08/18/03 City Council MinutesA REGULAR MEETING OF THE KALISPELL CITY COUNCIL WAS HELD AT 7:00 P.M.
MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 2003, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL IN
KALISPELL, MONTANA. MAYOR PAMELA B. KENNEDY PRESIDED. COUNCIL
MEMBERS JIM ATKINSON, BOB HAFFERMAN, RANDY KENYON, DUANE LARSON,
FRED LEISTIKO, HANK OLSON, JAYSON PETERS AND TED POLER WERE
PRESENT.
Also present: Adjutant City Attorney Rich Hickel, City Clerk Theresa White, Finance Director Amy
Robertson, Police Chief Frank Garner, Fire Chief Randy Brodehl, Public Works Director Jim Hansz,
Parks & Recreation Director Mike Baker and Tri-City Director Tom Jentz.
Mayor Kennedy called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
A. AGENDA APPROVAL
Leistiko moved approval of the Agenda. The motion was seconded.
There was no discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon vote.
B. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL
1. Council Minutes — Regular Meeting August 4, 2003
2. Ordinance 1475 — Amending Assessments for Streets and Avenues — 2nd Reading
This ordinance amends Ordinance 1420 by correcting a methodology error in assessing the
costs of maintaining the streets and avenues for vacant property over two acres and
residential property over a half of an acre. Ordinance 1475 passed on first reading August
4th.
3. Ordinance 1476 — Amending Assessments for Storm Sewer — 2nd Reading
This ordinance amends Ordinance 1421 by correcting a methodology error in assessing a
special storm sewer charge on vacant property over two acres and residential property over a
half of an acre. Ordinance 1476 passed on first reading August 4th.
4. Ordinance 1477 — Zoning Text Amendment — Leshia Wright Stroisch — 2nd Reading
Stroisch is requesting an amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Regulations to allow changes to
non -conforming residential structures that would permit minor expansion into the setback
areas to gain, regain or maintain historical integrity. Ordinance 1477 passed on first reading
August 4th.
5. Ordinance 1478 — Initial Zoning — Tim Birk — Raven Rock Subdivision — 2nd Reading;
Birk is requesting an initial zoning designation of R-3, Single Family Residential, on 6 acres
and RA-1, Low Density Residential Apartment, on 2 acres for the property listed above.
Ordinance 1478 passed on first reading August 4th.
Atkinson moved to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded.
There was no discussion.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
August 18, 2003
Page 1
The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote.
Brodehl introduced the Fire Department's new Assistant Chief of Operations Dee McCloskey.
C. STUDENT ISSUES
Ryan Nalty,181 Riverview Drive, asked the City to do whatever it can to get the timing of the lights
on Highway 93 north near the hospital changed to a longer period between when one light turns red
and the other light turns green.
Angie Kruckenberg, 1116 Sunnyside Drive, read a written statement in opposition to Agenda Item
E/5, the final plat for Sunnyside Subdivision Phase 1. (Statement with attachments is attached and
by this reference is made a part of the official record)
Lila Kruckenberg, 1204 Sunnyside Drive, also read a written statement in opposition to the
Sunnyside Phase 1 final plat. (Statement is attached and by this reference is made a part of the
official record)
Cheryl Pierce, 1015 Ashley Drive, protested the high density development on Sunnyside and asked
the Council "why won't you listen to the public that has spoken out against this development"?
Mark Drew, 152 Greenbrier, asked the Council to approve Resolution 4825 accepting solid waste
service for the Greenbrier Subdivision. Drew said he has lived in Greenbrier since 1985 and
received exemplary garbage service from the City. He said Evergreen Disposal took over the service
around July 1st and since then he's seen about a 3 5 % increase in fees.
Jamie Reed, Sands Surveying, said she's available to answer questions concerning the Sunnyside
Subdivision Phase 1 final plat and the Ashley Park annexation, zoning and final plat.
E. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUBSEQUENT COUNCIL ACTION
E/1. RESOLUTION 4823 — SPECIAL STREET MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS
This resolution is adopted annually to provide a levy to fund the cost of street maintenance in the
City of Kalispell.
Atkinson moved Resolution 4823, a resolution levying an assessment for the cost of special
maintenance for the purpose of maintaining the streets and avenues of the City of Kalispell for
the Fiscal Year 2003-2004. The motion was seconded.
Hafferman made the following statement: "When this Council first started the 03-04 budget process
we were promised that this new budget would not exceed the current budget. Last meeting this
Council approved a General Fund budget that exceeded the current general fund; that means more
property tax money must be collected. Not only that, but during a prior workshop most of this
Council went along with adjusting street maintenance expenditures by deleting these expenditures
from the General Fund and putting them in the street assessment account that's another form of
taxation. They should have reduced the property taxes by $100,000 and increased the street
assessment tax that same amount. I suspect the rationale was property taxes are capped by law,
Kalispell City Council Minutes
August 18, 2003
Page 2
assessment taxes are not. Before this Council is the proposed resolution that will raise the street
assessment tax by 46% on residential and commercial properties. This huge raise was not even
discussed in a workshop. This huge raise will cost the taxpayers $250,000 in additional street
assessments." Hafferman further stated: "sooner or later a council will have to step up to the plate
and act in the best interest of the taxpayers we are supposed to represent". He finished by asking the
Council to say no to this resolution.
Atkinson asked Hansz if the City is getting anything other than street maintenance from this street
assessment fund.
Hansz answered nothing. He said the transfer Hafferman is referring to was made by transferring the
value of the general street maintenance account and the value of the traffic sign and signal
maintenance account to the special street fund with this resulting assessment. Hansz said he can't
speak towards any other decisions made by the Council with respect to other parts of the budget that
may or may not have raised or lowered numbers, but with respect to the street fund "all we did was
transfer the one off of the general fund and the second one off of the general fund and put it into the
special street maintenance fund. You cannot equate the dollar value with a percent. It's fairly
inflammatory to think that 46% can be equated to a 46% tax increase".
Leistiko said it's been stated that the special street maintenance budget has increased to
accommodate the former General Fund Street budget and the Traffic Sign and Signal budget, and the
increased assessment to fund these functions will be offset by a reduction in the mill levy in the
General Fund. Leistiko asked Robertson to explain.
Robertson said when the mill levy was calculated "we determined the amount that we were allowed
to calculate and we reduced it by the same amount, including reducing retirement, health insurance
and all the benefits that went with those employees that moved from the General fund to the Special
Street fund; so it was about a quarter of a million dollars that we could have milled in the mill levy
which we reduced, and did not mill".
Peters asked what last year's budget was for the same thing.
Hansz explained last year there were three different budgets: General Fund Street budget; General
Fund Traffic Signs and Signals budget; and a Special Street Maintenance assessment budget. He said
this year those three budgets were combined into a single budget and the value of what would have
been previously funded through the General Fund, as Robertson said, amounts to about a quarter of
a million dollars. Hansz said "that was rolled into a special street assessment which is about
$850,000, last year it was about $600,000, but we rolled a quarter of a million dollars into it this year
from those other two funds". He said those budgets were not raised this year; "we basically held the
line".
Olson asked why the change was made.
Hansz answered there were two objectives: 1) make it easier for people to know exactly how much
street maintenance costs; and 2) try to remove from the General Fund items that could be better
funded through specific targeted assessments.
Olson asked Hansz to comment on Hafferman's accusation that assessments could be raised when
everything else is frozen.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
August 18, 2003
Page 3
Hansz said that could probably be answered better by Robertson, but the Council has the authority to
set whatever assessments it wants and in that respect Hafferman is correct.
