVIDE FOR .DIRECT RES'PONSIBIL= TO OR CONTROL B Y PR OPE.RTY 0 WNERS. LEGAL A SSURA NCES ARE NO T CLEAR. (i). Adequate provisions shall be made for common facilities which are not dedicated to tYie public to be maintained to standards assuring continuous and adequate maintenance at a reasonable and nondiscriminatory rate of charge to be beneficiaries thereof. Gommon facilities not dedicated to the public shall be operated and maintained by the private organization and at no expense to any governmental unit; Comment: SEE COMMENT ON (f) AND (h) above. THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO IDENTIFY WHICH FACILIES WILL BE COMMON AND WHICH WILL BE DEDICATED TO THE P UBLIC THUS THIS REQ UIREMENT HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. 0). All private streets shall be maintained by the aforesaid private organization in such a manner that adequate and safe access is provided at all times to vehicular traffic so that fire, police, health, sanitation and public utility vehicles can serve the properties contiguous or adjacent thereto and so that said vehicles will have adequate turning area; Com m en t: IT IS NOT CLEAR WH.A T STREETS WILL .BE PRIVA TE AND WHA T 07LL BE ASSUMED ED BY THE CITE: (k). The off-street parking to be:proyided: shall meet the: minimum standards, for off-street parking as perCliapter 27:26 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance; Comment; THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRE NO ON STREET 0 VERNIGHT PARKING AND RED] UIRE TWO CAR GARA CES AND 7TVO C UEST VEHICLE PAR NG SPA C'ES ON EA CH L 0 T. NO D 0 C UMENTA TION IS PR 0 VIDED TO SHO W IF THIS IS DOABLE OR IF IT COMPLIES 9ITFI KA LISPELL ZONING 0R D1A NOES' THE STAFF REPORT NCB TES P0TENTIAL PRO B.LEMS WITH P:4 RI INC UNDER ITS RE VIE TV OF THE P UD E T�4 L UA TION CRITERIA #S NO TING P,R OBLEMS WITH SETBA 0;S FOR GARS[ CES 14 ND P- 4 RING BL 0 CKING 6 SIDE WALKS OR ALLEY AREAS. IT IS .NOT CLEAR THAT THE RECOMMENDED `SIDE LOADED "GARAGE DESIGN ADDRESS'E S ALL THESE ISS UES' (1). Where a PUD also involves a subdivision of land, it shall also meet the requirements of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations and the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act; Comment: AS NOTED .EA_RLI"ER REQ UIRED SUBDIVISION DOC'U .fENTA TION WAS NOT PRO VIDED. (m). The city council shall require bonding or any other appropriate collateral to ensure that all required improvements shall be satisfactorily completed in accordance to the approved plans, specifications and time schedule; and, C o m m e n t: NO CONDITIONS Hit TEE BEEN SUGGESTED TO ESTABLISH THE REQUIRED BONDING. (n). Any other information, plans and details which the planning board and/or city council may desire to fully evaluate the development proposal and its impacts. Comment: G VEN THE RECENT REPORT ON THE KALIS'PELL TRANSPORTATION PLkV THAT INDICATES SIGNIFICANT FUTURE TRANSPORTAT.IONISSUES IN THIS AREA GIVEN THE DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED IN THIS AREA, THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE TABLED UNTIL FINIAL RECOMMENDATIONS ARE .IL4DE B Y THIS STUD Y AND THESE REC OMME V.DA T.IONS CAN BE CONSIDERED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROPOSED PUD. 2. Annexation hearing method is not consistent with state law. The proposed method of annexation for Valley Ranch is not in conformance with state law. 76.2-303 MCA3 which only allows that a municipality may conduct a hearing on the annexation in 3 76-2--303. procedure to administer certain annexations and zoning laws —'hearing and notice. ( 1 ) The city or town council or other legislative body of a municipality shall provide for the manner in which regulations and restrictions and the boundaries of districts .are determined, established, enforced, and changed, subject to the requirements of subsection (2). (2) A regulation, restriction, or boundary may not become effective until after a public hearing in relation to the regulation, restriction, or boundary at which parties in interest and citizens have an opportunity to be heard has been held. At least 15 days' notice of the time and place of the hearing must be published in an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the municipality. (3) (a) For municipal annexations, a municipality may conduct a hearing on the annexation in conjunction with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation, provided that the proposed municipal zoning regulations for the annexed property: (i) authorize land uses comparable to the land uses authorized by county zoning? (ii) authorize land uses that are consistent with land uses approved by the board of county 40mmissioners or the board of :djustrnent pursuant to part i or'.2" of this chapter; or are consistent with zoning requirements recommended in a growth policy adopted pursuant to chapter 1 of this title or in a master plan, as provided for in 6-2- 04(3), for the annexed property. 