The URL can be used to link to this page

1. Resolution 4742 - Preliminary Plat - Sunnyside SubdivisionA Tri-City Planning Office 17 Second Street East - Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 751-1850 Fax: (406) 751-1858 tricity@centu rytel.net REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council FROM: Narda A. Wilson, Senior Planner Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT Preliminary Plat Approval - Sunnyside Subdivision MEETING DATE: October 7, 2002 BACKGROUND: This is a request for preliminary plat approval of a 62 lot residential subdivision located on the south side of Sunnyside Drive and west of Ashley Creek and Denver Avenue. The subdivision contains 24 single-family lots and 19 duplex townhouse lots that would create 38 sublets to accommodate 38 dwellings for a total of 62 lots. The property contains approximately 10 acres and was annexed into the city in February of 2002 and given a zoning designation of R-4, Two Family Residential. This zoning district has a minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet and allows duplexes and single-family homes as permitted uses. The subdivision would be developed in three phases with the first phase being developed west of the existing City street, Boise Avenue. The second phase would include the lots to the west and north of phase one with the final phase being developed along Sunnyside Drive and eventually looping the water and sewer system between Sunnyside Drive and this subdivision. Water and sewer will be extended throughout the project at the developers' expense and in accordance with the City of Kalispell's Design and Construction Standards. A new access would be developed onto Sunnyside Drive as part of the road system that will be completed with phase three. Cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication is being proposed since this subdivision does not meet the criteria for parkland dedication which requires a minimum of one acre. This money would be used for improvements to Begg Park. Sunnyside Drive is owned and maintained by the City of Kalispell from Fifth Avenue West to Seventh Avenue West. Beyond Seventh Avenue West Sunnyside Drive is owned and maintained by Flathead County. The section of Sunnyside Drive where the new access to Sunnyside Subdivision is proposed is owned by Flathead County. In the past the City has proposed to take Sunnyside Drive to the city limits and was declined because the County wanted the City to take Sunnyside Drive west to Valley View Drive. With this development proposal coupled with the development of Lone Pine View Estates, it seems reasonable that the City would annexa� Sunnyside Drive to the western boundary of this subdivision since City utilities will be in the right-of-way and Sunnyside Drive will be used to access this subdivision. Sunnyside Drive does not meet City road standards in that it lacks curb, gutter, sidewalks and a landscape boulevard. The road right-of-way is 60 feet and the pavement width is between 22 to 24 feet depending on the road section. Providing Community Planning Assistance To: • City of Kalispell • City of Columbia Falls • City of Whitefish Y i Preliminary Plat for Sunnyside Subdivision September 19, 2002 Page 2 On September 10, 2002 the Kalispell City Planning Board held a public hearing on this matter at their regular meeting. There was significant interest from the neighbors in the area who spoke in opposition to the subdivision primarily because of the density and increased traffic in the area. Another area of concern that arose from this proposal is the lack of a park area in the subdivision and lack of sidewalks or pedestrian access along Sunnyside Drive. Additionally, the neighbors cited the designation of this area as a wildlife preserve. Of primary concern expressed by the neighbors is the density of the subdivision. It was incorrectly stated repeatedly that this subdivision is twice as dense as Lone Pine View Estates subdivision to the east. However, in performing some cursory density calculations, the subdivision has approximately one third or 33 percent more dwellings per acre but is not "twice the density" or 100 percent more as has been portrayed by some who are opposed to the subdivision. To wit, the area in lots in Lone Pine View Estates is 33 lots on 5.4 acres with an average lot size of 7,218 square feet. The overall density is 6.1 dwelling units per acre. The area in lots for Sunnyside Subdivision is 7.45 acres with 24 single-family residential lots on 3.745 acres and 19 townhouse lots or 38 sublets on 3.707 acres. Translated this is an average lot size of 6,797 square feet for each single-family lot or 6.4 dwellings per acre and 8,499 square feet for each townhouse lot or 4,249 square feet for each sublet or 10.25 dwellings per acre. The overall density for Sunnyside Subdivision would be 8.3 dwelling units per acre. It might be noted that the R-4 zoning assignment for this property was adopted in anticipation of "Urban Residential" development as designated in the Kalispell City -County Master Plan that anticipates two to eight dwelling units per acre. There are options with regard to limiting density within the subdivision by placing a note on the plat or designating lots for single family or townhouse development. However, by limiting the density or the construction of townhouse lots the council also needs to be aware that this increases the cost of each individual dwelling unit that will be placed on the market. Consideration should be given the city council's land use decisions and the unintended consequences that results in driving up the costs of development and limiting the supply of affordable housing in the community. Additionally, a requirement to develop single family homes, further limits housing options in the community where there is a critical need for duplex, apartments and townhouses. Providing affordable housing and increasing the range of housing options were two primary goals the city council identified in the land use section of the growth policy during their review process. Unintended consequences of lower density in residential development and exclusively requiring the construction of single family homes are higher housing costs, less efficient use of land and fewer housing options for those who do not want or need the maintenance and responsibilities of owning a single family home. The need for more housing options will continue to rise and the baby boom generation ages and retirees want a more flexible lifestyle. i Preliminary Plat for Sunnyside Subdivision September 19, 2002 Page 3 Another primary area of concern is the traffic in the area and additional impacts to Sunnyside Drive as a result of this subdivision. A letter from the Flathead County Road Department has been included in the informational items being sent to you outlining some of the concerns the road department has with this subdivision. Charles Johnson, Superintended for the Flathead County Road Department states that he has concerns with the width and surfacing of Sunnyside Drive and would like the City to assume ownership and maintenance of Sunnyside Drive to Valley View Drive as well as Ashley Drive. The Kalispell Public Works Department has responded to the letter from the County Road Department outlining their concerns with the proposed annexation of Sunnyside Drive and Ashley Drive. This letter is included with other informational material being forwarded to the city council. Essentially, Public Works Director Jim Hansz notes that the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan recommends improvements to Sunnyside Drive to a rural collector standard when traffic volumes warrant such improvement. The plan projected traffic volumes of 6,000 vehicles per day in the year 2015 which would warrant those improvements and upgrade. Currently there is no data that would support the County's recommendation for current upgrades. In light of these issues the public works department is recommending that the developer conduct a traffic study of the impacted area to identify current conditions, the impacts of the proposed development on the roadways in the area and to identify mitigation. It may be noteworthy that since the Carter Burgess Transportation Study in 1993, which resulted in the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan, referenced above of Mr. Hansz, Flathead County conducted a traffic count in the summer of 1999 on Sunnyside Drive east of Valley View Drive. The count was done during the week of 6/26/99 through 7/2/99 and counted 2,982 vehicles during that week with an average of 347 vehicles per day. A traffic study assessing the impacts of this subdivision would be paid for by the developer and would provide an objective, professional analysis of impacts, level of service and mitigation measures. It is estimated that this traffic study would cost between $1,200 and $2,000. One additional issue that arose during the public hearing was the designation of this area as a game preserve. Lone Pine Game Preserve is situated southwest of Kalispell and is bounded by Foys Lake Road and 18th Street on the north, Airport Road on the east, and Foys Canyon Road on the south and west. The preserve was created by the Fish, Wildlife, & Parks Commission in the 1960's for the purpose of protecting wildlife within these areas. The rules generally prohibit the carrying or discharging of firearms, creating disturbances tending to frighten or drive away game animals or birds, or chasing wildlife by dogs. Trapping of furbearing animals during permitted seasons is allowed. Since the time this area was designated as a game preserve, significant development has occurred west of Airport Road. The "preserve" status does not necessarily mean that the property where Sunnyside Subdivision is proposed provides "critical wildlife habitat" nor does it provide "important wildlife habitat" which are typically found outside of urban areas along undisturbed riparian corridors or in heavily forested area. Although there may be some wildlife present in Preliminary Plat for Sunnyside Subdivision September 19, 2002 Page 4 the area, this property does not provide important wildlife habitat despite being part of a game preserve. In the past it has been used primarily for grazing and grasslands. In conclusion it should be noted that his subdivision complies with the zoning, the urban residential designation of the master plan and fulfills several goals and policies of identified by the city council in the growth policy dealing with affordable housing and housing options. Additionally, this subdivision complies with the subdivision regulations and will be constructed to City standards with regard to water, sewer, streets, drainage and landscaping. The Kalispell City Planning Board held a public hearing at their regular meeting on September 10, 2002. The applicants explained their proposal stating that this area seemed like a logical area for the city to grow and that the subdivision would be constructed in compliance with City standards. There were a number of residents in the immediate area who opposed the subdivision primarily because of the density and impacts created by the additional traffic. A motion was made to require a traffic study to assess impacts to the roads in the area. That motion failed on a vote of two in favor and four opposed. Another motion was made to approve the subdivision subject to the recommended conditions did not pass on a vote of three in favor and three opposed. This vote is being forwarded to the Kalispell City Council for consideration. RECOMMENDATION: A motion to adopt the resolution approving the preliminary plat for Sunnyside Subdivision subject to conditions would be in order. Additionally, the city council may want to consider adding another condition requiring a traffic study to assess the impacts of the subdivision to the roads in the area. FISCAL EFFECTS: Minor positive impacts once developed. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the city council. Narda A. Wilson Chris A. Kukulski Senior Planner City Manager Report compiled: September 19, 2002 c: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk Attachments: Transmittal letter Miscellaneous letters Staff report #KPP-02-6 and application materials Draft minutes from 9/ 10/02 planning board meeting \TRANSMIT\KALISPEL \ 2002 \KPP-02-6MEMO.DOC RESOLUTION NO. 4742 A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SUNNYSIDE SUBDIVISION, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR'S TRACT S IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 21 WEST, P.M.M., FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA. WHEREAS, Owl Corporation, the owner of certain real property described above, has petitioned for approval of the Subdivision Plat of said property, and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on September 10, 2002, on the proposal and reviewed Subdivision Report #KPP- 02-6 issued by the Tri-City Planning Office, and WHEREAS, at the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission meeting, a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat of Sunnyside Subdivision failed on a 3-3 tie vote, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell at its regular Council Meeting of October 7, 2002, reviewed the Tri-City Planning Office Report #KPP-02-6, reviewed the recommendations of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission, and found from the Preliminary Plat, and evidence, that the subdivision is in the public interest. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, MONTANA AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. That the Findings of Fact contained in Tri-City Planning Office Report #KPP-02-6 are hereby adopted as the Findings of Fact of the City Council. SECTION II. That the application of Owl Corporation for approval of the Preliminary Plat of Sunnyside Subdivision, Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the subdivision shall be platted in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat which governs the location of lots and roadways within the subdivision. 2. That the roadways serving the subdivision shall be constructed in accordance with the adopted Design and Construction Standards for the City of Kalispell for local roads and include the pavement, curbs, gutters, storm drainage, sidewalks and a minimum five foot landscape boulevard with street trees placed in accordance with a plan approved by the parks and recreation director. A letter from an engineer licensed in the State of Montana certifying that the improvements have been installed according to the required specifications shall be submitted at the time of final plat approval along with a letter from the Kalispell Public Works Department stating that the required improvements have been inspected and comply with the City standards. That a letter be obtained from the Kalispell Public Works Department approving the water, sewer and drainage facilities for the subdivision. 4. A storm water drainage plan which has been designed by an engineer licensed in the State of Montana shall be prepared which complies with the City's Design and Construction Standards and shall be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department. That the developer obtain a letter from the Flathead County Road Department approving the intersection of the internal subdivision roads and Sunnyview Drive certifying that any necessary improvements have been completed. 6. The roads within the subdivision shall be named and signed in accordance with the policies of the Kalispell Public Works Department and the Uniform Traffic Control Devices Manual and be subject to review and approval of the Kalispell Fire Department, 7. The developer shall provide a letter from the U.S. Postal Service approving the plan for mail service. 8. Street lighting shall be located within the subdivision and shall be shielded so that it does not intrude unnecessarily onto adjoining properties. That the parkland dedication requirements shall be met by paying cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication in the amount of one ninth of the area devoted to lots or approximately 0.82 acres, based on a value of $10,000 per acre in the amount of $8,197. 10. All utilities shall be installed underground. 11. That the fire access and suppression system comply with the Uniform Fire Code and a letter from the Kalispell Fire Department approving the access and number and placement of fire hydrants within the subdivision as well as fire flows and access shall be submitted with the final plat. The fire access and suppression system shall be installed and approved by the fire department prior to final plat approval. 