Leistiko said it was his understanding that when the Council was asked to do this the money would
be taken out of the General Fund where there could be a lot of shifting of funds and placed in a fund
strictly for street maintenance. He said the idea was to use the money collected through street
assessments strictly for street maintenance, adding he doesn't understand the accusations Hafferman
is making. Leistiko said this is a clear cut way of saying, "these are the assessments, it goes in this
fund, and that's what you spend it for and nothing else".
Hafferman said, "to jog Jim's (Hansz) mind, $107,000 was the street maintenance budget in the
General Fund. The percentages that I used, the 46% increase; I took your figures from the work
sheets that we had last April and figured out the new amount. It comes up to over $250,000 and that
does not include the annexations that we have taken since then".
Hansz responded that Hafferman is forgetting the Traffic Signs & Signals budget. He said you have
to add those two together and when you add those two together it's about a quarter of a million
dollars.
Hafferman said the Council talked about moving the street maintenance budget from the General
Fund to the special assessment and there is no cap on special assessments. "The only cap that exists
is in the property tax and that is by State law, and I think that's what we're trying to escape, is State
law.
Larson asked Robertson if this was a revenue -neutral move.
Robertson said that was the intention and what Hafferman doesn't have in his figures is the health
insurance that's in the health fund, the retirement that's in the retirement fund and the workers
compensation that's in the comp insurance fund. She said all of those costs, from those mill levied
funds, were shifted to the street maintenance and that's "how we came up with the quarter million".
Larson said he understood, as Leistiko did, that we wanted to make the street maintenance fund more
accountable to itself.
Hafferman said regardless of what the number is, we were going to take the money from the General
Fund and put it over in the Street Maintenance Fund and, therefore, the amount subtracted from the
General Fund should be the same amount added to the Street Maintenance Fund. He said in other
words, there should be less in the General Fund. Hafferman said at last week's meeting the City
Manager stated: "the general fund budget is $5,737,890 which is less than a 1% increase".
Hafferman said, "we have increased the General Fund, now what are we talking about here, revenue
neutral, BS".
Peters said he agrees with Hafferman that "you got one year you take it out, you should have that
much less this next year, however on top of that, we've got different projects from one year versus
the other, they carry over".
Robertson said if you just take the personnel in the General Fund and add a two to two and a half
percent cost of living, you've got an increase of $100,000 right there. She said you can't compare
apples to apples because salaries and projects don't stay the same.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
August 18, 2003
Page 4
Peters said capping the mill levy and keeping the taxes down are two different things. He said the
Council did one, but didn't do the other, and that's what he's concerned about.
Mayor Kennedy stated this is a good philosophical discussion but the Council is getting off track.
She said the Council didn't want to see an increase in the budget and the City Manager was told to
limit the full time employees, but there's still a cost of living increase; look at the increase in the
electricity and the increase in insurance. Mayor Kennedy said the Council spent many hours
addressing the budget which passed last week, now the Council is addressing the levy for the street
maintenance and that's where the discussion needs to remain.
The motion carried upon roll call vote with Atkinson, Kenyon, Larson, Leistiko, Olson, Poler
and Mayor Kennedy voting in favor, and Hafferman and Peters voting against.
E/2. RESOLUTION 4824 — STORM SEWER MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS
This resolution is adopted annually to provide a levy to fund the cost of storm sewer maintenance in
the City of Kalispell.
Leistiko moved Resolution 4824, a resolution levying assessments for the cost of Storm Sewer
maintenance for the Fiscal Year 2003-2004.
Hafferman said at the last Council meeting there were two ordinances passed, in which he voted in
favor, to correct the methodology for assessing taxes on citizens' property. He said there was
nothing in the ordinances about raising taxes, but this resolution proposes "to raise the fees, i.e.
taxes, by 11 1/2 percent". Hafferman said he is opposed to raising these taxes primarily because of
the nearly $400,000 slated for the Highway 93 project to Four Corners. He stated: "we need to take
care of our citizens inside the City limits. Developers should pay to take care of developments they
create. We have rules and regulations for growth, let's follow them".