7 conjunction with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation, provided that the proposed municipal zoning regulations for the annexed property: (i) authorize land uses comparable to the land uses authorized by county zoning;" The proposed land uses (R-2 with a PUD overlay allowing for smaller lot sizes) are not comparable with the existing county zoning of SAG-10. Under state law a separate hearing an annexation must be held prior to consideration of rezoning. This request for initial zoning and annexation should be rejected and the legally required separate hearing on annexation should be held first. 3.) Failure to demonstrate that the proposed density and relaxed R-2 standards proposed under the PUD provide, as is required, that there will be an improved overall site design or comparable public benefits in additional open space. The following definitions give guidance on the public benefit that should result from relaxed standards or increased density. 76-3-103. Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the context or subject matter clearly requires otherwise, the following definitions apply: (10) "Planned unit development" means a land development project consisting of residential clusters, industrial parks, shopping centers, or office building parks that compose a planned mixture of land uses built in a prearranged relationship to each other and having open space and community facilities in common ownership or use. From the Kalispell Zoning Regulations, Definitions'- Page 193, (169). Planned. Unit Development. A tract of land developed as an integrated unit. The development is unique and is based on a plan which allows for flexibility of design, setting and density not otherwise possible under the prevailing zoning district regulations. From the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations 9.45 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD).- A land development project consisting of residential clusters, industrial parks, shopping centers, or office building parks that compose a planned mixture of land uses built in a prearranged relationship to each other and having open space and community facilities in common ownership or use. A PUD allows for flexibility of design, setting or density, in exchange for improved overall site design. Public benefits for increased density should be the cornerstone of developments that request annexation into the city if Kalispell is to retain a former reputation for having great neighborhood. Given the significant density and relaxed standards be requested (b) A Joint hearing authorized under this subsection fulfills a municipality's obligation regarding zoning notice and public hearing for a proposed -annexation. History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. 136, L. 1929; re -en. Sec. 5305.4, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 11 -2704; amd. t`i, 7 7�, C I, cl. It:.. �., L. 1? �Td.C. �i ��; 4*d.�C. ,3. ��, i C4u, UDCI ,003. 8 here public benefits should be demonstrated and required_ We are proposing that the following public benefits be assured.- 0 Create an increased buffer (100 ft) between lots for lots 170-1 89 which back into a steep ponderosa tree covered slope and lots 7-1 8 which are in an area of historic drainage problems and an area with existing trees that should be retained for buffering. • Consolidate internally (as opposed to highway frontage) public park facilities in excess of the minimum required of 10.59 to offset density increases requested; • Assure that trail systems are scaled compatible with proposed trails in adjoining subdivision and that they include and provide connectivity to parrs and trail systems in adjoining developments, ■ Provide greater buffers to adjoining development in exchange for requested higher density internally, ■ Do not allow for storm water or lift station facilities to be considered as part of calculations for park facilities or to be sited so as to interfere with the optimal function of park areas, Retain existing trees, • Address areas of high ground water and seasonal flooding. 