Staff Report/Annexation & Zoningr114:4 00
Irn- TM77 pla e n 7 T WYM
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Kalispell Mayor and City Council
Narda A. Wilson, Senior Planner
Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
Annexation and Initial Zoning of R-4 and RA-1 -
Stratford Village Subdivision
October 2, 2000
Phone: (406) 758-5980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
BACKGROUND: In conjunction with the Stratford Village preliminary plat, a
request for annexation and initial zoning of R-4, Two Family Residential, and RA- 1,
Low Density Residential Apartment, upon has been submitted. The preliminary plat
for Stratford Subdivision, a 102 lot residential subdivision in southwest Kalispell, was
submitted concurrently with the petition for annexation and is being forwarded with
this annexation for council consideration. Based upon surrounding zoning and
compliance with the urban residential designation of the master plan, staff
recommended approval of the proposed zoning.
At the public hearing two people spoke in favor of and six against the application in
association with the preliminary plat, stating reasons of density and traffic, especially
in regard to the safety of the children in neighboring areas.
The annexation request and assignment of the appropriate zoning classification went
before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board for public hearing at their September
12, 2000 and they are forwarding a recommendation for approval of the proposed
zoning.
RECOMMENDATION: A motion to adopt the first reading of the ordinance assigning
an R-4 and RA-1 zoning designation upon annexation of this property would be
appropriate.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Minor positive effects once fully developed.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the city council.
7,Wi All QQ1
Nar-da A."Witson Chris A. Kukulski
Senior Planner City Manager
Report compiled: September 22, 2000
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• Flathead County - City of Columbia Falls - City of Kalispell ® City of Whitefish •
• * :•
A RESOLUTIOA' TO PROVIDE FOR THE ALTERATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF T -
CITY OF KALISPELL BY INCLUDING THEREIN AS AN ANNEXATION CERTAI
REAL PROPERTY, is PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED TO
KNOWN AS STRATFORD VILLAGE ADDITION NO. 298; TO ZONE SAID PROPER
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE, AND TO DECLAR11--
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell has received a petition from Apex
1, LLC, the owner of property located west of South
Meadows Subdivision and east of the Burlington Northern
right-of-way and described in Exhibit A, attached hereto
and thereby made a part hereof, requesting that the City
of Kalispell annex the territory into the City, and
WHEREAS, the Flathead Regional Development Office has made a
report on Apex 1, LLC's Annexation Request, #KA-00-6,
dated September 5, 2000, and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission recommended that the territory be annexed into
the City of Kalispell, and
WHEREAS, said territory is included within and conforms to the
Kalispell City -County Master Plan, and
WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell desires to annex said property in
accordance with Title 7, Chapter 2, Part 46, Montana Code
Annotated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. That all the real property as described in
Exhibit A, be annexed to the City of Kalispell and the
boundary of the City is altered to so provide, and shall
be known as Stratford Village Addition No. 298.
SECTION II. Upon the effective date of this Resolution,
the City Clerk is directed to make and certify under the
seal of the City, a copy of the record of these
proceedings as are entered on the minutes of the City
Council and file said documents with the Flathead County
Clerk and Recorder.
From and after the date of filing of said documents as
prepared by the City Clerk, or on the effective date
hereof, whichever shall occur later, said annexed
territory is part of the City of Kalispell and its
4587 stratford village.wpd -1 -
citizens and property shall be subject to all debts, laws
and ordinances and regulations in force in the City of
Kalispell, except that assessments for street
maintenance, storm water, and urban forestry shall only
be levied upon approval of the final plat of the
respective phases of Stratford Village Subdivision, and
shall be entitled to the same privileges and benefits as
are other parts of the City.
SECTION III. The territory annexed by this Resolution
shall be zoned in accordance with the Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance.
SECTION IV. This Resolution shall be effective
immediately upon passage by the City Council.
• AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR •
THE CITY OF KALISPELL, THIS 2ND DAY OF OC-fOBER, 2000.