The motion carried upon roll call vote with Atkinson, Kenyon, Larson, Leistiko, Olson and
Mayor Kennedy voting in favor, and Hafferman, Peters and Poler voting against.
E/3. RESOLUTION 4825 —ACCEPTING SOLID WASTE SERVICE FOR GREENBRIER
SUBDIVISION
Petitions have been received from more than 50% of the homeowners within the Greenbrier
Subdivision asking for solid waste service from the City. Greenbrier is currently served by
Evergreen Disposal.
Kenyon moved Resolution 4825, a resolution accepting the petition request of the Greenbrier
Subdivision for Kalispell City solid waste service. The motion was seconded.
Mayor Kennedy asked Hickel for a staff report.
Hickel said he has to excuse himself from the discussion because he's a resident of the Greenbrier
Subdivision.
Mayor Kennedy asked if the petition has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's Office.
Hickel said it has been reviewed and found proper.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
August 18, 2003
Page 5
Atkinson said there's some confusion as to the history of the garbage service in Greenbrier and asked
Hansz to explain.
Hansz said when the City annexes property that is being served by a private hauler, the private hauler
retains service for a period of five years following annexation. He said the City recently discovered
it was misinterpreting the regulations when it provided service to areas that were previously vacant.
Hansz explained that history of misinterpretation has been cleared up and following negotiations
with Evergreen and the signing of an agreement on how service should be provided, the garbage
service in Greenbrier was turned over to Evergreen Disposal.
Mayor Kennedy read a memo from City Attorney Charles Harball explaining: "On May 19, 2003
the Council approved the Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding between the City of
Kalispell and Evergreen Disposal, Inc., regarding the solid waste services within the City. One of
the neighborhoods that began receiving services from Evergreen was the Greenbrier subdivision that
was annexed into the City more than five years ago. We have recently received petitions from the
neighborhood requesting solid waste service from the City that account for more than 50% of the
homeowners within the neighborhood. Pursuant to MCA §7-2-4736, Council must now determine
whether it will provide the service to the neighborhood".
Olson said he can't vote for this resolution because of the agreement between Kalispell and
Evergreen. He said the City made a "deal" with Evergreen and now it wants to change the "deal".
Hansz said he appreciates Olson's concern but the agreement includes a clause that when an area has
been annexed for five years, it can petition for City service. He said Greenbrier was specifically
discussed during negotiations as one of the areas that have been annexed more than five years.
The motion carried upon roll call vote with Atkinson, Hafferman, Kenyon, Larson, Leistiko,
Peters, Poler and Mayor Kennedy voting in favor, and Olson voting against.
E/4. FINAL PLAT — HOME DEPOT SUBDIVISION #1
Thomas, Dean and Hoskins, on behalf of Home Depot, has requested final plat approval of a one -lot
subdivision to be located on the southwest corner of the 12-acre Home Depot property at the corner
of West Reserve Drive and US Highway 93. The preliminary plat was waived on July 10, 2002.
Larson moved approval of the final plat for Home Depot Subdivision #1. The motion was
seconded.
Jentz gave a staff report and asked that the Council adopt the staff report as findings of fact and
approve the final plat.
Atkinson made a point of order suggesting the adoption of staff report KWP-03-05 as findings
of fact be added to the motion.
Larson agreed to the friendly amendment. The second concurred.
The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
August 18, 2003
Page 6
E/5. FINAL PLAT — SUNNYSIDE SUBDIVISION PHASE 1
This is a request for final plat approval of Sunnyside Subdivision Phase 1, a 7-lot residential
subdivision located on the west side of Boise Avenue south of Sunnyside Drive. Preliminary plat
approval was granted by the City Council on October 7, 2002.
Leistiko moved Council accept the subdivision improvement agreement and approve the fmal
plat for Sunnyside Subdivision Phase 1. The motion was seconded.
Jentz gave a staff report explaining this is the first phase of a 61-lot subdivision with a zoning
designation of R-4.
Mayor Kennedy said there was concern expressed by the public at the beginning of the meeting that
the conditions of final plat approval have not been met.