4. Inadequate transportation infrastructure or solutions are in place to address transportation issues identified in TAC committee discussions and in the current new draft Kalispell Transportation Plan. Conditioning this development on the future development of a full movement intersection is premature and allows for speculative development not consistent with the predictability and time lines that a PUD is clearly required to provide as part of the City of Kalispell Zoning Regulations. The PUD a lication is remature and should be denied as demonstrated b it failure to meet the following PUD requirements: A) 27.21.030: Standards for Planned Unit Development District (PUD). (1). Location of PUD. A PUD district shall be located in an area where public and private facilities and services are available or are to become available by the time the development reaches the stage where they will be required. There is no know date for the development of a full movement intersection to the south and thus this PUD is premature and speculative and should be denied until certainty is available assure adequate public facilities. B) 27.21.020: General. The following application and review procedures shall apply to designation and approval of all planned unit developments in the city. (1). Initiation of Application-. The land owner shall submit an application to the zoning commission for a change of zoning from the existing district to a proposed PUD district or for creation of a PUD district on annexation of the property into the city_ The application shall be accompanied by a preliminary plan containing the information 9 required in Section 27.21.030(5). In cases where the deve lot) ment will be executed in Increments, a schedule show' the time within each art will be filed and completed,. shall also be included in the a location, (emphasis added Phasing can not be addressed until adequate public facilities are in place and thus this PUD is premature and speculative and should be denied until certainty is available assure adequate public facilities 5. Staff recommendations for a series of future amendments to the PUD are not allowed under Kalispell Zoning Regulations 27.21-020 (7) Limitation on rezoning or under requirements under 27.21.030 (5) that require certain information to be part of a PLED application not future amendments to a PUD. Missing information and issues proposed for future amendments include. phasing of the development under the PUD, a park improvement plan, location of parks, development of a proposed assisted living center, future parking and signage plans, and a street connection for a future full movement intersection. Encouraging and allowing for a series of future amendments also opens the door for amendments for other uses than say a assisted living center. proposed g Lack of deadlines for future amendments may result in the inability to make adjustment to lots, parks, buffers, and streets. See regulation below. 27.21.020 (7). Limitation on Rezoning. The zoning commission shall not initiate any amendment to the zoning ordinance or official Map concerning the property p ty involved in a Planned Unit Development before the completion of the development as long as development is in conformity with the approved detailed Planned Unit Development and proceeding in accordance. with the time requirements imposed therein.. From and after approval of the Planned Unit Development by the city council under Sections 27.21.020(4) and 27.21.020(5) the building official is authorized to issue appropriate permits complying with approved plan. 6. Potential inappropriate citing of the proposed future assisted living center in an area where height, noise, and high groundwater may create unacceptable problems p should be addressed now, not by future amendments- to the PUD. This issue should not be the subject of a future amendment. In accordance with city PUD regulations such issues should be resolved as part of the original PUD approval. to [ d bC4 a Cori • w[ 4 • M cri � • .--4-4 ... �7 a� o G� C (V ....� r-... 0,] �--, .w 1-4 C6 Cl CZ N c+�LW CA 03 ti Cr3 U •-N WNW 4-0 r-, V v q -1 Qo C -4 �" d3 64 00 tb El t� I' C1 r•i 43 43 U d � C r� 43 � r'""1 C',t t`fi �"" . F..t '� .�' [.r.� Efj lD '� C� GQ cr3 el "d V d' CA d Cam., G!3INC 4-4 ten ,• { t�2 � it C�1 N � � � � d , � � V � •" � • � � ...a �"' a � t-.` as U U CA td -El E ,,y ti d A, R �,. 4 4 . r1 •ram[ N ' --I {U [/} tn 9b i�--f C ^� ' ••�--' [1 H �., U a ,.� �r�� ,� CST' c d' E `n `^D '� f� `� o •I r�• h• �. �'S ell Gr cn cz C 3 4w cn rd i N ••t ,� crJ GLr � -cn Q d CL u �_ Q ...� , r� Lot V GA G� C U cG H Gam.] wa ' a tr-� •� �+ `� �-+ N v 7G U D v 4-4 � � • � D Gd � C � _� _D _¢'' O C . � a" . ,..., �D . � �]••` � d cr3 +, � p � � trt3 �,,, . ,_, o t� a� d a� cv [- ...N w M '-• .• ~' .� E,-, o fs., oo v 4-0' Ln d N Ipp 4-4 Ln 4.1 r*� � ram. � � � tt3 � �' � s-�; '•� tv 4� C7 4� • *--s cr3 ..-K: • --c� cam] • .-•4 Zvi r-� C G +-, d +-, cry Q] C_ +.� p Q . �. . ,. , �•.+ 4-K G �,.+ G� ..ter :.:.:. U r-,� U •�..� V "'"� U U gz .. 41 R-1 Density Per Acre R-2 Density Per Acre memo"" I&M 33 34 JS �4N w �� " _..; CK PAKSCW GI HAW LL 41 32 AM, a. tmml . . . . . . . ... WMSON 11.1% 0A 24 Robinson.� r,VAj ccmd"*; Ed 4D. Thi RIS o-t4 esen GOIrM HULSLAZWU 3 4 F� flAGEM". Awnm vk*CWCXrrr WN W.. Polk SF K' g, 1P. A M AEkERNA*n]Y): I.R CHENEY- 0 rAltJ(