2. Sunnyside SubdivisionTri-City Planning Office
17 Second Street East - Suite 211
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 751-1850
Fax: (406) 751-1858
tricity@centurytel.net
REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tom Jentz, Director
Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT Sunnyside Final Plat Phase 1 - Issues raised at the August 18th
Council Meeting.
MEETING DATE: August 25th Work Session
BACKGROUND: During the presentation of the final plat for Phase 1 of Sunnyside
Subdivision, there was a motion to table further discussion until questions raised by
the audience and by Councilman Kenyon could be answered. The action on the final
plat was tabled until the September 2, 2003 Council meeting and the staff was
requested to address the questions raised at the August 18, 2003 Council meeting.
First, staff will address the question raised by Councilman Kenyon as to the timing of
the original annexation and zoning in relation to our adoption process of the Growth
Policy. Then staff will address specifically the 13 points raised by Angie Kruckenberg
in her letter, which is attached.
In response to Councilman Kenyon's concern about the original annexation process,
annexation and R-4 zoning was granted on February 2, 2002 by the City Council. The
preliminary plat for Sunnyside Subdivision was approved by the City Council on
October 7, 2002. The subdivision contained 61 lots on 10 acres and is proposed to be
developed in 3 phases. At the time of annexation of Sunnyside, the City of Kalispell
was still utilizing the 1986 Master Plan. As you know, the 1999 legislature passed
legislation with an effective date of October 1, 2001 which stated that a city must
have a compliant growth policy in place and if not, the ability of the local jurisdiction
to undertake certain planning functions was limited. In the case of the Sunnyside
annexation (KA-01-8), the existing parcel of land was zoned County R-1. The
requested zoning as it came into the city was R-4. Both zones were residential in
nature. The City's Master Plan designated the property as residential. No plan
amendment was needed as the proposed Sunnyside Subdivision was residential. It
was determined that the requested annexation complied with the intent of the
legislative changes.
In response to the Kruckenberg letter, each of the 13 points will be addressed:
1. The letter requests that the City postpone final plat approval until the lawsuit
is litigated. The lawsuit is between the Kruckenberg's and the City and
challenges the City notification process and proper use of annexation
procedures. Mark Owns, the developer is not named. Assistant City Attorney
Rich Hickel informed the Council that if the Kruckerbergs wished to stop Mr.
Owens from proceeding, they could file for an injunction and post a cash bond
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• City of Kalispell • City of Columbia Falls • City of Whitefish •
Sunnyside Phase 1 - Response to public comments
August 21, 2003
Page 2 of 4
to address any potential damages to Mr. Owens by the delay. The
Kruckenbergs are unwilling to do this. Once a final plat is submitted to the
planning office, a 30-day time frame begins. In addition, once the final plat is
submitted to the City Council by the planning office, the Council has 30 days
to approve or deny the application. The staff feels that the Kruckenbergs have
the tools to stop the filing of Phase 1, the City does not. The City has an
obligation to proceed with the filing of the final plat presented to them.
2. The letter warns of future costs if the developer is allowed to proceed with the
lawsuit pending. In response, the City Attorney stated that we acted in good
faith during the annexation and zoning and continue to proceed in good faith.
Mark Owens continues to operate in good faith and has not been named in the
lawsuit. The Kruckenbergs could file an injunction and post a bond to stop
the process. Such action would cause potential harm to the developer. The
City staff is not recommending that course of action on the part of the City.
3. The letter states Phase I is only the beginning of severe density for the whole
project. In response, Phase I contains all single-family lots which comply with
the R-4 zoning. Phases 2 and 3 will also be required to comply with the R-4
zoning. This is the zoning that the City approved.
4. The letter states each lot in Phase 1 has 6,011 square feet and all are smaller
than Lone Pine Subdivision to the east. This is true. Sunnyside Phase 1 is
zoned R-4 with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. This was the
character and the density proposed in the preliminary plat of Sunnyside. The
Lone Pine lots are slightly larger and are zoned R-3 with a 7,000 square foot
minimum zoning. The issue raised here however has nothing to do with the
final plat filing. It is a plea that the City miszoned the property originally. This
is a contention in the zoning and annexation lawsuit and not part of the final
plat discussion.