Jentz stated all of the conditions for Phase 1 have been met with the exception of street tree planning
in the boulevard along Boise Avenue for which the applicants have submitted a bond and financial
security in the amount of $2,406.00. Jentz said future phases will require substantial improvements
but this first phase is a small one.
Atkinson asked if the pending lawsuit has any bearing on this particular phase.
Hickel said if the plaintiffs in the lawsuit wanted to stop the development "in its tracks" they could
have sought an injunction. He said by not doing that, the developers are within their rights to
proceed.
Atkinson asked what happens if the plaintiffs win the lawsuit.
Hickel answered the status of the property would have to be determined through the lawsuit.
Hafferman commented he's voting in favor of the approval simply because the seven lots being
developed are adjacent to Boise Avenue and it's only logical to have houses on both sides of a street.
Kenyon asked about the zoning change from agricultural to residential.
Jentz said the zone change came before the Council as part of the preliminary plat process. He said
the property had a County agricultural designation.
Kenyon asked if the zone change was prior to the adoption of the growth policy.
Jentz said he doesn't remember but he believes it was.
Kenyon said if that's the case, he thought the Council wasn't to make any significant zoning changes
prior to the passage of the growth policy, such as agricultural to residential.
Jentz said he doesn't remember the exact history of the change but it was talked through.
Mayor Kennedy asked Jentz to research the zoning change further and report back to Kenyon.
Kalispell City Council Minutes
August 18, 2003
Page 7
Kenyon moved to table the final plat for Sunnyside Subdivision Phase 1 to September 2nd.
The motion was seconded.
The motion to table carried upon vote with Hafferman, Kenyon, Larson, Olson, Peters and
Poler voting in favor, and Atkinson, Leistiko and Mayor Kennedy voting against.
Mayor Kennedy asked that Kenyon contact Jentz with specific questions and suggested the issue be
placed on the work session agenda for August 25th.
E/6. FINAL PLAT — BUFFALO COMMONS PHASE 5
This is a request for final plat approval of an 11-lot subdivision in the Buffalo Commons
development containing approximately 15 acres. Preliminary plat approval was granted by the City
Council on November 15, 1999.
Leistiko moved approval of the final plat for Buffalo Commons Phase 5. The motion was
seconded.
Jentz gave a staff report and showed Council a map of the area.
There was no discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon vote.
E/7. RESOLUTION 4826 — ANNEXATION — ASHLEY PARK PHASES V VI VII
Somers Land Company is requesting annexation of approximately 31 acres located on the west side
of Airport Road and south of Teal Drive. The site contains future phases V, VI and VII of Ashley
Park Subdivision.
Kenyon moved Resolution 4826, a resolution to provide for the alteration of the boundaries of
the City of Kalispell by including therein as an annexation certain real property, as more
particularly described on Exhibit "A", located in Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21
West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, to be known as Ashley Park Phases V-VII Addition
No. 334; to zone said property in accordance with the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, and to
declare an effective date. The motion was seconded.
Jentz gave a staff report.
There was no discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote.
E/8. ORDINANCE 1479 — INITIAL ZONING — ASHLEY PARK PHASES V, VI, VII
Somers Land Company is requesting an initial zoning designation of R-4, Two Family Residential
on the property listed above. The property is currently zoned R-4, County Two Family Residential.
Atkinson moved first reading of Ordinance 1479, an ordinance to amend Section 27.02.010,
Official Zoning Map, City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, (Ordinance No. 1460), by zoning
Kalispell City Council Minutes
August 18, 2003
Page 8
certain real property described as Ashley Park Phases V-VII Addition No. 334 and further
described on Exhibit "A" located in Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M.,
Flathead County, Montana (previously zoned County R-4, Two Family Residential) to City R-
4 (Two Family Residential), in accordance with the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020, and to
provide an effective date. The motion was seconded.
Jentz gave a staff report.
There was no discussion.