12. That a minimum of two-thirds of the necessary infrastructure for this subdivision shall be completed prior to final plat submittal. 13. All areas disturbed during development of the subdivision shall be re -vegetated with a weed -free mix immediately after development. 14. A traffic study be prepared at the developer's expense assessing the impacted area to identify current conditions, the impacts of the proposed development on the roadways in the area and to identify mitigation. Mitigation shall be coordinated with Kalispell Public Works with such costs borne by the developer. 15. That preliminary approval shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of approval. SECTION 111. Upon proper review and filing of the Final Plat of said subdivision in the office of the Flathead County Clerk and Recorder, said premises shall be a subdivision of the City of Kalispell. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, THIS 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2002. Pamela B. Kennedy Mayor ATTEST: Theresa White City Clerk Tri-City Planning Office 17 Second Street East - Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 751-1850 Fax: (406) 751-1858 tricity@centurytel. net September 19, 2002 Chris Kukulski, City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Preliminary Plat Approval - Sunnyside Subdivision Dear Chris: The Kalispell City Planning Board met on September 13, 2002, and held a public hearing to consider a request by Owl Corporation for preliminary plat approval of a 62 lot residential subdivision an property located on the south side of Sunnyside Drive and west of Ashley Creek in the southwest part of Kalispell. This subdivision would have 24 single-family lots and 16 duplex townhouse lots or 38 sublats for a total of 62 lots on approximately 10 acres. The subdivision would be developed in three phases with the final phase located to the north eventually looping the water and sewer along Sunnyside Drive where a new access to the subdivision will also be developed. The property was previously annexed into the city and has an R-4, Two Family Residential. Narda Wilson, of the Tri-City Planning Office, presented staff report #KPP-02-6 evaluating the proposal and recommending approval of the preliminary plat for the subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. At the public hearing the applicants spoke in favor of the proposal and there were several neighbors from the area speaking in opposition. Their primary concerns were the additional traffic onto Sunnyside Drive, the density of the subdivision, lack of pedestrian access in the area, the proposal for cash -in -lieu of a park and impacts to wildlife in the area. After the public hearing the board discussed the proposal, taking into consideration the issues associated with the additional traffic onto Sunnyside Drive and the general issues related to traffic in the area and plans for future roadway upgrades. A motion was made to add an additional condition requiring a traffic study for the subdivision, which failed on a vote of two in favor and four opposed. A motion was made to approve the preliminary plat subject to the recommended conditions. The motion failed on a vote of three in favor and three opposed. Providing Community Planning Assistance To: • City of Kalispell • City of Columbia Falls • City of Whitefish Preliminary Plat for Sunn_vside Subdivision September 19, 2002 Page 2 The planning board wants to express their concerns regarding establishing a connected roadway network that will function within acceptable limits. We are passing on this information onto the Kalispell City Council for their consideration at their next meeting of October 7, 2002. You may contact this board or Narda Wilson at the Tri-City Planning Office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely Kalispell City Planning Board 4nJz5f Ron Van Natta President RVN/NW Attachments: Staff report KPP-02-6 and application materials Draft minutes 9/ 10/02 planning board meeting c w/ Art: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk c w/o Att: Owl Corporation, 500 Palmer Drive, Kalispell, MT 59901 Sands Surveying, 2 Village Loop, Kalispell, MT 59901 H:\FRDO\TRANSMIT\KALISPEL\2002\KPP-02-6.DOC KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and CALL Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were: Bill Rice, Sue Ellyn Anderson, Jean Johnson, Mark Brechel, Ron Van Natta and Bonnie Spooner. Jim Atkinson had an excused absence. Narda Wilson represented the Tri-City Planning Office. There were approximately 54 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Brechel moved and Anderson seconded to approve the minutes of the Kalispell City Planning Board meeting of August 13, 2002 as submitted. On a vote by acclamation the motion passed unanimously. SUNNYSIDE SUBDIVISION A request by Owl Corporation for preliminary plat approval of PRELIMINARY PLAT a 62-lot residential subdivision on 10.029 acres located on the south side of Sunnyside Drive, west of Ashley Creek, property zoned R-4, Two -Family Residential. STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, of the Tri-City Planning Office, gave a #KPP-02-6 presentation of staff report KPP-02-6, a request for preliminary plat approval of a 62-lot residential subdivision on approximately 10.029 acres in the southwest part of Kalispell. The property was recently annexed into the city of Kalispell and given a zoning designation of R-4, a Two -Family Residential zone that is intended primarily for single-family and duplex homes. The subdivision would be platted for 24 single family homes and 16 townhouse lots and would be developed in three phases over a period of time depending on the market. Phase I would be developed directly to the west of Lone Pine View Estates consisting of 7 single family lots, then Phase II to the west consisting of 14 single-family lots and 16 townhouse sublots, the remaining lots would be developed in Phase III to the north along Sunnyside Drive. Utilities would be extended from Lone Pine View Estates located to the east and extended westward and then eventually looped to the north to connect in Sunnyside Drive. The developers would propose to pay cash in lieu of parkland dedication. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions. Van Natta asked and Wilson answered that street lights would be included as standard infrastructure per the subdivision regulations. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2002 Page 1 F Brechel asked and Wilson explained that looping water would have to be done to get adequate pressure and achieve fire flow as per the uniform fire code and depending on the water pressure may have to be completed prior to Phase III. APPLICANT/AGENCIES Mark Owens, 95 Stillwater Rd., spoke on behalf of Owl Corp., developers of the project. He said it was a family effort and the property was chosen because it made sense from the aspect of a good development project. He noted that Kalispell was expanding in that direction and they would be able to competently meet development criteria. He felt the development was needed. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the issue. PROPONENTS No one wished to speak OPPONENTS Dale Pierce, 1015 Ashley Drive, said his land borders this subdivision across the street immediately north and he was strongly opposed. He stated reasons of density, noting that when they took out 2 acres for the road it left 7.55 acres for 62 units. He thought the recent rezoning to R-4 was probably illegal as per the Attorney General. He said the roads didn't meet standard right-of-way widths and he didn't think the sewer treatment plant could handle all the additional annexations when it was at maximum capacity now during peak hours. Angie Kruckenberg, 1116 Sunnyside Dr., stated she adjoined the proposed development. She passed around pictures showing the land surrounding her home. She believed in a long-term growth policy and thought the change from R-1 to R-4 was radical. She said the 2.5 acres proposed for roads would leave average lot sizes of 5,500 square feet. She noted that 620 car trips would be generated on already narrow roads. She was opposed to the density and congestion of 62 homes on 10 acres and had concerns for the safety of the children. She thought it was important to say "no" to all new subdivisions until there was a long-range growth plan and new roads in place that the developer paid for, not the taxpayers. She further noted the area proposed was in the Lone Pine Game Preserve and asked what would happen to the game. She asked them to consider the joy of a child watching a beautiful creature going by their yard, which was not possible when houses and lots had almost zero clearance. She reiterated her belief about healthy growth, and the vision of what is to be placed with the best interest of the entire community, not just with the developer and city cashier. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2002 Page 2 A Lila Kruckenberg, 1204 Sunnyside Dr., said she was not opposed to the subdivision, but opposed to the density. She felt the zoning was not compatible with the surrounding area and commented on a family transfer she did that only allowed her one dwelling per acre. She said the proposal asked for 10 dwellings per acre. She thought single-family was more compatible and the added traffic would have to be addressed because the roads were already too congested. She addressed the park issue stating Lone Pine was a hiking trail not a park for young children. She said the area was a prime walking and jogging area. She challenged the value the developer placed on the property for cash in lieu of parks and challenged the quoted number of children who would add to the school system. She also noted the game preserve and felt the staff had not done their homework. She hoped they would consider the issues and that the projected 7 million in tax revenue would not be their prime motivation. Norm Kruckenberg, 1116 Sunnyside Dr., noted several reasons why he agreed with the Attorney General that all subdivisions and zone changes had no legal effect without a growth policy in place. The roads to and from the subdivision were overloaded and substandard. He noted a map designation for a road from South Meadows to Airport Road and out the northwest side, intersecting Sunnyside at 7f Avenue. He said it had not been built and might be another item developers pay not to build, just like the parks they don't build in subdivisions. He said the cash in lieu of park leaves more land to build homes on. He was not opposed to growth, but opposed to poorly planned subdivisions. He believed 5 single-family houses per acre should be the limit and concluded that this is a beautiful valley and they needed a good growth plan to keep it that way. Cheryl Pierce, 1015 Ashley Dr., stated she was strongly opposed to the project. She thought 30 townhouses indicated short-term residents. She said the report noted no trees and there were four. She said the City couldn't keep up with what sewer they already had and thought more trash would pose another obstacle course for traffic to dodge. She counted the vehicles that passed by her house now and was opposed to adding 620 more. She asked who would build the new schools and thought they were kidding by saying this many houses would only add 35 more students. Jim Battee, 808 Sunnyside Dr., commented on the recreational aspect of Sunnyside Drive. He said there were no sidewalks and the nearest basketball, swings, and slide was at Elrod School, but over a mile from this subdivision. He noted the increase in traffic, especially during peak periods. He disagreed with the intensity, especially the townhouses, and said it was not congruent with the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2002 Page 3 surrounding area. He noted the wildlife currently in the area and said that more people meant less available land for wildlife. He opposed the high concentration of homes and asked that before a decision be made they take a closer look at the area and travel the road. He thought adding more cars would be asking for trouble. Bruce Schomer, 115 Boise, asked Mr. Owens to perish the thought on this one. Dwayne Fulton, 1035 Ashley Dr., stated his major concern was the safety. He thought over population and under moved ways to get people in and out was a problem. He said he heard about a bypass but thought the traffic pattern had changed and wondered how much more traffic the road could handle. He thought the Denver approach from the north was an accident waiting to happen because Ashley Creek was right off the edge and cars sped down Sunnyside Drive. He said before they worry about additional subdivisions they ought to do an engineered study to get the place squared away. He said the bypass, which is still in the making, better plan for getting on and off. Ray De Long, 310 Bismarck St., said he was the first to build in Lone Pine View Estates and he was not against this, but would like to see it scaled back to 35 units instead of 62. He thought the lots on the plat were smaller than his and his was very small at 7,000 square feet. He thought that crowding people into a small area was asking for trouble and that the roads were an accident waiting to happen. Chrysta Bourne, 630 10th St. W., said Sunnyside has a tremendous amount of foot traffic, bike traffic, children and women walking, and car traffic. She said the speed zones were not adhered to, which presented danger and hazards for people and for the additional traffic of the development. She noted the proposal said there was adequate police and she didn't believe it. She asked on what basis the developer stated there was a need for this development and asked if that need had arisen. Was there a demographic study? She noted the other subdivisions that were not full and stated she was not in favor of the development. Dorinda Bilings, 60 Denver Ave., said it was absurd to construct 62 units on 10 acres. She said it would create havoc to what was designated as a game preserve and noted the area's wildlife. She felt they had become blind to the sensitivity of nature. She thought the units built in lieu of a park would bring into someone's coffers far more than the $8,000 contributed. She thought crowding people onto 10 acres would require a park and that Lone Pine trail would not suffice for the elderly, disabled, or children. She asked if the developer would be responsible to widen Sunnyside Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2002 Page 4 Drive, put in curbs and construct a wider bridge across Ashley Creek. She thought the subdivision would create those needs now rather than in the future. She felt the proposed subdivision should be denied because it would severely deplete the quality of life on the west side of Kalispell. Marvin Vaughn, 116 Denver Ave., asked them to at least put in a park. He said the kids were not going to ride their bikes or walk to Begg Park and there were no sidewalks. He said, put in a park and not so many houses. He noted the noise of the traffic going by his house at all hours. Mr. Fulton added that the Lone Pine State Park committee, of which he was a member, was developing a 5-year study and their main concern was traffic and where to put all the people visiting the hiking trail. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. BOARD DISCUSSION Brechel wondered where everyone was during the zone change hearing and said it would help the board if they could hear comments like these from the get go. He asked and Wilson explained minimum lot sizes for the R-4 zone. Mr. Batte stated there was no notification about the land being rezoned. Van Natta said he recalled some people who spoke at the hearing. Mrs. Kruckenberg and several others in the audience said they were not notified of the pending subdivision. Van Natta stated it was his understanding that adjacent landowners were notified and there was nothing he could do at this point. Wilson stated they had a certified list from the County Plat Room of adjoining landowners and notification was sent to those addresses via certified mail regarding the subdivision. MOTION Anderson moved and Rice seconded to adopt staff report KPP-02-6 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat be approved subject to 14 staff recommended conditions. BOARD DISCUSSION Anderson agreed with Brechel and was pleased to see the public turnout. She said she understood the traffic problem and sympathized with that. She said they, as a board, would do what they could to determine the best growth for that area. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2002 Page 5 Rice questioned the research on road and wildlife findings. Wilson said the area was not designated as an area as important wildlife habitat, with no creeks or streams running through the property that would provide habitat. She said they had a resource and analysis document that documented important wildlife habitats and this area was not designated as such. A game preserve is something different that important wildlife habitat. Spooner noted the discrepancy and Wilson said there may be wildlife or a corridor, but noted that the entire property was fenced with barbed wire, which limited the ability for wildlife to travel through. She also noted that if it were maintained as an important wildlife habitat or identified as such, other consideration would be given. With regard to roads, Wilson noted the formula used for calculating the amount of road trips per day was standard and it included things like mail service and UPS deliveries. Rice asked if the impact to roads was from a study or if she consulted with the road department. Wilson said the west side was designated for urban expansion and this was not beyond what would be anticipated for growth in the area. She noted the Kalispell Master Plan anticipated this kind of growth and the associated impacts giving this area and Urban Residential land use designation. She also addressed comments about substandard road widths and noted Sunnyside Drive and Valley View were County roads and they complied with County standards. Brechel asked and Wilson explained that a throughway was extended through South Meadows subdivision and Denver was not the only access out of the subdivision. Rice asked about guidelines for cash in lieu of parks and Wilson explained the criteria and regulations for major subdivisions. She said the money for cash in lieu of parkland would be spent on improvements to Begg Park, which lies to the east. Rice clarified the cash in lieu would go directly to the park and Wilson explained there were statutes in place requiring the money be spent on park improvements rather than maintenance, which reflected state and local regulations. She said it would go to a special fund, not a general fund. Rice asked and Mr. Owens answered that Phase I would begin in the Spring of 2003 and they were looking out to the next 5 years for completion of the project. Spooner noted the public was not opposed to growth in the area and asked Owens if he would compromise to make this workable. Mr. Owens stated he was reluctant to openly compromise because it fit zoning and criteria. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2002 Page 6 a Brechel felt the zoning fit the criteria but wanted a traffic study for Sunnyside, Th, and Meridian. Wilson explained that a traffic study would assess the impacts of the roads in the area and identify mitigation measures that could be taken to address the impacts. MOTION (AMENDMENT) Brechel moved and Spooner seconded to add condition #15 to require a traffic study for the subdivision. BOARD DISCUSSION Rice asked what the traffic study would cost and Spooner asked who would pay for it. Wilson answered she didn't know for certain but would likely cost somewhere between $2,000 and $10,000 depending on the size of the development and the scope of the study. Van Natta said he was not aware of a time they required it of a residential subdivision. Wilson said the traffic study would assess the level of service. If there were impacts that would decrease that level of service the traffic study would identify mitigation, i.e. road improvements or stop signs. ROLL CALL (AMENDMENT) The motion failed with 2, Brechel and Spooner in favor and 4 opposed. BOARD DISCUSSION Rice suggested the City take a serious look at the roads to make sure there was adequate egress and ingress. Wilson said the primary concern was fire access and this met the fire departments need for a secondary access. Rice wanted to make sure there was forethought and long term planning that went into where the traffic would go and if it would be adequate. Wilson noted that when she prepared the transmittal to the city council she would make sure to include that specific language regarding the roads. Van Natta noted concern for substandard roads in the future. He thought they needed to figure out some way to set aside a fund and felt it was not wise to require the developer to rebuild the road to a higher standard. Brechel agreed the developer shouldn't have to improve the roads, but added that if the density weren't so severe a traffic study might not be made. Van Natta said there must be a market for what he's proposing. Wilson said there was a bigger market than people estimated, especially for young families. She said affordability was a factor. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2002 Page 7 Anderson asked and Mr. Owens answered that the townhouse dwellings would generally be owner occupied. ROLL CALL The motion tied with 3 in favor and 3 in opposition, with Spooner, Anderson and Brechel voting in opposition and Atkinson, Rice and Johnson voting in favor. WEST VIEW ESTATES / A request by Mark Owens, dba Owl Corporation / LBO OWL CORPORATION Limited Partnership for an initial zoning designation of R-3 ANNEXATION AND INITIAL on 48 acres and RA-1 on 10 acres upon annexation to the ZONING city of Kalispell on property located at the northeast corner of Stillwater Road and West Reserve Drive. WEST VIEW ESTATES A request by Mark Owens, dba Owl Corporation, for SUBDIVISON PRELIMINARY preliminary plat approval of West View Estates, a 128-lot PLAT residential subdivision located on the northeast corner of Stillwater Road and West Reserve Drive. STAFF REPORTS Narda Wilson, of the Tri-City Planning Office, gave a #KA-02-7A AND #KPP-02- presentation of staff reports KA-02-7A, a request for 4A annexation and initial zoning, and KPP-02-4A, preliminary plat for a 128 lot residential subdivision on approximately 58 acres in the northwest part of Kalispell. This property is proposed for annexation and assignment of initial zoning concurrently with consideration of this preliminary plat. The residential component of the subdivision contains 127 single-family residential lots on approximately 48 acres that would be developed in three phases. One 10-acre parcel would be created and developed at a later date with duplex, townhouses or multi -family homes. The ten acre parcel would be generally located in the southwestern portion of the site, while the 48 acres of single-family residential homes would be developed on the northern two thirds of the site as well as the area to the east that borders Stillwater Estates Subdivision. One of the policy statements in the Master Plan document for the West View Estates Development Plan, Phase I of the subdivision would have to be substantially complete prior to the initiation of construction of the high - density residential component of the development. Staff reviewed the findings of fact and made two recommendations of approval, one recommending the initial zoning of R-3 and RA-1 upon annexation to the city and another for the preliminary plat subject to conditions. APPLICANT/AGENCIES Mark Owens declined to speak but was available for questions. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak. PROPONENTS No one wished to speak. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2002 Page 8 City of Kalispell Public Works Department Post Office Box 1997, Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 - Telephone (406)758-7720, Fax (406)758-783 t MEMORANDUM September 24, 2002 To: Narda Wilson, Tri-City Planning Office From: James C. Hansz, PE, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Subject: Sunnyside Subdivision In response to the County Road Superintendent's letter of September 16, 2002, Public Works offers the following observations. • While at some future point there may be a need for significant improvement of Sunnyside Drive to a higher standard, we believe the present roadway meets current County standards and serves the area with reasonable efficiency. In the area of the proposed development the general condition of the roadway appears good and reflects recent maintenance by the County and some improvement by others when the Lone Pine subdivision was constructed. The Kalispell Area Transportation Plan recommends improvement of Sunnyside to a rural collector standard when traffic volumes warrant such improvement. The Plan projected traffic volumes of approximately 6,000 VPD for the year 2015. This volume of traffic would support this recommendation. However, we have no current data to support the County recommendation for immediate upgrade. In view of this, Public Works recommends that the developer conduct a comprehensive traffic study of the impacted area to identify current conditions, the impacts of the proposed development on roadways and to identify mitigation measures needed to remedy traffic problems related to the proposed development. • With respect to sidewalks, or walking paths, these should be covered in the comprehensive traffic analysis recommended above and if improvement were recommended as an appropriate mitigation measure, would be necessary to conform to City of Kalispell standards. • With respect to annexation, the City has no objection to annexation of Sunnyside Drive from the current City Limit to the intersection of the new roadway proposed by the Sunnyside developer. This proposed location is understood be at the existing eastern intersection of Ashley Drive and Sunnyside. 1 am uncertain of the reasoning behind the recommendation to annex all of Ashley Drive and Valley View. The City does not wholly surround these roads. However, I believe that annexation of Sunnvside would still require County involvement regarding maintenance of the bridge because the City does not have a bridge maintenance capability. mei=0492002 FLATHEAD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE 7 KII&LDEPARTMENTS September 16, 2002 Narda Wilson Tri-City Planning Office 17 Second Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: Sunnyside Subdivision Dear Narda: 800 SOUTH MAIN KALISPELL. MT 59901 Phone: (4061758-5790 Fax: (406) 758-5794 RECEIVED SEP 2 3 2092 TRI-CITY PLANNING OFFICE The Flathead County Road Department has a few specific concerns regarding the Sunnyside Subdivision. The first concern is the substandard condition of Sunnyside Drive. Improvements need to be made for width and surfacing. The other concern lies with the pedestrian traffic that would be generated. Walking paths is a must with Lone Pine State Park being the draw. In addition, annexation into the city is a must. This would keep the County from ending up with islands and duplications of services. Annexation should include Sunnyside Drive to Valley View and also include Ashley Drive. This would disengage the County Road Dept. from the maintenance in an area surrounded by the City. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Charles E: Johnson Superintendent CEJ:ndv SUNNYSIDE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT TRI-CITY PLANNING: OFFICE STAFF REPORT #KPP-02-6 SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 A report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding a request for preliminary plat approval of a 62-lot residential subdivision on property zoned R-4_ A public hearing on this proposal has been scheduled before the planning board for September 10, 2002 in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The planning board will forward a recommendation to the city council for final action. BACKGROUND: This property was recently annexed into the city and given a zoning designation of R-4, a Two Family Residential district. The property contains approximately 10.029 acres and is located on the south side of Sunnyside Drive and west of Ashley Creek. A. Petitioner and Owners: Owl Corporation 500 Palmer Drive Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 755-5666 Technical Assistance: Sands Surveying, Inc. 2 Village Loop Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 755-6481 B. Nature of Application: This is a request for preliminary plat approval of a 62-lot residential subdivision on approximately 10.029 acres in the southwest part of Kalispell. This property was recently annexed into the city of Kalispell and given a zoning designation of R-4, a Two -Family Residential zone that is intended primarily for single-family and duplex homes. The subdivision would be platted for 24 single family homes and 38 townhouses and would be developed in three phases over a period of time depending on the market. Phase I would be developed directly to the west of Lone Pine View Estates consisting of seven single family lots, then Phase II to the west consisting of 14 single-family lots and 16 townhouse lots, the remaining lots *would be developed in Phase III to the north along Sunnyside Drive. Utilities would be extended from the Lone Pine View Estates located to the east and extended westward and then eventually looped to the north to connect in Sunnyside Drive. The developers would propose to pay cash in lieu of parkland dedication. C. Location and Legal Description of Property: The property proposed for subdivision lies on the south side of Sunnyside Drive, west of Ashley Creek and Lone Pine View Estates. It can be described as Assessor's Tract 8 located in Section 19, 'Township 28 NorTH, Range 21 :Vest, P.M.M., Flathead County, lvlonrana. D. Size: Total Area: Total Lot Area in Lots Single Family Lots: Townhouse Lots: Area in Roads: Minimum Lot Size: Maximum Lot Size: 10.029 acres 7.452 acres 3.743 acres 3.707 acres 2.377 acres 3,615.48 square feet 13,420.24 square feet E. Existing Land Use: This property is currently in grasslands and is otherwise undeveloped. F. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning: The area is characterized by single-family and rural residential development in the area. North: Rural residential and single-family homes, County R-1 zoning East: Rural and urban residential development, City R-3 and County R-1 zoning South: Stratford Subdivision; City R-4 zoning. West: Rural residential and single family homes, County R-1 zoning G. General Land Use Character: The general land use character of the area is developed at an urban density to the east where City services are available and is rural residential in character to the west. There are some large parcels in the area that have good development potential once City services are extended to the area and this is one of them A. Zoning: This property was recently annexed and given a zoning designation of R- 4, a Two Family Residential, which allows single-family and duplex housing as permitted uses. The minimum lot size requirement in the district is 6,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 50 feet with setbacks of 13 feet in the front and on side comers, five feet on the side yards and 10 feet in the rear. I. Utilities: This 'subdivision would receive full City services. Water: City of Kalispell Sewer: City of Kalispell Solid Waste: City of Kalispell Gas: Montana Power Companv Electricity Flathead Electric Coop (underground) Telephone: CentaryTel (underground) Fire: City of Xalispell Schools: School District T3, Kalispell Police: City of Kalispell This matter came before the site development review committee and there was support for the subdivision. No substantial issues were identified during the committee review. There was discussion regarding the use of the cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication and improvements that could be made to Begg Park to the west. This application is reviewed as a major subdivision in accordance with statutory criteria and the Kalispell City Subdivision Regulations. A. Effects on Health and Safety: Eire: This subdivision would be in the service area of the Kalispell Fire Department. The property can be considered to be a low risk of fire because the subdivision and homes within the subdivision would be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code and have access which meets City standards. All of the lots will abut a street that has been constructed to City standards. The property does not have steep slopes or woody fuels. Hydrants will be required to be placed in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and the approved by the fire chief. The fire access and suppression system should be installed and approved by the fire department prior to final plat approval because of potential problems with combustible construction taking place prior to adequate fire access to the site being developed. There was some concern by the fire department and public works department that the waterline may need to be looped during the first phase in order to gain adequate water pressure to meet the needed fire flows for the hydrants. Flc�: According to FIRM Panel #1805D dated 9/30192 the site is located entirely in Zone C which is not a flood prone area and no special permits are required for development. amass: Access to the subdivision would be from existing City streets in Lone Pine View Estates to the west that connect to Denver Avenue and eventually when Phase III is developed, the primarily access will be obtained from Sunnyview Drive. All of the lots within the subdivision will be accessed via the new roadways with the exception of Phase I whose lots tivill front along Boise Avenue, an existing City street that was developed with Lone Pine View Estates. All roads within the subdivision would be constructed to City standards and will provide good access to the lots. Roads that are part of the fire access and suppression system within the subdivision should be completed prior to final plat submittal so that the fire department can have access to the homes under construction within the subdivision. B. Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat: This property is generally level with a gentle slope and was used for aericultural purposes. There may be some migratory birds and occasional deer may visit the sire, however, this area does not provide significant habitat for wildlife. C- Effects on the Natural Environment: 4t"fa— --- d .2xQIJ1zd + : This subdivision will be served by public water and sewer thereby minimising any potential impacts to the groundwater. No surface water is in close enough proximity to the site to create concerns with regard to this development. Ashley Creek lies several hundred feet to the west and is far enough away from this subdivision that no potential impacts would be expected from this development_ Dra' This site is relatively level and does not pose any unusual challenges to site drainage. Curbs and gutters will be installed and a storm drain management plan will have to be developed to address the runoff from the site. There is no City storm drain system in the immediate area and storm water will have to be managed using on -site retention methods as part of the stormwater management plan. D. Effects on Local Services: Water: Water service to the subdivision would be provided by the City of Kalispell and extended from a water main that lies to the west of this subdivision in Lone Pine View Estates at the developers expense. The water main would be extended from its current location within the subdivision and will eventually be looped to the north and extended to connected along Sunnyside Drive. It is uncertain at this juncture when the connection between the subdivision and the main at would be required because it will depend on the fire flows that can be obtained and whether they will meet the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code. The water system for the subdivision will be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department and the Kalispell Fire Department as part of the development of the subdivision and it phases. ScweL: Sewer service will be provided by the City of Kalispell with the extension of existing sewer mains from Lone Pine View Estates to the west at the developers expense. Design and construction of the mains will be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department. A latecomers agreement is on file at the County Clerk and Recorders Office for water and sewer connection that was executed as part of Lone Pine View Estates improvements. The appropriateness and legality of this agreement has come under scrutiny late and the City staff is working to resolve this pending issue. The agreement was executed in 1995 and will expire in three years. Eoacls: Traffic projections for this subdivision are estimated to be approximately 620 additional vehicle trips per day based on the estimate of 10 vehicle trips per residence per day in the area. The subdivision roads will be constructed to City standards and would include curb, gutter, sidewalks and landscape boulevards within Lie subdivision. The internal subdivision roads will access onto Sunnvside Drive which will make a connection to other streets in the area, i.e. Fifth Avenue Nest and Seventh Avenue West as well as Valley View Drive which are designated as collectors in the Kalispell Transportation Plan. Additionally, there would be potential Traffic leaving this subdivision by 4 A way of South Meadows onto Airport Road. The grid system established in the area and existing network of roads will be impacted by this development, but the impacts would not be beyond the capacity of the roads in the area nor would they be beyond that which would be anticipated as a result of continued growth and urban expansion. Once the roads have been constructed and accepted by the City of Kalispell, they will be dedicated to the City and maintained. Schools: This development is within the boundaries of School District #5, Kalispell. The school district superintendent has consistently responded to these new subdivisions by stating that the district has no objections to the subdivision and will accommodate any new students into the district. It can be anticipated that approximately 30 to 35 additional school age children may he generated from this subdivision at full build out This would have a potentially moderate impact on the district and may require bussing. Parks and Openmace: The state and local subdivision regulations have parkland / open space requirements for major subdivisions in the amount of 11 percent or one -ninth of the area proposed for the development. The environmental assessment states that cash -in -lieu of parkland is being proposed. With 7.452 acres in lots the parkland requirement would be the unimproved value of 0.82 acres of land. The environmental assessment values the land at $7,000 per acre which seems implausible considering the location of the property, access to utilities and roads. The value which has been used without an appraisal recently has been $10,000 per acre which would require the developer to pay $8,197 in cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication_ For the purposes of calculating parkland dedication, the fair market value is the value of the undivided, unimproved land. The subdivision regulations require the applicant to provide satisfactory evidence of the fair market value and when the City and developer are not able to agree upon the fair market value, the City may require that it be established by an appraisal done by a qualified appraiser of the City's choosing at the developers' expense. Police: This subdivision would be in the jurisdiction of the City of Kalispell Police Department. The department can adequately provide service to this subdivision, however the cumulative impacts of growth within the city further strains the department's ability to continue to provide the high level of service the department is committed to. Fire Pmtecticn: Fire protection services will be provided by the Kalispell Fire Department, and the subdivision will need to meet the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code. Tile fire department will review and approve the number and location of hvdrants within the subdivision as well as fire flows and access. Although fire risk is low because of good access and fairly level terrain, the fire department is recommending that access to the subdivision and the hydrants be in place prior to fmai plaz approval and ! or use of combustible materials in construction. Sn1ir3 ihTaste: Solid waste will' be handled by the City of Kalispell and taken to the Flathead County l:dfii. There is sufficient capacity within the landfill to accommodate this additional solid waste generated from this subdivision. Medical 4er �r s: Ambulance service is available from the fire department and ALERT helicopter service. Kalispell Regional Hospital is close, less than two miles from the site. �- Effects on Agriculture and agricultural water user facilities: The site has been traditionally used for agricultural purposes primarily grazing and grassland. The land is more efficiently and effectively used for urban residential development. Its location within the planning jurisdiction and its proximity to urban services makes this property prime for the type of development being proposed. There will be relatively little impact on agricultural uses within the Valley and no impact on agricultural water user facilities since this property will be served by a public water system. F. Relation to Master Plan Map: This property is in the Kalispell City -County planning jurisdiction and the master plan map designation for this area is Urban Residential. This land use designation anticipates a density of two to eight dwelling unit per gross acre. Since this property is zoned R-4, a single- family and duplex residential district, it can be calculated that this subdivision has a density of approximately three to eight dwelling units per gross acres. Areas designated as Urban Residential are anticipated to be served by community water and sewer and have good access to services and public facilities. The proposed development is in full compliance with the land use designation of the master plan- G. compliance with Zoning: This property has been zoned R-4, a Two - Residential district that is intended for single-family and duplex residential development and has a minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 50 feet. All of the lots within the subdivision comply with the minimum lot size and minimum lot width requirements of the R-4 zoning district. H. Compliance with the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations: This subdivision complies with the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations and no variances have been requested_ Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning 3oard adopt staff report=KPP-02-6 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat be approved subject to the following conanions: 1. Development of the subdivision shall be Ulatted h substantia compliance with he approved prelimir_ary plat which governs the location of lots and roadways within the subdivision. i5 2. That the roadways serving the subdivision shall be constructed in accordance with the adopted Design and Construction Standards for the City of Kalispell for local roads and include the pavement, curbs, gutters, storm drainage, sidewalks and a minimum five foot landscape boulevard with street trees placed in accordance with a plan approved by the parks and recreation director. A letter from an engineer licensed in the State of Montana certifying that the improvements have been installed according to the required specifications shall he submitted at the time of final plat approval along with a letter from the Kalispell Public Works Department stating that the required improvements have been inspected and comply with the City standards_ 3. That a letter be obtained from the Kalispell Public Works Department approving the water, sewer and drainage facilities for the subdivision. 4. A storm water drainage plan which has been designed by an engineer licensed in the State of Montana shall be prepared which complies with the City's Design and Construction Standards and shall be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department. 5. That the developer obtain a letter from the Flathead County Road Department approving the intersection of the internal subdivision Road and Sunnyview Drive certifying that any necessary improvements have been completed. 6. The road within the subdivision shall he named and signed in accordance with the policies of the Kalispell Public Works Department and the Uniform Traffic Control Devices Manual and he subject to review and approval of the Kalispell Fire Department. 7. The developer shall provide a letter fray, the U.S. Postal Service approving the plan for mail service. 8. Street lighting shall be located within the subdivision and shall be shielded so that it does not intrude unnecessarily onto adjoining properties. 9. That the parkland dedication requirements shall be met by paying cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication in the amount of one ninth of .the area devoted to lots or approximately 0.82 acres, based on a value of $10,000 per acre in the amount of $8,197. 10. All utilities shall be installed underground 11. That the fire access and suppression system comply with the Uniform Fire Code and a letter from the Kalispell ;ire Department approving the access and number and placement of fire hydrants within the subdivision as well as fire flows and access shall be submitted with the final plat. The fire access and suppression system shall he installed and aporcved by the =ire depar_ment prior to final plat approval. 12. That a *minimum of two-thirds of the necessary- infrastructure for this .subdivision shall be completed prior to final plat submittal. 13. All areas disturbed during development of the subdivision shall be re -vegetated with a weed -free mix immediately after development_ 14. That preliminary approval shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of approval. REPORTS/KALISPELL/KPP/02/KPP-02-6 3 SUNNYSIDE SUBDIVISION PHASES I, H -A-N-D III ENVIRONNIEN'T_1L ASSESSMENT usOki I WMERL"gaffe9UUM This Environmental Assessment format shall be used by the applicant as a guide in compiling a thorough description of the potential impacts for the proposed subdivision. Each question pertinent to the proposal must be addressed in full (both maps and text); those questions not applicable shallbe so stated. Incomplete Environmental Assessments will not be accepted. The sources of information for each section of the Assessment shallbe identified. AllEnvironmental Assessments shall contain the signature, date of signature and mailing address of the owner of the property and the person, or persons, preparing the report. GEOLOGY Locate on a copy of the preliminary plat: Any known hazards affecting the development which could result in property damage or personal injury due to: I. Falls, slides or slumps - soil, rock, mud_ snow NONE DOWN 1 Any rock outcropping NONE 1 Describe any proposed measures to prevent or reduce the danger of property damage or personal injury from any of these hazards. N/A IL SURFACE WATER Locate on a copy of the preliminary plat: 1. Any natural water systems such as streams, rivers, intermittent streams. lakes or marshes (also indicate the name and sizes of each). NONE 3. Any artificial water systems such as canals, ditches, aqueducts, reservoirs and irrigation systems (aiso indicate the names, sizes and present uses of each). NONE 3. Any Areas subject to flood hazard. or if available, 100-year flood plain maps (using best available information). AS PER FEMA TvLXP PANEL 3000231815D, THE ENTIRE PARCEL IS LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONE C. THIS MAP PANEL IS EFFECTIVE AS OF 9130192. III. VEGETATION 1. Locate on a copy of the preliminary plat the major vegetation types within the subdivision (e.g., marsh grassland, shrub and forest). THE MAJORITY OF THE SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED ON VACANT PASTURE LAND; THERE IS A HOUSE AND OUTBUILDINGS ON THE WESTERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY. 2. Describe the amount of vegetation that is to be removed, or cleaned, from the site, and state the reasons for such removal. VEGETATION REMOVAL WILL BE WITHIN THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY AND BUILDING SITES. THERE ARE NO TREES WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION. 3. Describe any proposed measures to be taken to protect vegetative cover. WEED - FREE GRASS SEED WILL BE REPLANTED IN THE DISTURBED BUILDING AREAS. W. WILDLIFE 1. What major species of fish and wildlife, if any, use the area to be affected by the proposed subdivision? THIS IS LOCATED IN AN URBANIZED AREA OF KALISPELL, WILDLIFE DISTURBANCE WILL BE MINIMAL. 