5. The letter states improper landscape trees were approved. The landscape trees
are part of a performance bond and have not been installed. Early discussions
with the contractor were for the larger trees, however, the parks director has
previously contacted the developer informing him because of the smaller
planting areas, a medium size tree will be required. Trees cannot be physically
installed until the parks director gives final approval.
6. The letter raised a dispute with the results of the traffic study. The traffic
study was required as part of the preliminary plat approval. A traffic study was
prepared by Morrison Maierle, Inc stating no improvements are needed with
the development Phase One and only minimal signage improvements for future
phases. The study was prepared by an independent licensed engineer.
7. The letter states all roads are not completed in the subdivision. Staff
comments that this is true. The street for Phase I is complete, this is the basis
Sunnyside Phase 1 - Response to public comments
August 21, 2003
Page 3 of 4
of your approval. Phases 2 and 3 are not completed because the applicant is
not requesting Phase 2 or 3 approvals.
8. The letter notes rubber-stamping of the project by staff. Staff replies that the
Phase 1 final plat I is in order and ready for approval.
9. The letter takes issue with the statement - "Fire hydrants are in place". As a
matter of record the fire hydrants necessary for this phase are in place per
letter from Fire Marshall Jim Stewart. Additional fire hydrants for future
phases may well be lying on the ground. They are not an issue for the approval
of Phase 1.
10. The letter takes issue with the original zoning and annexation process. Staff
comments that this is the crux of the lawsuit raised by the Kruckenbergs. It is
inappropriate to discuss this matter in public form as it is under litigation. At
this point it will be up to a judge to decide.
11. Same response as # 10 above.
12. The letter takes issue with the original preliminary plat approval in October,
2002. This is an historical footnote and a matter of their perception. The
Council did act to approve the preliminary plat. Not all Council decisions are
embraced by everyone. The preliminary plat is not on the table for discussion,
this is a past Council action. Phase I of the final plat is.
13. The letter raises the same issue as described in # 12 above.
RECOMMENDATION: Take comments under advisement. Remove Sunnyside Phase
1 from the table at the September 2, 2003 Council meeting, authorize acceptance of
the subdivision improvements agreement for Phase 1 and approve the final plat of
Sunnyside Phase 1.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Unsure.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas R. Jentz Chris A. Kukulski
Director City Manager
Report compiled: August 21, 2003
Surmyside Phase 1 — Response to public comments
August 21, 2003
Page 4 of 4
c: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk
TRJ / sm
Attachments: Letter submitted by Angie Kruckenberg at the August 18, 2003
Council meeting
LETTERS \2003 \KRUCKENBERG RESPONSE
illegally to this point.
Can you in all honesty still risk the taxpayers' money by putting the city in
additional jeopardy of losing this pending law suite against the city by approving
this final plat for phase ONE of Sunnyside subdivision?
Sincerely
This section in case you do not know these Regulations in the Subdivision guide
14. Chapter 1. General Provisions. ne purpose of these Regulations is to promote health, safe�y, and
general wey'are and to providefor.
a. The orderly development of the jurisdictional area:
b. The coordination of roads within subdivided land with other roads, both existing and planned.
C. The dedication of land for roadways and for public utility easements
d. The improvement of roads,
e. The provision of open spaces for travel, fight, air and recreation;
E The provision of adequate transportation, water, drainage, and sanitary facilities;
g. The avoidance or minimization of congestion;
IL The avoidance of subdivision which would involve unnecessary environmental degradation:
i, The avoidance of danger or hijury by reason of natural hazard or the lack of water, drainage, access, transportation or othe
public services.
j. The avoidance ofexcessive expenditure ofpublic, funds for the supply of public services.
L The manner and form of malcIng and filing of any plat for subdivided kinds.
L o The administration of these Regulations by defining the powers and duties of approving authorities including procedures f
the review and approval of all plats of subdivisions covered kv these provisions.
The protection of the rights of property owners.
Roads should be competed and pavedfirstfor the provision ofheaNty, airfor the entire area. A the time ofthis requestfor
a 7r6val te, AWN, the air quali�y is n*thing but dust and dirt creafing a totally unhoalthy atniesphereftr the entire coftununi4'
well as environmental degradation. In developments throughout the US, the roadways, easements, curbs, sidewalks and lighti
are in before house one is started Where in the code are the developers in Kalispell exemptedfrom this?