Wm. E. Boharski
Mayor
ATTEST:
Theresa White
City Clerk
4587 stratford village.wpd -2-
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board met on September 12, 2000, and held a public
hearing to consider a request for R-4, Two Family Residential, and RA-1, Low Density
Residential Apartment, upon annexation on property in southwest Kalispell. The preliminary
plat for Stratford Subdivision, a 102 lot residential subdivision, was submitted concurrently
with the petition for annexation and is being forwarded with this annexation for council
consideration
IYarda Wilson presented staff report KA-00-6 and recommended that the board forward a
recommendation for R-4 and RA-1 zoning upon annexation based upon surrounding zoning
7-nd compliance with the urban residential designation of the master plan.
At the public hearing two people spoke in favor of and six against the application in
association with the preliminary plat, stating reasons of density and traffic, especially in
regard to the safety of the children in neighboring areas.
After the public hearing, the board discussed the proposed density and potential traffic.
After careful consideration, a motion was made to adopt staff report KA-00-6 and
recommend to the city council that the property be zoned R-4 and RA-1 upon annexation.
On a roll call vote the motion passed with six in favor and one opposed. Exhibit A describes
the annexation boundaries.
Please schedule this matter for the October 2, 2000 regular City Council meeting. You may
contact this board or Narda Wilson if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely
Kalispell City -County Planning
la
j A. Johrfon
kdiemt
Providing Community Pkaning Assistance To:
•Flathead County - City of Columbia Falls ® City of Kalispell - City of Whitefish •
Apex 1, LLC Annexation and Initial Zoning
September 12, 2000
Page 2
JJ/NW/dw
Attachments: Petition to annex and Exhibit A
FRDO report KA-00-6
Draft planning board minutes 9/ 12/00
c w/ Att: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk
c w/o Att: Apex 1, LLC, 10 East Roanke St., #8, Seattle, WA 98102
Reggie Lyman Lindsay, 601 W. 13th St., Laurel, MT 59044
Jackola Engineering, PO Box 1134, Kalispell, MT 59901
1�7iiii I 111 11111
Iniad the right to go to the Board of Adjustment. . IDRAff
The consensus of the Board was that the administrative
process was good, it would speed up the process for the
applicant, and the Board of Adjustment was set up for the
appeal process in case of denial.
11-OLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion to adopt staff report KZTA-00-
as findings of fact passed unanimously for the text amendin
and was forwarded to the City Council for their considerationi
APEX 1LLC A request by Apex 1, LLC for annexation into the City ot
ANNEXATION Kalispell and an initial zoning designation of R-4 and RA-1 in
southwest Kalispell in conjunction with the subdivision known
as Stratford Village Subdivision.
-f'T"F REPORT Narda Wilson, representing the Flathead Regional Planning
Department, gave a presentation on two staff reports; KA-00-6
(annexation and initial zoning), and KPP-00-5 (preliminary plat
approva4), and asked that the Board handle them as two
separate motions. The Board was in agreement. Wilson stated
Stratford Subdivision was on the summer agenda, but was
pulled so they could acquire the adjoining property. She
pointed out the proposed subdivision on a site map. Wilson
said that adding the property to the north resulted in a cleaner
subdivision design. Staff reviewed the project briefly and noted
R-4 zoning for the majority of the project and RA-1 zoning for
the far west comer. She said the potential for duplexes was
possibly 20-25%. She reported on roadways, saying the
connections of South Meadows area and Sunnyside Drive
would be important links in the roadway network of Kalispell.
Wilson thought they would eventually come in with a by-pass
design that would mitigate the traffic impacts. She said there
would be an engineered drainage plan, which was outlined in
the environmental asse-um--tt.
I", TBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speaZ
on the proposal.