The motion carried unanimously upon roil call vote.
E/9. RESOLUTION 4827 — FINAL PLAT — ASHLEY PARK PHASE V
Somers Land Company is also requesting final plat approval of Ashley Park Phase V, a residential
subdivision with 25 single family lots and 16 duplex townhouse lots on approximately 9 acres.
Larson moved Resolution 4827, a resolution approving the final plat of Ashley Park Phase V,
Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana. The motion was seconded.
Jentz gave a staff report asking that the motion include acceptance of a subdivision
improvements agreement.
Larson agreed to the friendly amendment. The second concurred.
Jentz answered questions about the subdivision improvements agreement.
Peters and Atkinson expressed concern that they have not seen the final plat.
Jentz displayed a map of the final plat.
The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote.
F. MAYOR/COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
Kenyon commended the Police Department on the recent conviction of Joseph Buck for the murder
of George Evans.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
ATTEST:
eresa White
City Clerk
Approved September 2, 2003
Kalispell City Council Minutes
August 18, 2003
Page 9
Sincerely
Angie Kruckenberg
This section in case you do not know these Regulations in the Subdivision guide
14, Chapter 1. General Provisions. The purpose of these Regulations is to promote health, safety, and
general we�fare and to providefor.
a. The orderly development of the jurisdictional area:
b. The coord"on 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, light, air and recreation,
f. The provision of adequate transportafian� water, drainage, and sanitary facilities;
g. The avoidance or minimization of congestion;
It. The avoidance of'subdivision which would Involve unnecessary environmental degradation:
L The avoidance of danger or injury by reason of natural hazaA or the lack of water, drainage, access, transportation or other
public services.
j. The avoidance of excessive expenditure of public funds for the supply of public services.
L The manner and form ofmaWng and filing ofany plat for subdivided lands.
L The administration ofthese Regulations by defining the powers and duties ofapproving authorities including procedures for
the review and approval ofall plats of subdivisions covered kv these provisions.
m. The protection of the rights of property owners.
Roads should be competed andpavedfirstjor the provision afhealdry airfor the entire area. A the time ofthis requestfor
QUESTIONS AND CO-NINENTS ON OWL PRELIN41NARY PLAT
I have many, many questions about this Preliminary Plat, I know some of them cannot be
answered tonight to my satisfaction, so I will read my statement and request that it be made a part
of the minutes of this meeting. I hope we don't have to vote on this resolution tonight in which
case I will have to vote no because it appears to me that the taxpayers may have to foot the bill
for some of the situations surrounding this proposed development. I will try to present my
questions and comments in somewhat the order the situations arises in the packet for the meeting,
1. Narda's and Chtis's letter.
A, Last line of the second paragraph about cash -in -lieu of parks (Read). at is the
improvements to be made at Beggg Park? The Resolution should state what the improvements
are to be and if money is indeed taken for them, the improvements should be made when the cash
is received. I have worked with government long enough to know you cant leave money around
unearmarked.
B. Last three sentences of the 33' paragraph. (Read). Simply because there are city utilities
in a right-of-way is a VERY poor reason for annexing a road, particularly one that is
SUBSTANDARD. Is it the intention chat City taxpayers are to be saddled with the expense of
bringing Surmyside Drive up to standard? Apparently Sunnyside Drive has become a de facto
bypass to and fro m Airport Road to _Mefidiian Road and the Avenues via South Meadows,
Stratford Village and Lone Pine Estates, The Vicinity Map on the Plat does not show this
connection, but it is there.