2. Locate on a copy of the preliminary plat any known important wildlife areas, such as big game winter range, waterfowl nesting areas, habitat for rare and endangered species and wetlands_ NONE Describe any proposed measures to protect wildlife habitat or to minimize habitat degradation. NONE PROPOSED 22_ kGRICLLTURE AND TINIBER PRODUCTION 1. State the acreage, type and agricultural classifications of soils on the site. AS PER THE SOIL SURV-EY PUBLISHED BY THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, THE MAJORITY OF SOILS IN THIS PARCEL ARE, CLASSIFIED AS Ka (KALISPELL SILT LOAM- HEAVE SUBSOI -0-3% SLOPE). A SMALL PORTION OF THE SOILS LOCATED ON THE WESTERPI EDGE OF THE PROPERTY AIZE DESIGNATED AS Pf (PROSPECT STONEY LOAM 3-7% SLOPE) 2. State the history of production of this site by crop type and yield. THIS PARCEL HAS BEEN OUT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION FOR SOME TLME. USED FOR PASTURE CURRENTLY. State the historical and current agricultural uses which occur adjacent to the site. NONE. 4. Explain any steps which will be taken to avoid or limit development conflicts with adjacent agricultural uses. NONE 5. If the site is timbered, state any timber management recommendations which may have been suggested or implemented by the U_S.D. A. Division ofForestry in the area of this proposal. N/A VI_ HISTORICAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR CULTURAL FEATURES L Locate on a copy of the preliminary plat any known or possible historic, archaeological or cultured sites which exist on or near the site. NONE KNOWN 2. Describe any known or possible sites delineated on the preliminary plat. N/A 3. Describe any measures that will be taken to protect such sites or properties. N/A VII. SEWAGE TREATMENT Where individual sewage treatment systems are proposed for each parcel: N/A 1. Indicate the distance to the nearest public or community sewage treatment System. =. Provide as attachments_ I . Two (2) copies of the plat which show the proposed suitable location on each lot for a subsurface treatment system and a 100% replacement area for the subsurface treatment vsiem. Show the location of neighboring wells and subsurface treatment systems and the distances to each. 2. The results of percolation tests performed in representative areas for draintields in accordance with the most recent Department of Environmental Quality Builetin. Each percolation test shall be keyed by a number on a copy of :he plat with the information and results provided in the-eporr. The number of preliminary percolation tests required shall be one-fourth (1/4)-ofthe total number ofproposed lots and these tests shall be performed in the different soil types, or evenly spaced throughout the subdivision in the absence of soil variability. 3 _ A detailed soils description for the area shall be obtained from test holes at least seven (7) feet in depth. The number of test holes will depend upon the variability of the soils. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's "Soils Classification Svstem" shall be sued in the descriptions. Information on the internal and surface drainage characteristics shall be included. Each test hole shall be keyed by a number on a copy of the plat with the information provided for in the report. 4. A description of the following physical conditions: (1) Depth to groundwater at time of year when water table is nearest the surface and how this information was obtained. (2) IVtinimum depth to bedrock or other impervious material, and how this information was obtained. 2. For a proposed public or community sewage treatment system: 1. Estimate the average number of gallons of sewage generated per day by the subdivision when fully developed. 200 GALLONS PER DAY PER HOUSEHOLD 2. Where an existing system is to be used: CITY OF KALISPELL 1. Identify the system and the person, firm or agency responsible for its operation and maintenance. CITY OF KALISPELL 2. Indicate the systems' capacity to handle additional use and its distance from the development_ CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW WITH THE CITY ENGINEER. Provide evidence that permission to connect has been granted. Where a new system is proposed: N/A I. Attach a copy of the plat showing the location of all collection lines and the location and identification of the basic components of the treatment system_ _. if subsurface creatment of the eifIuent is proposed. give the results of the preliminary analysis and percolation tests in the area of the treatment site_ 3. Provide a description of the following physical conditions: (1) Depth to groundwater at time of year when water table is nearest the surface and how this information was obtained_ (2) Minimum depth to bedrock or other impervious material and how this information was obtained_ 4. Indicate who will bear the costs of installation and who will own, operate and maintain the system. Also, indicate the anticipated date of completion- THE DEVELOPER WILL BEAR THE COST OF INITIAL INSTALLATION OF THE SEWER TO THE SUBDIVISION. AFTER ANNEXATION, THE CITY OF KALISPELL WELL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OWNING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE SYSTEM. VIII. WATER SLPPLY — 1. Where an individual water supply system is proposed for each parcel: N/A 1. If individually drilled wells are to be used, provide evidence as to adequate quantity and quality of the -water supply. 2. If any other method of individual water supply is to be used: 1. Explain why the alternate form of water supply is proposed instead of drilled wells. 2. Identify the source of water supply and provide evidence that it is of sufficient quantity and quality to serve the development. 3. Attach two (2) copies of the plat showing the proposed location of each spring, well, cistern, or other water source and indicate the distance to existing or proposed sewage treatment systems. 1. Where a public or community water system is proposed: (1) Estimate the number of gallons Der dayrequiredbythe development (including irrigation, if applicable). TYPICALLY. A HOUSEHOLD UTILIZES 200 GALLONS OF WATER PER DAY. (2) Where an existing system is to be used: 1. Identify the system and the person, firm or agency responsible for its operation and maintenance. AFTER INITIAL INSTALLATION BY TEE DEVELOPER THE CITY OF KALISPELL WOULD MAINTAIN AND OPERATE. 2. Indicate the systems' capacity to handle additional use and its distance from the development. CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW BY THE CITY OF KALISPELL'S ENGINEER. 3. Provide evidence that permission to connect has been granted- (3) Where a new system is to be used: N/A 1_ Provide evidence that the water supply is adequate in quantity, quality and dependability. 2. Indicate who will bear the costs of installation. when it will be completed and who will own, operate and maintain the system. 3. Attach a copy of the plat showing the proposed location of the water source and all distribution lines. IX. SOLID WASTE L Describe the proposed method of collection and disposing of solid waste from the development. CONTRACT EALZER. If central collection areas are proposed within the subdivision, showtheirlocationon a copy of the preliminary plat. N/A 3. If use of an existing collection system or disposal facility is proposed, indicate the name and location of the fac lirr. FLAT'HEA11) COUNTY LANDFILL 24. DRAINAGE 1. Streets and Roads: 1. Describe any proposed measures for disposing of storm run-off from streets and roads. AN ENGINEERED DRAINAGE PLAN WILL BE APPROVED BY DEQ. 2. Indicate the type of road surface proposed_ PAVED 3. Describe any proposed facilities for stream or drainage crossing (i.e., culverts, bridges). NO STREAMS EXIST ON THE PROPERTY. 4. Describe how surface run-off will be drained or channeled from lots or common areas. STORM WATER RUNOFF WILL BE COLLECTED IN GUTTERS AND DISPOSED THROUGH DRY WELLS AND INFILTRATION TRENCHES �. Other areas: 1. Indicate if storm run-off will be drained or channeled from lots or common areas. STORM RUN-OFF WILL BE CHANNELED FROM LOTS AND DRAINED TO AREAS APPROVED BY THE DRAINAGE PLAN. 2. Describe any proposed sedimentation and erosion controls to be utilized both during, and after, construction. STANDARD APPROVED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES WILL BE OVERSEEN BY THE ENGINEER. 3. Attach a copy of the plat showing how drainage on lots, road and other areas will be handled (include sizes and dimension of ditches, culverts, etc.) THIS WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE DEQ SUBMITTAL. XI. ROADS 1. Estimate how much daily traffic the development, when fully developed, will generate on existing or proposed roads providing access to the deveiopment. APPROXIMATELY 496 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY ARE EXPECTED AT FULL BUILDOUT. 1. Discuss the capability of existing and proposed roads to safely accommodate this increased traffic (e.=._ conditions of the road, surface and right-of-way •widths. current traffic flows. etc.). ROADS IN THE EVVYIEDIATE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ARE ALL BUH.T TO CITY OR COUNTY STANDARDS. THE MAJORITY OF THE TRAFFIC WILL ACCESS THE SITE VIA SUNNYSIDE DRIVE, WHICH CAN ADEQUATELY HANDLE THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC VOLUME. 2. Describe any increased ma ntenance problems and costs that will be caused by this increase in volume. NONE ANTICIPATED. 2. Indicate who will pay the cost ofinstalliug and maintaining dedicated and/or private roadway_ THE ROADWAYS WiTMN TBE SUBDIVISION WILL BE BUILT TO CITY STANDARDS BY THE DEVELOPERAND TBEN TURNED OVER TO THE CITY FOR M AINTAINENCE. 3. Describe the soil characteristics, on site, as they relate to road and building construction and measures to be taken to control erosion of ditches, banks and cuts as a result of proposed construction. THE SITE IS RELATIVELY FLAT THEREFORE, MININLAL CUTS WILL BE NEEDED TO BUILD THE ROAD. SUITABLE SOIL TYPES EXIST FOR A GOOD ROAD BASE. 4. Explain why access was not provided by means of a road within the subdivision if access to any of the individual lots is directly from City, County, State or Federal roads or highways_ NO LOTS DIRECTLY FRONT CITY, COUNTY, STATE OR FEDERAL ROADS OR HIGHWAYS. 5. Is year-round access by conventional automobile over legal rights -of -way available to the subdivision and to all lots and common facilities within the subdivision? YES 6. Identify the owners of any private property over which access to the subdivision will be provided. NIA XIL EMERGENCY SERVICES Describe the emergency services available to the residents ofthe proposed subdivision including the number of personnel and number of vehicles and/or type of facilities for: 1. Fire Protection: 1. Is the proposed subdivision in an urban or rural fire district? If not, will one be formed or e wended? ANNEXATION TO THE CTTY PROVIDES FOR SERVICE BY THE CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT 2. In absence of a 5re district, what fire protection procedures are planned? NIA Indicate the type, size and location of any proposed recharge facilities HYDRANTS WELL BE UTILIZED AT APPROVED LOCATIONS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION. 4. If fire hydrants are proposed, indicate water pressure capabilities and the locations of hvdrants. HYDRANTS WILL BE INSTALLED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE FUZE CHIEF AND CURRENT RECOMNIFNDED SAFETY STANDARDS. 2. Police Protection. CITY OF KALSIPELL 3. Ambulance Service. KALISPELL AMBULANCE AND THE ALERT HELICOPTER 4. Medical Services. K ALISPELL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 2. Can the needs of the proposed subdivision for each of the above services be met by present personnel and facilities? YES L If not, what additional expense would be necessary to make these services adequate? N/A 2. At whose expense would the necessary improvements be made? N/A XIII. SCHOOLS 1. Describe the educational facilities whichwould serve the subdivision (school facilities, school personnel, bus routes and capabilities, etc.). THIS SUBDIVISION'S SCHOOLCHILDREN WOULD ATTEND DISTRICT #5 SCHOOLS. 2. Estimate the number of school children that will be added by the proposed subdivision, and how they will affect existing facilities_ APPROXIMATELY 93 SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN ARE EXPECTED TO RESIDE WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT. `GV. ECONOMIC BENEFITS 1. Provide the present assessment classifications and range of the total assessed valuation of all land and structures. CURRENTLY, THE PROPERTY IS ASSESSED AS AGRICULTURAL. -. Provide the anticipated assessment classification and range of the total assessed valuation of all structures (at 251% and 90416 occupancy - also give estimated year of said occupancy)_ THE PROPERTY WOULD CHANGE ITS ASSESSEMENT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL TO RESIDENTLAL. ANTICIPATED VALUES OF LOTS WITH STRUCTURES WILL BE SL2 7K EACH. 15 LOTS (25%) WOULD GENERATE 1,968,500 BY 2004. 55 LOTS (90%) WOULD GENERATE 7,086,600 BY 2007. Provide anticipated revenue increases, per unit, from water, sewer and solid waste fees. SOLID WASTE, WATER AND SEWER SERVICE FEES WILL BE GENERATED THROUGH THE TAXES. XV. LAND USE I . Describe the existing historical use ofthe site. THIS LAND HAS BEEN USED AS PASTURE LAND FOR MANY YEARS. 2. Describe any comprehensive plan recommendations and other land use regulations on and adjacent to the site_ Is zoning proposed? If located near an incorporated city or town, is annexation proposed? THE PROPERTY WAS RECENTLYANNENED TO THE CITY OF KALISPELL AND ASSIGNED A KALISPELL ZONING DESIGNATION OF R-4. 3_ Describe the present uses of lands adjacent to or near the proposed development. Describe how the subdivision will affect access to any adjoining land and/or what measures are proposed to provide access. THIS PARCEL IS SURROUNDED BY URBAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. ACCESS TO ADJOINING LANDS IS PROVIDED BY EXTENDING EXISTING ROADWAYS INTO THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION, AS WELL AS PROVIDING FOR A NEW ACCESS OUT ONTO ASHLEY DRIVE. THE PROPOSED SUBDIVLSIONIS A COMPATIBLE USE WITH ADJOINING PROPERTY. 4_ Describe any health or safety hazards on or near the subdivision (mining activity, high voltage lines, gas lines, agricultural and farm activities, etc.) Any such conditions should be accurately described and their origin and location identified. NONE KNOWN 5. Describe any on -site uses creating a nuisance (unpleasant odor, unusual noises, dust, smoke, etc.) Any such conditions should be accurately described and their oriain and location identified. NONE KNOWN XVI_ PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES Describe park and recreationfacilities to be provoided within the proposed subdivision and other recreational facilities which will serve the subdivision. NONE PROPOSED. CASH IN LIEU OF PARKL.AtND WH.L BE PROPOSED. -. List other parks and recreation facilities or sites in [he area and their approximate distance from the site. LONE PINE STATE PARK IS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE. 3. If cash in lieu of parkland is proposed, state the purchase price per acre or current market value (values stated must be no more than 12 months old). PURCHASE PRICE PER ACRE IS $7,000. TOTAL AREA IS 10.029 ACRES, SO 1/9 OF THE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY VALUE IS A PARKLAND REQUIREMENT OF S7,722.33. XVII. UTILITIES L Indicate the utility companies involved in providing electrical power, natural gas, or telephone service. To what extent will these utilities be placed underground? CENTURYTEL TELEPHONE, NORTHWESTERN ENERGY COMPANY AND FLATHEAD ELECTRIC CO-OP. ALL NEW UTILITIES WILL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND. 2. Has the preliminary plat been submitted to affected utilities for review? NOT AT THIS TIME. 3. Estimate the completion date of each utility installation. PHASE I, 2004. PHASE II; 2007, PHASE III; 2009 11A „c f i I ` tin ca 12 -_ 1 9; 3DA \i AMC 7A �. i 1 '�. 10C j 10D bjea Pry 10A; 1B� \\ I 10E 11A 1 A \� 6CA 6C LtDT \` �6A \\ 6D 6H `\\ --P! my R6 11DB u my MD PAFK 11 17110 — = 7B (� R SUED i I 7AB ! # 117 __ =4NTE rE r 7AA/Ja 27'26I25j24123 f� I _ �20121i22 7A9A ` 17116 15r14 13 _ ?L,IIPRK 3T � 3 9i1D111112 i � ' ITC40 h ff 5L�1ESi0��E 39 5 16171' 8119,20 66 6L - 67 � ij R-4 35 33 32 c L 6E 6J 31 6L4 VICINITY MAP OWL CORPORATION PRELIMINARY PLAT (SUNNYSIDE SUBDIVISION) rj A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON APPRO` - 10 ACRES 38 TOWNHOUSE & 24 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS R-4, TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CITY OF KALISPE LL ?ONIGN JURISDICTION sp 11 ma` d FIT -2 'r r rin (. -,� PLAT DATE-- 3/11/02 i ILL. KPID—UG-6 SL�� I" _ -ttJO� IAAJa\site\kpp02_3.dwg APPLICATION FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL This application shall be submitted, along with all information required by the applicable Subdivision Regulations and the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, and the appropriate fee to: Tri-City Planning Office, 17 Second St East, Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406)751-1850 Fax: (406)751-1858 FEE SCHEDULE: Major Subdivision (6 or more lots) $600 + $25/lot Condominiums (6 or more units) $600 + $25/unit Mobile Home Parks & Campgrounds (6 or more spaces) $600 + $25/space Amended Preliminary Plat $200 Subdivision Variance $100 (per variance) Commercial and Industrial Subdivision Add $200 to base preliminary plat fee Pre -Application Meeting (Major and Commercial) $ 50 SUBDIVISION NAME: OWNER(S) OF RECORD: Name 0 I/)/ L CO 1r� Phoned z —Jr�a Ca to Mailing Address aQ Pa-11 Y7 e te� city 1ia-liSaell State MT- Zip ©! TECHNICAL/PROFESSIONAL PARTICIPANTS (Surveyor/Designer/Engineer, etc): Name & Address —5,! LY1 d S �U_Yfzii%!70 /YJ C . 