PROPONENTS Thor Jackola, 1830 3rd Ave. East, spoke as a representative of
the subdivision. Jackola said he hoped to have their favor for
the project- He said it was a good addition to Kalispell and met
a lot of the needs, primarily geared to affordable housing. He
said Wilson gave a good presentation and that he and Jun
Burton would be happy to answer questions. Jackola stated
that, from the report, they would concur with the density issue,
saying that having the density level occur there was quite
unlikely, but the developers would like to have the opportunity
to place the duplexes as they saw fit in the development. He
brought up one other issue, the parkland, and said Jim Burton
would address that issue.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
September 12, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 11
Jim Burton, 1304 3rd Ave East, spoke in favor of the project
saying that Mr. Bakers letter addressed the parkland
dedication stating the total acreage, rather than the net
acreage on the lot. Wilson stated that the staff report corrected
that information and parkland was based on area in lots.
*PPONENTS Angela Allen, of 1920 South Meadows, was opposed to
proposal. She said she was a homeowner who was eextreme
concerned about the rezoning. Allen stated they petition
South Meadows, Ashley Paric, and Lone Pine and over 12
people agreed they would like the zoning to be R-3, for
family homes. She stated the traffic as one issue. She
they needed affordable housing, and they knemw
neighborhood would be developed, but thought it would
developed with other homeowners who had the same intentio
they did as far as participating in the community,
neighborhood, taking care of lawns, and taking care of th
homes. She said the density issue concerned them If all
built as duplexes, which if zoned for they had the option
build however they would like. She said they would have mo,
people per acre with smaller lots and not a lot of yarcL
said she would like to see compatibility with neighbors, lo
term investors who would take better care of their propertie
versus people who come in for 6 months to one year tdffihiemn
She asked the Board to please consider their request and
petition, which, if they had more time, would have had mo
signatures.
OT.M.
Paula Davey, 1912 South Meadows Drive, spoke in opposition
stating her main concern was that the children had no where
to walk on South Meadows Drive. She said the neighborhood
was very family oriented, with a lot of children and they had no
sidewalks, streetlights, or stop signs. She said she was
concerned, especially in the winter when it gets dark early,
t children not
F aisty E77171-777, TRY 7ZE V7
Drive and the extra traffic, according to the staff re would
be 1,000 vehicle trips per day for single family homes. With
duplexes or apartments she said it would be well over 2,000
vehicle trips per day. Davey pointed out that the Laker Ball
fields were on one side and soccer fields were on the other of
Beg Park Drive. She said it was very active and brought a lot
more children. Plus, she said the bus stop was on the comer,
which brought 20 to 25 children who had to walk home,
sometimes in the dark during winter, without streetlights.
3.aYL-f s+,--. tef she was Yer VtTza the um+,mt k.--Mc
y xerv+y-s a If
in that neighborhood.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
September 12, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 11
Ray Delong, 3 10 Bismark Street, Lone Pine View Estates.
Delong said he would also like to see the area zoned as single
family instead of duplexes or apartment buildings to keep it as
a neighborhood. He said they knew when they bought it would
be developed, but thought it would be kept as single units. His
other concem was Denver Avenue, which already had a lot of
traffic and was not a safe street. He said if the Board opened it
up to apartment buildings or duplexes that cars would be a
problem. He said he thought other people had the right to
have a house, but wanted to see the land go from agriculture to
single units instead of apartments and duplexes.
She said she was a homeowner and mothi�r who wanted
elaborate on the affordable housing issue. She said it was
good way to give a family a start as homeowners. She;said
of the area, Lone Pine, Ashley Park, and South Meadows
even though it was zoned R-4, gone with single family.
said it brought a lot of people to the neighborhood wh
normally wouldn't be able to buy a house. She said becau
s S
al
)-d
ON
wh
9-u the areas were residential, single family, it didn't make sense
throw in rental units. Her other major concern, as a mo�h
)t
ffihd peed i
I
was the trac issue. Se sai•the slmit was 25 miles
1
hour, but at her house traffic e• 0 wnt 35 to 4miles per h0
She thought homeowners would be more cautious of how
drove.