C. Second to last sentence of paragraph I of page 2. (Read). If Begg Park and Lone Pine
State Pa?k_s are to be considered as a neighborhood park, then there should be walking access to
the arm. 'Who will pay for these walkwayO
- DThe first line of the second paragraph of page 2 states (read). This pre lirn'nary Plat
does not appear to me to meet the requirements of an R-4 zone, i.e., 6000 sf lots with 50,
minirn frontage. It is mentioned that townhouse development is intended. Is this suppose to
mean that there is ZERO setback on those, lots? Does the zoning Regulation allow this
somevAiere? I notice in the regulations that an R-4 allows for duplexes or as a conditional use -
dwelling, assessory, single family, In the City Code zoning regulation, 27-22-020B.1(3), pertaining
to an assessory single family residence, reads. (Read). I'm not against zero setback, but first, it
appears, the regulation must be changed. IF zero setback would be allowed, there could be two
separate owners, hence possibly fewer of the sometimes irresponsible renters. Opponents must
realize that there could be considerably fewer lots in an R-4 zone of this development but more
single families if all lots had duplexes. Covenants may help for neighborhood compatibility.
E. In the first paragraph, page 3, last sentence, the road issue was again addressed
(read).Then in the follov4ng paragraph, last 2 sentences, and the third paragraph, first 2 sentences
the Public Works response was (read). Was this study made after the Stratford Village connection
made Sunnyside Drive a de facto by-pass? What was the peak travel rate during that tinte? I travel
that road once in awhile, and I can assure this body that if there is a walker or jogger on the road
when two cars meet, one must stop. This happened to me. The EXACT mitigations, if required;
should be a condition for plat approval, I have worked on -several projects where major road
changes were part of the approval of the preliminary plat. Page 9 and 19 of Kalispell's general
Extension of Services Plan states (read), pg- 11-7 of the design standards states (read),
2® Resolution
Condition 9 of the Resolution states (read). The 0.82 acres is apparently the lot area only,
but 28-03-19(D) in the City Code states (read). The undivided, uiiimproved land is 10.029 acres.
3® Minutes of the planning board meeting
A, One opponent stated that he though the rezoning was probably illegal based on the
Attorney Generals opinion. Since the magic date of October 1, 2001 is the basis for all this ruckus
about a Growth Policy and the AG' 5 opinion also appears to state the same for zoning, how does
this annexation and zone change made in February for this development differ ftorn the rescission
we are being asked to approve in Item 3 and 4 of tonight's agenda?
B. One the bottom of page 3, on opponent commented that (read). Roman numeral X111
of the Environmental Assessment states that approximately 93 school age children are expected to
reside `thin this development. I am generally not in favor of more parkland that the city
taxpayers have to pay to maintain, but without adequate walking trails to Begg Park and Lone
Pine State Park-, the opinion expressed by the opponent has merit. It was noted in the
Environmental Assessment the statement that "Lone Pine State Park is within walking distance"
but there are no walk -ways proposed. at about a neighborhood park maintained by the
homeowners of the development?
4® an letter to Narda
The third statement (read) implies that there has been council action on annexing
Sunnyside Drive. Where can I find this council action?
5. Comments from the site development review committee in the staff report
On page 4 with regard to the sewer, the last two sentences read (read). Why wouldn't the
latecomers agreement be legal? If it isn't legal, new line extensions may bee more difficult if a
developer can not recover some of the cost and the City could stand to lose a substantial ao)OL.-A
in hook-up fees, as fonner city attorney Norb Donahue has told the council several times.
6. Environmental Assessment
A. X11 Emergency services, 1.1.1, (read), since this development is proposed in stages, will
there be fire hydrants available throughout the development so our city crew can handle any fire in
the full 10 acres without assistance from the rural fire district?
B. XIV 2. Economic Benefits. The costs of the hornes is expected to be $127,000.
Affbrdable housing was mentioned in Narda's memo. at is considered "affordable housing"?
7. Letters from opponents
There appears to be some people who did not, for whatever reason, receive a notice of
the public hearing before the PlanrOng Board in February on the annexation and zoning.