2 Villa L}L Z-0 ego / J l Name & Address Name & Address r LEGAL DISCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: City/County 1Y0� fi sloe 1 / JUL 16 206Z Street Address TRLr" o1 8N111A11111ICC Assessor's Tract No(s) %OZG I g Lot No(s) 1/4 Sec N Section 1 Township f J Range 2/ GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBDIVISION: ✓�I� hfiQ l SG� CJ�Iy'iSIG/7 l�.orn��rrs,ed e,c Z4 SG -0itinh1v9e %ts Number of Lots or Rental Spaces & Z Total Acreage in Subdivision %O. O 2- Total Acreage in Lots Minimum Size of Lots or Spaces L 3 Total Acreage in Streers or Roads = 5r Maximum S ze of Lots or Spaces Total Acreage in Parks. Open Spaces and/or Common Areas PROPOSED USE(S) AND NUMBER OF ASSOCIATED LOTS/SPACES: Single Family �_ Townhouse -3 Duplex Commercial Condominium Apartment Industrial Multi -Family Mobile Hame Park Recreational Vehicle Park Planned Unit Development Other APPLICABLE ZONING DESIGNATION Ss DISTRICT _- ESTIMATE OF MARKET VALUE BEFORE IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED: Roads: Gravel Paved ✓ Curb V Gutter •f Sidewalks Alleys Other Water System: _Individual Multiple User Neighborhood ✓ Public Other Sewer System: Individual Multiple User Neighborhood V Public Other Other Utilities: Cable TV_Telephone Electric Gas Other Solid Waste: Home Pick Up Central Storage _Contract Hauler Owner Haul Mail Delivery. Central Individual School District: Fire Protection: Hydrants Tanner Recharge _ Firr^e�//D�is,trict: Drainage System: X�U ///nu P..11ROPOS D R�N/S LL IMENTATION COONTROL: &_4 z Z 1�/ / �i( r✓1 / . VARIANCES: ARE ANY VARL9NGES REQUESTED? )(Z (yes/no) If yes, please complete the information below: SECTIONIREGULATION OF REGULATIONS CREATING HARDSHIP: EXPLAIN THE HARDSHIP THAT WOULD BE CREATED WITH STRICT COMPLIANCE OF REGULATIONS: PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE(S) TO STRICT COMPLIANCES WITH ABOVE REGULATIONS: PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IN THE SPACES PROVIDED BELOW: n Will the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare or injurious to other adjoining properties? 2. Will the variance cause a substantial increase in public costs? 3. Will the variance affect, in any manner, the provisions of any adopted zoning regulations or Master Plan? 4. Are there special circumstances related to the physical characteristics of the site (topography, shape, etc.) that create the hardship? 5. What other conditions are unique to this property that create the need for a variance? APPLICATION CONTENTS: The subdivider shall submit a complete application addressing items below to the Tri- City Planning Office at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the meeting at which it will be heard. 1. Preliminary plat application. 2. 16 copies of the preliminary plat. 3. One reproducible set of supplemental information. (See Appendix A of Subdivision Regulations for the city, where the subdivision is proposed. 4. One reduced copy of the preIiminany plat not to exceed 11" x 17" in size. 5. Application fee 6. Adjoining Property Owners List (see example below): Assessor# Sec-Twn-Roe Lot/Tract No Property Owner & Mailing Address I hereby certify under penalty of perjury and the laws of the state of Montana that the information submitted herein, on all other submitted forms, documents, plans or any other information submitted as a part of this application, to be true, complete, and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Should any information or representation submitted in connection with this application be untrue, I understand that any approval based thereon may be rescinded, and other appropriate action taken. The signing of this application signifies approval for the Tri-City Planning staff to be present on the property for routine monitoring and inspection during the approval and development process. (Applicant) As approved by the TCPB on 12/19/01 Effective 1/'_/02 4 (Date) M TCPO Major Subdivision 2002 CERTIFICATION APPLICANT: SUNNYSIDE SUBDIVISION TCPO FILE NO: #KPP-02-6 I, the undersigned certify that I did this date mail via certified or registered mail a copy of the attached notice to the following list of landowners adioinina the property lines of the property that is to be subdivided. Date: Assessor's # S-T-R Lot/Tract# Property Owner/Mail Address OWL CORPORATION 500 PALMER DR KALISPELL MT 59901 SANDS SURVEYING 2 VILLAGE LOOP KALISPELL MT 59901 AND ATTACHED LIST NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: KALISPELL CITY PLANNING- BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Plan-;ng Board and Zoning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, September 10, 2002, beginning at 7:00 F-M in the Kalispell City- Council Chambers, Kalispell City Had, 312 First Avenue East, Kalispell. During the regularly scheduled meeting of the plan- ng board, the hoard will hold a public hearing and take public comments an the following agenda items. Tne board will make a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council who will take final action_ 1. A request by Owl Corporation for preliminary plat approval a 62 lot residential subdivision on property zoned R-4, a Two Family Residential district. The subdivision contains appro--dmately 10.029 acres and would have 24 single family lots and 38 duplex / townhouse lot, both listed as permitted uses in the district. The property where the subdivision is proposed lies on the south side of Sunny-side Drive, west of Ashley Creek in the southwest part Kali 1. The property proposed for annexation can be described as a portion of Assessor's Tract 8 located in Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.NI.\VI., Flathead County, Montana- 2. Continued item - A request by Mark Owens, dba LBO Limited Partnership for an initial zoning designation upon annexation to the city of Kalispell on appro-.--:mately 58 acres of property located at the northeast corner of Stillwater Road and West Reserve Drive. The proposal would designate approximately 48 acres as R-3, Resideatiai, a single family residential district, and appro�mately 10 acres as RA-1- a Low Density Residential Apartment zoning district_ A preliminary- plat for 128 lots as described below is being filed concurrently with the annexation and zoning request. The property proposed for annexation and zoning can be described as a portion of Assessor's Tract 5+ located in Section 251. Township 29 North, Range 22 West, P. I.vI., Flathead County, Montana. 3. Continued item - _4 request by Mark Owens dba Owl Corporation for prelim;nary plat approval of West View Estates, a 1128 lot subdur_sion located on the northeast corner of Stillwater Road and West Reset e Drive. This piat would create 127 lots intended for single family residential development on approximately 48 acres and one lot intended for multi -family and toNunhcuse development. Ail of the lots in the subdivision would he served by public sewer and water and would be developed in accordance with City of Kalispell standards. The prelim arP plat is tieing submitted in conjunction with the ar _exatioa of the proper-7 and designation of initial zoning. The aroperrr can be described as a portion of Assessor's Tract 5+ located in Section 25, Township 29 North, Range 22 West.. P.M VI., Flathead Countc�, kIonLana. ?. Cann zued item - a reeuesr by _vlounrain 'iiew Plaza LP for arel m par. elaE approval of as 1-'_oc commercial subd-vision located on l e sour-, east :ether of Hwzr 93 and SGest Rese e rig.. Lis clot tiou-id create I comnlercia-L lots intended =cr development as pan cf he Mountain, thew Plaza , Home Ccoor :�oxrLn ier�_al r_erLLe-. TLe -)rot_-er'. con=s apnrr=imareiv :3 7 act,-s and s won a PT - rcnin` ns=cr vZth a Planned T-nir=eveiopment "Veaid ho se'""eQ ov -Dubac 3id.TSer anu water and would be developed in accordance with the previously approved planned unit development (FUD) and development a,eement executed with the City of KaLspell_ The property can be described as Assessor's Tract 3E located in Section 31, Township 29 Ncrth, Range 21 West P_M-M., Flathead County, -Montana. Documents pertaining to this agenda item are on file for public inspecidon at the Tr -,- City Planning Office, L7 Second Street East, Suite 211, Kalispell, MT 59901, and are available for public review during regular oface hours. Interested persons are encouraged to attend the hearing and make their views and concerns known to the Board_ Written comments may be submitted to the Tri-City Planning Office at the above address, prior to the date of the hearing, or contact Narda Wilson, Senior Planner, at (406) 751-1950 for additional informadon. Thomas R. Jentz Planning Director RAYMOND ARTHUR Sr- SANDRA L DE LONG SHIRLEY I E.ADS DALE R & CHERYL A PIERCE 210 BISivCARK ST 106 SANTE FE ST I01-5 ASHLEY DR K.4LISPELL. NIT 59901 KALISPELL. MT 59901 KAL ISPELI I. NIT 5990I-5573 TYLENEFROMM P O BOX 2131 KALISPELL, N[T 59903 DAVID N & T IFFINTY M DEDNIAN 306 3ISNIARK ST KALISPELL, NIT 59901 ANTHONY E & MICHELLE L HILL 309 BISNIARK ST KALISPELL, MT 59901 BIGHORN DEV HOMEBUILDERS. INC P O BOX 7397 :CALISPELL, MT 59904 ICAREN L NOSEK LINDA K ORNOWSKI 19 BOISE AVE :<-ALISPELL. NIT 59901 LCRENCE A NOBLE '06 PHOENIX ST <ALISPELL, NIT 59901 GIYRON L & KIM M WILSON 117 BOISE AVE ALISPELL, MT 59901 MARLIN ➢ & K.aRI M KAUFFNIAN _07 'HCENLX ST .i;L T SPELL. MT -990I ,IA`�: DINE E WEAVER I 15 BOISE AVE .TaLiSPP-LL_ ?ELT -9901 NGCHAEL S HARRIS I I SANTE FE ST KALISPELL, NIT 59901 KNAIG TRIPPEL 590 PRAIRIE VIEW RD KALISPELL. NIT 59901 CATHERINE M STEVENSON 1348 S 40" DR YUMA, AZ 35364 DEBORAH R WILLIS 940 SUNNYSIDE DR KALISPELL. NIT 59901 RUBERT H & LILA KRUCKENBERG 1204 SUNNYSIDE DR KALISPELL. NIT 59901 THE WINNER TRUST P O BOX 10379 FAIRBANKS, AK 99701 APEX I LLC AD% NORMAN SANDERSON 10 ROANOKE ST A SEATTLE. WA 98102 BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTE HE RAILWAY CO AD°5 PROPERTY TA,{ DEPT PO BOX 961089 FORT WORTH. T":-6I61-JH9 DONALD L & MARY W KRUSE- 1 LS SUNNYSIDE DR [L LISPELL, vAT f9901-- 19i) RICHARD D & PATRICIA RILEY 945 SUNNYSIDE DR KALISPELL. ISPELL. NIT 59901-7488 PETERSEN DOROTHY J, KIN[ D. & JON L 521 S MERIDIAN TI KALISPELL, NIT 59901 ROBERT R & LYNETTE M THONLAS 1422 WOODLAND AVE KALISPELL, MT 59901 KENNETH V & DIANE GARFIELD 521 S MERIDIAN T3 KALISPELL, _NIT 599011 BRIAN M YULE AD% DEB DIEST ZII W VALLEY DR KALISPELL, NIT 59901 THOR A & NANCY L JACKOLA I120 SUNNYSIDE DR K.3LISPELL._N[T 59901-7449 OWL CORPORATION 500 PALMER DR KAL[SPELL, MT 59901 SANDS SURVEYING INC VILLAGE LOOP KALISPELL. NIT =9901 =�� Ri cix7n±�h ,C'irEC'/ O. Boy 22131 7 G77is,': ell. Ayonlcma =9'903 i'i -5665 hruiiie. 1-52-088f September 29, 2002 Dear Chris Kukulski, RECEIVED ?N2 OCT - I AM 10: 49 t;ALISPELL CITY CLERK This letter is concerning the request from the Owl Corporation, for a 62 lot residential subdivision on 10 acres south of Sunnyside Drive and West of Lane Pine View Estates. I am very troubled with how this all came about. I have read in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, "All property owners within 150 feet of the site of the proposed zone change shall be notified via the United States mail at least 15 days prior to the public hearing. " I was not notified, nor were my fellow neighbors. I believe this is called fraudulent deception if I'm not mistaken. Under the Investigation ofAmendment (27.30.020) I do not believe that the Zoning Commission and City Council followed any type of master plan in good faith. If this subdivision is allowed to pass as requested by the Owl Corporation we will have; Congestion in the streets: Currently it's extremely congested now that the road opened up on Denver to South Meadows. The roads are not adequate. Sunnyside Drive is an accident waiting to happen, it's very narrow, I personally have almost hit people walking, running, or skateboarding due to them having no other choice than being on the road. No Promotion of Health and General Welfare: How would over crowding this area be of any health benefit to the surrounding families? There is already such a problem with traffic, in fact I know the police have been called because of teenage speeder's whom are tremendously disrespectful of people (including children) on the street, and to people who have asked them to please slow down. Then what about the noise and dust pollution? There you have another problem. • There will be overcrowding of the land.• Look at South Meadows, would you like to live there? Their developer's didn't follow through therefore leaving them with no sidewalks, curb's, gutter's, boulevards, Etc. • There will not be adequate provision of transportation, or schools: Peterson School is busing their students elsewhere due to overcrowding now. The traffic is appalling, and quite dangerous. • Consideration to the particular suitability of the property for particular uses: To much overcrowding! Look at South Meadows, No room. • Adopted with a view of conserving the value ofproperty: To except the request of Owl Corporation will lower our property value. I propose that Owl Corporation build 14 higher end single-family homes on half -acre lots. This would allow them to still make the same amount of money as they would with their current proposal. As Lone Pine is a step up from South meadows, this subdivision would be a step up from Lone Pine, as Valley Ridge Estates would be a step up from them and so on. I would also like to add that Lone Pine View Estates has numerous children and more on the way. We currently have a nice neighborhood for these children to run, bike, and play with safety! To open Bismarck Street and Same Fe Street for through traffic into Owl Corporation's proposed subdivision will be endangering the lives of all of our children, I plead with you not to allow this to occur. Thank you for giving me your time and attention considering this very significant matter, I truly value you and the job you have been entrusted in. 9/26/02 RECEIVED NO GC1 - i AM 10: 4 9 KALISFELL CITY CLERK Dear Mr. Kukulski: I'm writing this letter in regards to the proposal by OWL Corporation to develop 10 acres off of Sunnyside Drive. The proposal as it is currently being proposed is way out of line! We are talking extremely high density (62 residential lots on less than 10 acres after the road is taken out)! No park for the children who will be living there, a very narrow road with no shoulder for ingress and egress. Kalispell does not need developments, such as the one proposed. This type of development will lead to more need for law enforcement and could end up being the "slums" of Kalispell! We call Montana "The Last Best Place to Live". It's not called this because of high density residential developments! It is because of the wide open spaces and beautiful surroundings! Please stop this development as it is currently addressed. Many changes are needed, if it is to continue progressing. Don't short change the neighbors and adjoining neighbors by letting this one go as is!!!!!! Sincerely, BRUCE & ANNE SCHOMER 115 Boise Ave. Kalispell, MT 59901 September 24, 2002 City Manager Chris Kukulski P O Box 1997 Kalispell MT 59901 RECEIVED 2002 OCT - I AM IO: 49 KALISPELL CITY CLERK Re: Zoning Changes and Housing on Sunmyside Drive Dear Chris: 1827 Bluestone Kalispell MT 59901 I read in the paper on September 10, 2002 that there was going to be a hearing on a zoning change in the area in which I live. I work full-time, and this was the first time I heard of the proposed change hearing. I was not able to go to the hearing. With multi- family housing proposed, I am very concerned about the safety of children in the area and the lack of planning for parks, schools or school access. I lived in the Greatview Drive townhouse section for approximately 6 months. It is poorly designed. It caters to young families and there are no sidewalks, no streetlights and no place for the children to play. It is not even safe for the children to walk to the park across from Laker Baseball Park. Now, with another multi -family housing unit (apartments and townhouse) planned for Sunnyside Drive, I express to you the need for safety and access planning. Traffic will be increased as parents take their children to school unless children have a safe place to ride bikes or walk to school. Where will the children from these new subdivisions play? These children deserve the same play spaces that children in the Buffalo Hills area enjoy. I