Marvin Vaughn, 116 Denver Avenue, agreed with all of the
traffic problems and said there were not enough access places
for apartments and duplexes. He said the whole thing was
backwards, they should have put apartments in the front when
they designed the whole thing and then single fanifly houses in
the back to reduce the traffic. He said he didn't think it was a
good idea.
Natalie Jones, 850 Denver, spoke in opposition stating they
moved to the area from a combined neighborhood, like they
were looking to create. She said they found there was a lot
more traffic then before they built the duplexes. She said the
single famaly homes created a certain amount of flow and
duplexes and apartments would increase that. She said the
neighborhood they were in was very small and funneling that
much traffic through was not good for them or the children.
No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
MOTION Sipe moved and Hines seconded to adopt staff report KA-00 •
as findings of fact and recommended to the Kalispell Ci
Council that the initial zoning upon annexation for
properties be R-4 and RA- 1 as proposed in accordance with
preliminary plat for Stratford Village Subdivision.
Kalispell City -County Planning
September 12, 2000 Meeting Minu
Sof 1 Page
BOARD DISCUSSION Heinecke asked and Wilson answered that they estimated no
increase of 1,000 or more, generally 8 to 10 vehicle trips
day, i residence, according r the Institute of Transportatit
Wilson suggested theymight t designating
percentage of lots for duplex development and then the
developer cr • designate which• would • be duplex and
which would be single family when the final plat came in. She
said she understood the neighbors concern about traffic, on
the other hand, the ability to create sublots, or townhouses,
had been a popular method of homeownership. Wilson thought
it might create _ more affordable arrangementand brought
up as one alternative allowed with the R-4 zoning.
and that he was familiar with it He appreciated their concerns
regarding access. He was prone to support the idea of going to-
4and not •t# tyer to •with thedensity
i-aff ic
MeadowsRice asked what the percentage of duplexes was in South
., • Wilson ► .t to be about
stingSorenson said it was not an extensive amount. He said there
was a of them• r on Great View.
Heine _ asked and Wilson pointed out - area on ••. •
which was a 3.6 acre lot. Rice said there were about 48
apartments there.t # asked ff the remainingportion
would be and Wilson said that was correct.
Rice commented that while looking at the vicinity map, it made
sense to go R-4 because it had R-4 bordering it now, with R-3
on the north. He thought the street conditions would add
traffic problems and that it would be hard to say what
percentage would end up being in duplexes versus single
family. He said he agreed with Garberg, to not do RA-1, and
limit the percentage of duplexes to keep with an R-4 zone.
Stevens asked about minimum lot size and said he agreed with
Rice, that when he looked at the map he saw R-4 all the way
around. He saw a development pattern of single family houses
and wondered if there was a more appropriate zone to keep
with what was there. He thought a practical and equitable
solution would be to zone it single family housing.
Hines said there were dupk=s where he lived and he didn't
have a problem with those, it was the apartments, especially
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
September 12, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 11
1 M OUR FAMAQ11f of -
Stevens said he didn't have a problem with the apartments
and/or duplexes, as they were located and thought they would
have lAss impact on the area than single family homes. He said
that the R-4 had developed into affordable housing and had
worked out well.
There was a brief discussion on zoning in the area and the
density issue. Wilson asked the Board to consider that RA-1
zoning required a conditional use permit process and pointed
out that the neighbors would have an opportunity to comment.
She also said that apartments would require additional parking
and it would go through a more strenuous review. She said
she would be reluctant to say they would max out the density
of the 3.6 acres.
Stevens thought an ideal solution would be to have a By-pass
road that would access the subdivision and asked if the City
Council could approach the State about it Stevens asked if it
was written in stone as a no access and Wilson said, yes.
Stevens thought it was a solution they should keep in mind.
Wilson pointed out that access from the west would require a
60 foot easement through private property because there
wasn't a roadway. Johnson asked if Stevens' comment was a
recommendation to the City Council and Stevens said that was
where he was going with it. Garberg said it came back to the
density and traffic issue and he
that. Wilson pointed out there was access off the By-pass plan
for Sunnyside Drive and Woods Lake Road.