According to one letter, when asked about the zoning notices, and I quote, 'Narda Wilson stated
on September 12'h 2002 that they only sent out notices on zoning as a courtesy." I hope that
statement was NOT made in the context stated and the Tri-Cities Planning Office does not have a
policy that send out "courtesy notices" This can lead to abuse. This situation needs to be
investigated. Letters sent should have post office receipts.
general comments
Of very series concern is the lack of neighbor"s involvement and the in the public
notification process before the public hearing on annexation and zoning before the planning board
last Winter. When this item come before this COUNCIL in February, no one spoke against the
issue, at that meeting and I don't recall there being anything significant in the staff report about the
road at that time. The last sentence of the second to last paragraph of page 2 of the minutes of
that meeting states (read)- I was not aware that Stratford Village had created a de facto by-pass
and the City had "no objection" to -annexing this road.
I was in favor of this development in February since it is the type of development that
parallels city type development. I believe that it is still possible to get a development that is
reasonably compatible with the existing neighborhood, but it appears to me that sorne major
problems must be addressed first.
It was at that hearing last Winter where all of the opponents SHOULD have been heard.
Had an Extension of Services Plan been made available to the public 14 days prior to that hearing,
wherein was contained each department head" s written statements of what the city taxpayers and
adjoining property owners faced with this annexation and zoning, I am confident that this problern
would not be before us today-
August 18, 2003
Kalispell City Council
Re: Sunnyside Subdivision
2,UU3 AUG Is PK
KALISPELL CITY CLU,�IV'%
I am not able to attend the Monday night meeting but I want this as part of your records. I have attended
previous meetings where I as well as many others aired our objections to the present plan to go ahead with
this subdivision. Apparently you do not listen to the citizens of this city.
First of all, changing the zoning from Agriculture to R-4 was done illegally and that issue is still being
argued.I I -
Until that resolved I am very disturbed that you're allowing the developer to start on the
In
subdivision. I see that he has nothing to loose. If the development gets approved then he is all set to go. if
the development gets stopped (as it should be until the pending lawsuit is settled) and the developer is out
any expenses, he will sue the City for his costs. Now I am quite sure the Mayor and all the Council members
have no intention of digging into their own pockets and paying this cost; so as usual the good old Taxpayers
will be doing it for you again. That makes me very angry. I resent the fact that my taxes keep going up, not
because I have made any improvements to my property but to cover expenses due to errors made by the City.
I see in your agenda discussions made about money was paid to put in trees; I want to know where the plans
are by the City to do something about the horrible traffic condition on Surmyside Lane. There does not seem
to be any concern at the additional traffic this will be putting on an already busy street. The street is very
narrow and at the intersection of Denver it is extremely blind and dangerous to merge onto Surmyside. I live
on Bluestone Drive and the additional traffic that has been put on our street is horrible due to Denver being
opened up onto Bluestone. This is another situation where the City did not make the developer do what he
was suppose to do and put the street in to connect to Surmyside as was in the plans. City has their money,
the developer is gone and the residents are left to live with the mess. The connection of Denver and
Bluestone has caused a horrendous amount of increased traffic and people are traveling at speeds that are not
deemed for a residential street. We have no sidewalks, therefore children are playing in the streets and I am
very concerned that there is going to be an accident on our, what use to be a quiet street.
Again, I am asking the City Council to look at the whole situation. Settle the lawsuit and then go forward.
Address the issue that the zoning was changed illegally. I believe that if sorneone wants something changed,
do it the legal and correct way. I'm very disgusted when someone, as I refer to as one of the 'local good ole
boys" thinks they can do things anyway they want, just because they want. Obviously the City Council feels
the same way because you are the ones that are not stopping this from happening.
I am not totally objectionable to the subdivision going in. What I do object to is that the City has not made
any provisions to insure the safety of the existing residents or the subdivision residents in providing more
accessible roadways. The amount of residential homes planned for this land is entirely too much. At the
very least this needs to be cut back to match all the other sub divisions in the area,
Again I ask the Council to listen to the people and hear our concerns. I hope it does not take someone being
hurt, or God forbid being killed before you 'wake up and smell the roses'. Listen to the people. We're the
people who put you in the office; and we wont forget next election.
C-
-k�'Aj 17- 75 0