recently bought a home in Stratford Village Subdivision. I have now been told that lot sizes were changed and duplexes will be built in an area that I thought was to be single family homes with duplexes at least two blocks away. At this time, the duplex is across the street. I was also told that the area was going to have a park. Now, I am told that there will be no park unless it is at the holding ponds. I have not specifically looked into these changes, but I had hoped that the original plan would have been honored without my efforts to constantly keep abreast of changes. I am not opposed to change or growth. Nothing remains the same forever. However, the life valued by people in this community will be extinguished unless people plan and implement the plan. Sin erely/. Sue Paulson RECEIVED NU SEP 25 AM 11: 32 TO: City Clerk Theresa White KALISPELL CITY CLERK PO Box 1997 Kalispell, MT DATE: September 24, 200.E We reside at 119 Boise Ave and are in opposition to the proposed development called Sunnyside subdivision. One of the primary issues is the non -compatibility of R4 zoning in conjunction to R1 and R3 surrounding communities. R4 zoning allows two family units on a 6,000 square foot area compared to Rl zoning that allows a single home per acre on neighboring properties. Lone Pine Estates has 33 single-family dwellings on ten acres. The Sunnyside Subdivision proposes to double this amount by 62 housing units on seven acres after the roads are taken out. Of the sixty-two units 19 are duplexes for multi family dwellings. This is extreme overcrowding. The proposed development of Sunny side is not even in compliance with the R4 zoning because the land works out to only 5,235 square foot per unit in comparison to the required 6,000 square foot per unit. This is an ill planned subdivision without any plans for sidewalks, playgrounds or adequate roadways for a tremendous increase of traffic. Is this over crowding preserving the kind of quality that we seek for our families and ourselves living in the Flathead? How would each of you feel about this kind of overcrowding at your own doorstep? Are we not looking ahead to preserve the uniqueness and beauty of this area or are we striving to model it like so many other over crowed and ill planned subdivisions? Is it more important for a few individuals to financially profit by this exploitation of land and space than is for the common good of the community as a whole? When we moved to this subdivision in May of 2002, we were happy to invest in a beautiful home with adequate space on a % acre lot. We asked our real estate agent if any development was planned for the 10 acres directly in front of us. After two days of apparent investigating, our agent said there was no planned development. In August, approximately 3 months later, we were informed of this proposed development. Although we Just moved here, this lack of information seems to be the standard in the community. In December and January 2002, residents claim they were not notified of the zoning change from Rl to R4 zoning. Only three people attended the meeting held by the Kalispell City Planning Board to protest. Since the zoning and the annexation occurred basically in the same time frame and the zoning to surrounding areas were not compatible, it is questionable whether the proper procedures were followed. In addition, when the annexation occurred there was no Growth Plan in place. The Attorney General stated since there was no growth plan, this was probably not legal. 4 p. 2 Traffic and safety of the roadways in this area is a crucial issue. The development of Sunnyside subdivision will generate several hundred more cars on already overcrowded streets. South Meadows did not fulfill plans to build an access road but connected their subdivision to Lone Pine Estates on Denver Avenue creating an overload of traffic in this subdivision. Denver Avenue feeds directly onto the county road, Sunnyside Drive. This is a 22-foot wide asphalt road with no sidewalks or curbs. Sunnyside Drive does not even meet the standards for a county road. How can hundreds of more cars be expected to safely use these roadways? How can we insure the safety of pedestrians and children on the roadways when cars barely have room to pass each other? As it is, cars cannot pass other cars when garbage containers and/or vehicles are parked are on the streets. Do you or your children want to walk or bike on the same roadways under these hazardous traffic conditions? We are not opposed to a well -planned development with adequate room for community living. This means that developments need to include sidewalks, play areas for children, adequate lot sizes for homes and access roads leading to and from the subdivisions that do not stress existing roadways in other subdivisions and communities. We feel 14 single-family dwellings on % acre lots would be adequate development for the proposed Sunnyside Subdivision. This plan would show the interest of people living in the subdivision and community versus the financial profit of over zealous development. Sincerely, Karen Nosek Linda Ornowski Residents: 119 Boise Ave. Kalispell, MT 59901 756-6089 REc@I ED Chris ulski 9-20-02 �ED 23 a31 P.O.Bo99 G�2 S Kalispell , Montana 59901 KALISP ELL W y CLERK Dear Mr. Kukulski, On Tuesday Sept. 10 , 20021 attended the meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board. I was notified of the meeting by registered mail. The part of the meeting that I was concerned with was property located south of Sunnyside Dr. and west of Ashley creek. ( tract 8,sect. 19,township 28 north,range 21 west) to be developed by Owl Corp. This meeting was the first time that myself and my neighbors found out that the property was re -zoned in Jan. 2002 from R-1 to R-4. No one in the Lone Pine View tract was notified about the rezoning. Our property is immediately adjacent to the rezoned property. At this meeting we were asked why we didn't attend the rezoning meeting in Jan. How can we if we don't know it is taking place? We were told at the meeting that registered letters were sent to us. This is NOT true. Later a neighbor found out that letters are sent as a COURTESY only. This is a DISGRACE 1 What happens in my area is very important to myself and my neighbors. I am sorry to say that Kalispell is beginning to look like what we called "THE PROJECTS". You should contact Sheriff Dupont about whats happening in Bigfork at their low cost/high density "PROJECTS" called Little John Apartments. Drugs, crime etc. This proposed tract is 62 homes/duplexes on 10 acres of land. The Lone Pine View tract where I live is 33 homes on 10 acres and is almost crowded. Mr. Councilman please do not allow this high density tract to continue! Thank you, Phone 755-1586 chael S. arris 111 Santa Fe St. In cities where they have growth plans in place, signage is required to be posted at the property for 90 days prior to the date of decision, announcing what is planned, and those affected can attend the meetings (listed) pertaining to the prospective zoning to any particular piece of real-estate. This is a rural community that has county roads through it which are inadequate for that kind of additional traffic! It should remain Rl. All the acreages to Lone Pine and to Foy's Lake and to Meridian road are all R-1. This rural community and game preserve can saturate estate like parcels of 1 house per acre; however the county road system cannot tolerate the type of density the subdivisions create. The development that Owl Corporation wants to do is directly East of acreage that is zoned R-1. I sincerely believe that R-4 is too severe a zone change to be nest to the R-1 estate type residential housing that is here now and some having been here for over 40 years. Sunnvside Drive per Narda Wilson's reading of the plat map is 50 feet. And she is correct as far as the plat map shows, but in real life the usable part on this county road is only 22 feet wide. That is as far as the asphalt goes, and then it is ditches, over brush and hillside. This is an old county road that was built before I came to live in this community. When I was 10 years old, my folks bought the homestead on Valley View Drive. (My brother's family live there now). I am 70 now, This kind of zoning changes being made in this community will bring down the values of estate type homes that are here and some that have been here long before these subdivisions. This area could support more estate type homes,(one per acre) but not crowded tenement type structures. The safety and quality of lives of those who live here are being affected by the insane rapid growth from the subdivisions that began by the city airport and have sprawled to Sunnyside Drive. This insane growth must stop until access arteries of safe streets, walks, curbs and lighting are built to accommodate the locals in addition to the subdivision craze. Those subdivisions West from the City airport has catered to smaller family homes, and only one small play ground is therefor 426 family dwellings! This is absolutely ludicrous! What makes it so easy for the city to allow, the developers to pay them a pitiful 9 or 10 percent of the value of raw land in lieu of building a playground for all those children! National average is 2.5 per family! Also, most of those subdivisions have no sidewalks, no boulevards, no curbs and no drainage. This is the making of a Ghetto. Is that what we want for our town of Kalispell? Where is the common sense of our planners and leaders? It seems the codes or regulations go askew as far as the past developments that have been put in this area. We must insist to build a community that will maintain the quality of life for our families and all the future families in the Valley. We must insist on proper development of road arteries for the safety of our families going to and from schools, town, work shopping and all the other places one has to go to. We must protect the environment for our wildlife preserves, such as Lone Pine Preserve. (The subdivision west of City airport covered the spring drainage ponds (which used to have hundreds of birds and wildlife) for more multi family housing. My friend who lives there watched them, and has pictures of them doing it.)) That means we must control the zoning and development until a long term growth plan is in place! The west side truck by pass, if it will ever come to pass would help that situation. But that has been just talk for about 20 years. Mr. Kukulski, help us to make Kalispell the town we have always been proud of. Please don't allow estate type residences to be given up for crowded cheap housing which create unrest, unhappiness, and temporay rental housing units. Already there are for rent and sale signs up and down the subdivisions streets. The start of a Ghetto begins when housing is crowded, with no sidewalks, boulevards, curbs or decent close play yards; and most of all if the development is not maintained, or completed as promised, residents become disturbed and unhappy as it becomes trashed, a haven for crime, and certainly reduces the value of the communities around them. Just Lake a drive down Bluestone; Darlington, Garden way, Belmar, Southmeadows and especially the newest development this year; Great View Drive. It is brand new and not a sidewalk anywhere! (Yet the city says all new, developments must have sidewalks, curbs and boulevards). Narda tells me they "grandfathered in on the old original subdivision" How can this happen when the city zoning regulations promise people that all city developments will have wide streets, curbs, boulevards and sidewalks and play yards. Who is paying who off The back yards may have 10 feet and 5 feet to your neighbor's yard. Not much room for children, or private yard space. See children playing in the streets. See the design of the driveways for the children to skate or bike down and right into the traffic. Looks like an accidental death in the making. Just take a tour and see these small crowded duplexes with 3 tiny bedrooms that are 8' by 89, tiny baths, no fire fu taping in the mace rooms for S 115,000. Call me and I can tell you why the planning board is being fooled as far as the demand for so much housing that is being sold. It is time for the city to make good the promise of the old subdivision developers before annexing more property for more of the same. Get a growth plan in place. Let the people of Kalispell have a voice. Not just a bill for additional taxes that are caused by the overgrowth of housing projects caused by the developers! Why not plan a development area, with the schools, fire and police stations, water and sewer and limited shopping areas within the development of residences where they will have all these necessary facilities available to that community. In growth minded towns, this is what the developers do to make a healthy growing town successful. This is the developer's responsibility. The planning boards say we will be like Spokane in 20 years. If we don't make better plans now, we will be like the Ghettos in the cities who had no growth plans and now are trying to get rid of the bad growth and rebuild correctly. And last but not least. We do not need the 62 home units that Owl Corporation wants to build on that 10 acres zoned R-4. It must be moved back to R-1. There already is too much R-4 for this area until growth plans are in place. No way, can people be happy or healthy in an environment where they are like sardines in a can. Thank you- Kruckenberg, 1116 Sunnyside Drive. My phone is 755-8041 see attachments September 17, 2002 1116 Sunnyside Drive Kalispell, Montana 59901 Chris Kukulski PO Box 1997 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Dear Chris. Thank you for your help and advice at Monday night's meeting. RECEIVED 2 U G 2 S E P f�ALISPELL CITY CLERK I am a very concerned member of this community on Sunnyside Drive, in the Lone Pine Wildlife Preserve. I along with 426 other home owners from the subdivisions to the South East of us and 74 from Valley View, Ashley and Sunnyside, are all using those 22 foot wide county roads called Sunnyside Drive, Valley view Drive, Foils Lake Road, (about 34`) and Meridian Road, (about 30') and 5ffi, 6" _ 71h Avenues to 11 `h street are all 24' with only concrete gutters and no sidewalks. These streets, with no shoulders or sidewalks, are the arteries to town for us almost 500 residents. (Not counting those on 5`h, 6"i, and 7t' Avenues.) Note: if we use the planners estimates that is about 5000 trips a day for these roads. At the meeting on the 16" Lila reported her count of 8 per minute. 8x60=480x24hr.