AMENDED MOTION Garberg moved and Hines seconded to amend the motion tt
delete the RA-1 request and recommend an initial zoning of R-
4.
BOARD DISCUSSION Heinecke stated opposition to the motion. He thought RA-1
would provide low income housing that was desperately
needed. He thought the areas were attractive and provided
play ground space and community parking. He didn't think it
would add to traffic flow, but decrease it instead. Heinecke
agreed that single housing should be in the back, but thought
it an awkward piece of land and thought apartments would fit
it.
Stevens stated hewas in opposition to it for the same reasons.
He thought the market demand would restrict duplexes and
that overall it aligned with his interest of easing the way for
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
September 12, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 11
affordable housing. He said it was a tough battle in the c
and he wanted to give it due consideration. He said if Ph=
went through site review the concerns would be addressed. I
•' Its's #_• - •
-Alto
Johnson stated he was opposed to the amendment because of
the configuration of the three acres. He didn't think they
would get very many lots on it and thought it was a good use
for the area-
9ZOLL CALL On a roll call vote, Stevens, Johnson, Rice, and Heinecke voted
,AMENDMENT) no, and Hines, Sipe, and Garberg voted aye. The motion to
amend and delete the RA-1 request and recommend an initial
zoning •' R-4 failed by 4 to 3 against
ROLL CALL On a roll call vote, Heinecke, Hines, Sipe, Johnson, Rice, and
(MAIN MOTION) Stevens voted aye, and Garberg voted no. The motion passed 6
in favor and 1 opposed.
"Ex I LLC A request by Apex 1 LLC for preliminary plat approval of a 102-
PRELIMINARY PLAT lot residential subdivision known as Stratford Village
Subdivision located south of Lone Pine View Estates and west
of South Meadows and Ashley Park subdivisions.
MOTION Rice moved and Heinecke seconded to adopt staff report #KPP-
00-5 as findings of fact and, based on those findings,
recommend to the Kalispell City Council they approve the
preliminary plat subject to the staff recommended conditions.
BOARD DISCUSSION There was a brief discussion by Stevens and Rice regarding
restricting the lots to single famfly. They both agreed it would
be too restrictive, but Rice thought it was a good idea to put a
percentage indicator for duplexes based on other subdivisions.
Stevens objected, saying that any changes in the zoning laws
should be advertised, a public hearing held, and ran through
the City Council with the appropriate reasons to do it He
wasn't sum it was legal. He thought they were creating a whole
new zoning classification and it wasn't advertised as such.
There was discussion about the Boards ability to put verbiage
on the plat Garberg said he didn't think it should be standard
operating procedure, but there were cases where it was
advisable and a useful tool- He said he would support it and
also support a percentage limitation on the project.
MOTION TO AMEND Rice moved and Garberg seconded to add condition 18, to limit
25% percent of the lots to duplexes.
BOARD DISCUSSION Stevens objected to the motion stating it would be very bad
public policy to start changing zoning regulations. He thought
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
September 12, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 11
APEX y . .
SAY
REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION ,. INITIAL ZONING
REPORTFLATHEAD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
STAFF
SEPTEMBER#!-
A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council
regarding the annexation and initial zoning of R-4 and RA-1 on property in southwest
Kalispell. A public hearing has been scheduled before the Kalispell City -County
Planning Board for September 12, 2000 beginning at 7:00 PM in the Kalispell City
Council Chambers. The Planning Board will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell
City Council for final action.
This report evaluates the appropriate assignment of a City zoning classification in
accordance with Section 27.03.010(4) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The developer
has petitioned annexation and initial zoning concurrent with an application for
preliminary plat of a 102 lot residential subdivision in southwest Kalispell known as
Stratford Village Subdivision. The applicant has proposed a zoning classification of R-4,
a Two Family Residential district, and RA-1, Low Density Residential Apartment. The
property is in the County zoning jurisdiction and is zoned County SAG-10, a Suburban
Agricultural district. This property will be annexed under the provisions of Sections 7-
2-4601 through 7-2-4610, M.C.A., Annexation by Petition. The preliminary plat for
Stratford Subdivision submitted concurrently with the petition for annexation will also
require consideration by the city council.