=l L520, if we divide that in two for day only usage, that =5760 car count and we are right in with the planners numbers. But we know people travel at night too. Also note. We have not counted all the foot and bike and baby stroller traffic that uses these same roads for recreation and fresh air from the city. The numbers here will surprise you if you were to count them. The road outlet for the 426 other home owners known as Denver Drive and was opened just recently after the Stratford development was started. Because the Southmeadows Subdivision Developer never put the road to the West from his development as the plat maps show. (See attached map) This additional traffic is creating a dangerous and unsafe situation for every family whose homes are in the Lone Pine Estates, (33 ) and the Stratford subdivision (16) with more homes being built. On January 15't' there was a meeting held by the Kalispell City Planning Board where they annexed a 10 acre parcel to the city that was purchased in 2001 by Gaylen and Mark Owens doing business as Owl Corporation who want to put 62 housing units on it! On February 4`h, 2002, The city turned this rural 10 acres listed as R-1 (where housing can only be 1. house per acre or on 43,560 square feet of land) into R-4 (where it can be turned into multifamily dwellings that can be placed on 6000 square foot areas for single homes, and 7500 square foot areas for townhouses or duplexes.) But when you take 2.577 acres of the proposed road out (extension of Ashley Road) that only leaves a lot average of 5235 sq It per residence! This is a long way from the required 6000 and 7500 per the code book! These 10 acres should never have been annexed to the city or most of all zoned R-4 since there is no growth plan in place, all the roads are county, and inadequate for anything more than R-1 housing! Also, only one person in the immediate community was notified that this was to happen! (When Lila Kruckenberg asked about zoning notices sent out, Narda Wilson stated on September 12`h 2002 that they only send out notices on zoning as a courtesy.) Why the secret? Is not zoning something that affects the whole community? Whose town is this anyway? I thought it belonged to the taxpayers? One news article the day a zoning meeting is to be, is not enough publicity, to let people who are affected know what is going on. September 17, 2002 City of Kalispell City Clerk: Teresa White Since you are an elected official of the City of Kalispell, we hope you will take the time to listen to the majority of the people around this subdivision proposed by the Owl Corporation. (62 units on 10.029 acres South of Sunnyside Drive and West of Ashley Creek. See enclosure.) This land was annexed into the city February 12, 2002, Resolution #4679 and recorded. It was re -zoned from R1 to R4. As of September 13, 2002, it has yet to be recorded according to an attorney whom is investigating it. As you all know re -zoning after October 1, 2001, is probably illegal. There were several people present at the Planning Board meeting September 10, 2002, to protest this project and it ended in a tie vote. Narda Wilson stated in her Staff Report the Developer has met all zoning regulations. They Have Not! Please see Road Design Standards enclosed. These are dated May 6, 1996, and are not adhered to. Sunnyside Drive is 50' wide from fence to fence not 60' and the pavement width is 22' not 28' as required. Ashley Drive which is to be extended South into the subdivision is only 41'6" fence to fence and again has 22' of pavement. The lot sizes are to be 6000 square feet for single family dwellings and 7500 square feet for duplexes. The proposed lot sizes are about 4324 square feet for 24 single family units and 6072 square feet for the 38 duplexes. These figures are from Flathead County Zoning Regulations dated November 15, 1999. Please see enclosed. This area is indeed a game preserve and it is frequented by sizeable amount of wildlife coming from surrounding areas to water in Ashley Creek. Ms Wilson stated that the land is fenced, well the fence does not stop the game from jumping them! At full buildout the report says to expect 620 more vehicles per day added to our already traffic problems we experience on 5th, 6thand 7th Avenues West as well as Sunnyside Drive. As Denver Avenue comes on to Sunnyside Drive just west of Ashley Creek Bridge, it is a blind intersection looking West. There 46 near misses there every day. This is simply too many houses to put on 7.55 acres. We hope you can relate to our point of views. The developer, Mr. Mark Owens, indicated they do not want to scale back to a possible R3 or R1. Who is going to pay for the new sewer plant that is already overloaded at spike times now. We can address fire protection which is in a quandry since all Rural Fire Districts surrounding Kalispell have refused to sign a Mutual Aid Agreement with the City of Kalispell. How is the Fire Department going to respond to these Rural areas annexed into the City without outside help which they no longer have ? When we moved to our present location in 1970, Flathead County did not recognize Ashley Drive as a county road, in fact, when it was paved in about 1972, all of the people who live on this road had to pay for the paving. in 1993, my wife's father suffered a stroke in our garage, we called 911 and they did not know where. Ashley Drive was. We finally got street signs and a stop sign in 2001. Now they want to extend Ashley Drive into this subdivision as a street. We are all prepared to take this to the next level if it passes this council. Sincer Da R. & Cheryl A. Pierce 1015 Ashley Drive Kalispell, MT 59901 enc./3 X R-4 Two Family Residential - Page 51 3.12.040 Bulk and Dimensional Requirements (R-4). 1. Minimum Lot Area: 6,000 square feet for single family dwellings. 7,500 square feet for duplexes and all other uses. 2. Minimum Lot Width: 50 feet. 3. Setbacks: A. Minimum Yard Requirement for Principal Structure: - Front: 20 feet. Side: 5 feet each. Side Corner: 20 feet. Rear: 20 feet. B. Detached Accessory Structures: Front: 20 feet. Side: 5 feet each. Side Comer: 20 feet. Rear: 5 feet. C. A 20 foot setback is required from streams, rivers and unprotected lakes which do not serve as property boundaries. D. Increase yard requirements as follows when property fronts: County Road:* 20 feet. Federal or State High xay: 20 feet. * Classified as a collector or major/minor arterial as defined in the County Master Plan or City -County Master Plan. 4. Maximum Height: Principal structure: 35 feet. Accessory structure: 18 feet. 5. Permitted Lot Coverage: 40%. 6. Maximum Fence Height (except as otherwise noted): Front: 3 feet. Side: 6 feet. i Rear: 6 feet. 7. Off -Street Parking: See Chapter VI -Parking and loading. Design Standards - Page 27 TABLE 1 Road Design Standards for Local Subdivision Streets DESIGN STANDARDS ARTERIAL COLLECTOR LOCAL RURAL' Minimum Right -of -Way 2 80 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft. Minimum Pavement Width"' - -s — -28 ft.°- - -24 ft.' Maximum Grade 6 % 6 %6 6 %6 6 %6 Cul-de-sac turnaround: a. Face of curb radius 45 ft. 45 ft. b. Minimum outside right-of-way radius 50 ft. 50 ft. C. Maximum length 600 ft. 600 ft Average net residential density of 1 acre. z Terrain and design constraints may dictate greater right-of-way; all road disturbances must be accommodated within the right-of-way. Design approved by the City Engineer/Kalispell Design and Construction Standards. ° Where parking is allowed on both sides of street, 36 feet minimum roadway width is needed. Note: Where density exceeds 8 units/net acre, parking is required on both sides of street unless overflow/visitor parking demands are met elsewhere. ' No parking allowed. s Road grades may reach 7 % for distances not to exceed 150 feet per 300 feet of roadway. J. In minor subdivisions where lot access is provided by existing streets, City Council may require waiver of protest to a special improvement district (SID) to upgrade the street in lieu of actual street improvements, in order to avoid upgrading small sections of existing streets. K. Street intersections shall meet the following requirements: 1. Streets shall intersect at 90' angles, if topography permits but in no case shall the angle of intersection be less than 75' for a minimum distance of 60 feet as measured along the centerline. 0 oo� ai O 6� x in O n n �C J one h b �x C O y� _ j_ V10102- �- vnC e� �.tc q7 Ail t 9/6/02 Tri-City Planning Office 17 Second Street East Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 To Whom it May Concern: I'm writing this to express my views and concerns concerning the request by Owl Corporation to develop a 62 lot residential subdivision off of Sunnyside Drive. As a property owner at 115 Boise Ave., I was very upset to find out about this "plan in progress." I bought the lot and built the home in the area because of the view and the peacefulness of the less developed area. It has been so wonderful and relaxing to see horses grazing on that 10 acres for the last three years. I know money seems to RULE just about anything in this day and age, so stopping this development is highly unlikely. But, I will urge and strongly suggest that cutting the lots in half is a very good compromise and for those of us who live on Boise Ave., it would also be recommended that the developer keep the houses to one level so that all of us on Boise Ave. can still enjoy the lovely view of Lone Pine!!! Other things to keep in mind is the narrowness of Sunnyside Dr. This road is used a lot by people riding bikes, walking, etc. The added traffic will become a hazard!! Please, please consider my requests along with others who are against this development, and don't let the proposal, as it is being addressed, pass through the City Council Chambers!!! Sincerely, � GAY ANNE E. SCHOMER 115 Boise Ave. Kalispell, MT 59901 RECEIVED SEP , 9 2002 ?RI -CITY PLANNING OFFICE HOMEOWNERS AND RESIDENTS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE If you are living on Kalispell's West Side, are North or East or South East or West of Lone Pine State Park. And if you live West of Ashley Creek and West of the city airport road and South of Foy's Lake Road; This notice may effect your life if a certain "Sunnyside Subdivision" is allowed to go through at the City Planning Board and Zoning Commission meeting on SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM IN THE KALISPELL CITY HALL AT 312 FIRST AVENUE EAST. Information in this notice may result in a future life situation that may not be what you desire for your family and home. To protect the quality of your family's home life YOU may want to voice YOUR opinion at this meeting on Tuesday night. qt Fact # 1: Request is for 19 duplex's and 24 single family units (=62 families) on 10 acres on Sunnyside Drive; Which up until January 8, 2002 was R-1 (rural agricultural allowing (1) single family unit per acre.) See pages 4Z, 43 and 44 of Flathead county Zoning regulations. January 8, 20021, the city annexed it and allowed it to be zoned R-4! (but no growth plan is in place, thus this is probably not legal, per the attorney general; but city manager says "we w111 keep fight on doing what we are doing " (Quote from 9/3/02 city council meeting) Is he telling us that only he, dba the city can do whatever? Excuse me, Isn't this America? R-4 allows 2 family units (duplexes) on a 6000 square foot lot. (See pages 14 and 15 City of Kalispell zoning regulations) Compare that with 1 single home per one acre (43,560 sq. ft.) on neighboring properties on Sunnyside, Zoned R-1. Would you not think that there should be a buffer zone between the various zonings ? Why a radical R4 next to R1?? Where's common sense? Where's the "green belt" What will that do to your property values if this also happens to you? If a master plan is not made and followed by city and county, what other type of development will be next door? ( a-) i J Fact#2. The entire area as described on Page 1, lines 3,4,5,6, is in the Lone Pine Game Reserve. The small herds of deer go to Ashley creek twice a day for water. They try to get there via this agricultural community bordering Sunnyside drive. The traffic on the already busy 22 foot Sunnyside roadway has taken its toll on the deer. I personally saw one that was hit & killed here this winter. How will they get to the water when their game preserve is all asphalt and almost zero clearance housing?? With all this growth with NO LONG TERM MASTER PLAN will your children get to enjoy seeing the deer and wildlife in their subdivided crowded neighborhoods? Note: South of South Meadows there used to be a huge pond as of 2001 and decades before, where thousands of geese, ducks and wildlife used to congregate. In 2002 the developer has filled in the pond making it ready for Apartment buildings.(as quoted to me by the contractor Monday August 26rh) Please Note... This is a game and wildlife preserve! Who has the right to destroy their habitat. Does the city truly have the right to say NAY to preserve our wildlife Refuge by allowing too many crowded developments destroy our wildlife. Is that what we want? Isn't being so close to nature the charm of living in Kalispell? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Fact #3 Traffic and Safety and Road Arteries tha service this area of Kalispell that you live in. Sunnyside subdivision developers state that the 62 units of homes they plan on building if the city approves, will generate 620 trips to town, schools, work and shopping. Add that to the road traffic that now goes by your homes that have 22 foot wide asphalt roads with NO CURBS, NO SIDEWALKS, NO ROOM FOR CARS TO BY PASS EACH OTHER WHEN YOUR CAR, TRUCK OR GARBAGE CONTAINERS ARE PARKED ON THE STREET. And what about your kids who play and bike and walk on this same 22 foot wide asphalt roadway?? Note: the following subdivision and its number of units: Lone Pine Estates 33: Stratford 16: Delmar 27. South Meadows 210: Ashley Park 140; for a total of 426 housing units at the present time. Multiply 426 X 10 = 4256 vehicle passes possibly already going by your homes on Sunnyside Drive, Sth , e 7`h Avenues, Western, Valley View, and Foy's Lake to Meridian all going toward town for schools, work and shopping. Most of the families from the above subdivisions who have children more than likely already take this same route, since Flathead High, Elrod, St. Matthews and Peterson are on this West end of town. The safety of all who have to be on these narrow City and County roads in This West side of town are at risk each and every day. Additional Subdivisions whose residents must travel these narrow roads make that risk much greater for every man, woman, child and animal. Is not the area becoming too densely populated for these arteries the city and county are providing to the residents in this end of town? And what about a healthy game preserve for all the wildlife here? Are the forecasted tax assessments really enough to cover the consequences of an overpopulated area for the present traffic arteries that are available? Is NO your (4-11, answer? Is the life of your child important enough to say NAY to more subdivision developments on this side of town? Fact 9 4. Parks and Green Belts and Drainage. Sunnyside Subdivision owners Mark Owens dba Owl Corporation says that they will contribute $8197 cash* to the city in liew of a park for their 62 family units they will put in providing the city says yes to their request. Owl says that Lone Pine Park can suffice and is walking distance. (and it is great for the hiker.) A mom with little ones that need a short break before nap time in the fresh air and some exercise on play yard equipment that should be provided by the subdivision, will not find the hike to Lone Pine of value until the children are much older. If that is the choice they will have to go by auto all around the mountain and past Foys lake to get there. *The cash in liew of was discussed to go to Begg Park improvements, a very long way for a mom to walk to with her little ones over unfinished roads, and no sidewalks to take a short walk and break with her toddlers. Not a solution at all. Even if she takes her car there, there is no parking area for it except on the road. Can we really let this developer also cheat the prospective family homeowner out of a park in his ten acre development with 62 family units!! Say NAY to this development of Sunnyside Subdivision Green belt or Open spaces. Honestly, how much open space can be had when the road will take up 2.577 acres, the 38 family units in the duplex's or townhouses take up 3.707 acres, the 24 single family lots take up 3.745 acres filling the 10.029 acres. Let me show you the average square footage per each family dwelling. (3.707Acres +3.745Acres =7.452 Acres times 43,560 square feet per acre equals 324609 square feet, divided by 62 dwellings equals an average of 5235 square feet per family dwelling lot. This is not what I call a healthy atmosphere for a family dwelling. What would you call it?? Crowding too many people on too small a space of ground? Note: The staff report says they comply with lot size requirements of 6000 feet. But when I calculate out the acreage they specify for size it is considerably smaller. Fact # 5. Schools The developer says that his 62 family units will create approximately 35 school children. Excuse me? 62 family units on the national average make 2.4 children per family. That calculates out to 148 new faces in the school district 5. Multiply that out by the tax dollars that it takes to send them to school and to provide the facilities for them. Now I ask you Mr. and Mrs homeowner, are you prepared to anti up more tax dollars to Kalispell for the schools in order to provide the funding for this development's creativity? Fact # 6. Police and Fire protection. It is a known fact that both services will try, but are maxed out in the most part. More tax dollars will take care of that. In the staff report they do say that this one development will put strains on the department to continue to give the high level of service that it is committed to. Thank you for reading this report on the Sunnyside subdivision. I know that there are alternatives for a healthy growth of a community. I do have opinions on this. There will always be growth, and I do not mind healthy growth of any community when the vision of what is to be, is placed with the best interest at heart for the entire community. We must not let a few dictate what is to be done, with out any long term planning and organization. There must be consideration and common sense usage for the betterment of a Quality of life for all in the community. I urge you to voice your opinion in letter or in person at the meeting at city hall at 7PM on Tuesday, 9110102 Thank you, Angie Kruckenberg 1116 Sunnyside Drive, Kalispell, MT (6 i