A. Petitioner and Owners: Apex 1, LLC
10 East Roanke St, #8
Seattle, WA 98102
(206) 322-5977
Reggie Lyman Lindsay
601 W. 13th Street
Laurel, MT 59044
(406) 628-1020
Technical Assistance: Jackola Engineering
P.O. Box 1134
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 755-3208
B. Location and Legal Description of Property: The property proposed for
annexation lies west of South Meadows and Ashley Park subdivisions, south of
Lone Pine View Estates subdivision and east of the Burlington Northern
Railroad right-of-way. The purpose of the annexation and zoning is for a 102
lot residential subdivision known as Stratford Village Subdivision that has been
filed concurrently with the annexation request. The property proposed for
annexation can be described as Assessor's Tracts 6, 6LA and 12BA located in
Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County,
Montana.
C. Edsting zoning: The property is currently in the County zoning jurisdiction
and is zoned SAG-10, Suburban Agricultural. The suburban agricultural
district is intended to serve as a buffer between agricultural uses and more
intense urban uses. In this instance, however, the SAG-10 zoning has served to
maintain this tract for future development such as that being proposed.
D. Proposed Zoning: City R-4 zoning has been proposed for most of the lots in this
subdivision with the exception of an approximately 3.5 acre site near the
northwest comer of the property which is being proposed for RA-1 zoning, Low
Density Residential zoning district. Both of these zoning districts allows duplexes
and single-family dwellings as permitted uses. The RA-1 zoning district requires
a triplex or greater to be reviewed as a conditionally permitted use. Minimum lot
size for the both of these districts is 6,000 square feet for duplexes and single
family plus and additional 3,000 square feet for each dwelling beyond a duplex.
E. Size: The area proposed for annexation and zoning contains approximately
30.66 acres.
F. Eidsting Land Use: Currently this property is being used for agricultural
purposes and is otherwise undeveloped. It is intended for a residential
subdivision, Stratford Village Subdivision.
G. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning: The area is characterized by single-family
and duplex residential development on lots in the area to the east and single
family homes on the lots to the north.
North: Undeveloped / residences Lone Pine View Estates; City R-3 zoning
and County R- 1 zoning.
East: Residences (duplexes and SFR); City R-4 zoning.
South: Railroad tracts and undeveloped; County R- I zoning.
West: Burlington Northern railroad tracks and large parcels to the west,
County R- 1 zoning.
H. General Land Use Character: The area to the east is developed at an urban
density and is residential in character. To the west of the railroad tracks, are
large parcels that have single family homes on them.
I. Availability of Public Services: Full public services can be provided to this site
and will be done in accordance with the City of Kalispell's Extension of Services
Plan and in accordance with Kalispell's Design and Construction Standards.
The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-205, M.C.A.
Findings of fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the itemized
criteria described by 76-2-203, M.C.A.
1. Does the requested zone comply with the Master Plan?
The property is designated by the Kalispell City -County Master Plan as "Urban
Residential" which is defined as allowing two to eight units per acre. The
K)
F
3
9
5
A
proposed R-4 and RA-1 zoning designations are in general compliance with the
master plan designation for the area provided that some of the lots within the
subdivision are developed as single family homes. At full build -out at a
maximum density the proposed subdivision would exceed the urban residential
limits of eight units per acre and be closer to about ten units per acre. This
however is highly unlikely considering the present real estate market and as is
reflected in the adjoining R-4 zoned subdivision to the east where most of the lots
are single family with some duplex and townhouse units. The proposed zoning is
in substantial compliance with the master plan designation which anticipates a
mix of single family and duplex dwellings and higher density if adequate open
space is provided.
Is the requested zone designed to lessen congestion in the streets?
Once the proposed subdivision which has r--• •a • with this
annexation and initial zoning request has been developed, traffic in the area will
increase. However, infrastructure will also be extended and will serve the homes
within the subdivision. T"his zoning designation and subsequent subdivision will
• lessen congestion in the streets in the area, but is anticipated to • as
development •' the area continues.
Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers?
Adequate access and public facilities are available to the site in the case of an
emergency. There are no features related to the property which would
compromise the safety of the public. New construction will be required to be in
compliance with the building safety codes of the City which relate to fire and
building safety. All municipal services including police and fire protection, water
and sewer service is available to the area and will be extended as part of the
development of this subdi-vision.
Will the requested zone promote the health and general welfare?
The requested zoning classification will promote the health and general welfare
by restricting land uses to those that would be compatible with the adjoining
properties and providing a place for new housing in the community.
Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air?
Setback, height, and coverage standards for development occurring on this site
are established in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to insure adequate light and air
is provided.
Will the requested zone prevent the overcrowding of land?
As previously noted this area has been master planned for urban residential
development which generally falls within the proposed R-4 and RA-1 zoning
designations. All public services and facilities will be available to serve this
subdivision. An overcrowding of land would occur if infrastructure were
inadequate to accommodate the development in the area. This is unlikely to
occur.
3
7. Will the requested zone avoid undue concentration of people?
Minimum lot standards and use standards as well as subdivision development
standards will avoid the undue concentration of people at the time the property is
developed.
8. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate provision of tranSDortation, water,
sewerage, schools, Darks, and other public requirements?
All public services and facilities are currently available or can be provided to the
property. Development should be encouraged in areas where these services are
available.
9. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular suitability of the
property for particular uses?
The proposed R-4 zoning district is consistent with the surrounding zoning and
land uses in the area and gives due consideration of the suitability of this
property for the permitted uses in the district. The proposed RA-1 is generally
consistent with the density anticipated in this area and has the same overall
density standards as R-4 zoning, i.e. one dwelling per 3,000 square feet.
10. Does the requested zone give reasonable consideration to the character of the
district?
The general character of the area is small lot residential development. The same
type of development can be anticipated to occur on this property and will be
consistent with the character of the district.
11. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings?
Value of the buildings in the area will be conserved because the R-4 zoning will
promote compatible and like uses on this property as are found on other
properties in the area.
12, Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land
throughout the municipality?
Small lot residential development should be encouraged in areas were services
and facilities are available such as is being proposed on this parcel. The
proposed zoning is consistent with the master plan and surrounding zoning in
the area.
The proposed City R-4 zoning is similar to the existing to the east of the site and is a
continuation of the same pattern of development. There may be some concerns about
too many duplexes being developed in the subdivision. However, past experience has
demonstrated that the duplex development in these subdivisions is generally 25 percent
or less of the total number of lots. The proposed RA-1 zoning near the northwest comer
11
of the property pushes the density limits anticipated for this area and the type of
development anticipated to occur. However, there is an apparent need in the
community for some property that can be developed with apartments. Apartment
zoning is extremely limited in the planning jurisdiction which limits housing choices for
many people. The extension of municipal services to the subdivision will be in
accordance with City standards as part of the development of the subdivision that has
also been proposed. Adequate access is available to serve the property and any future
development will be consistent and compatible with existing development in the area.
Public services and the facilities serving this subdivision will be extended and
constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell Extension of Services Plan and the
Kalispell Design and Construction Standards.
fZOTMOINIWI
It is recommended that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board adopt Staff Report
#KA-00-6 as findings of fact and recommend to Kalispell City Council that the initial
zoning upon annexation for these properties be R-4 and RA-1 as proposed in
accordance with the preliminary plat for Stratford Village Subdivision.
M
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 Sth Ave. East Room 414
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406)758-S980 Fax: (406)758-5781
AWAIRXAVIAI � IIVIP117- ;01fyV,'1r-
PETITION FOR ZOWUIU;���T
1. NAME OF APPLI
�►�. �-# 0 -
3. CITY/STATE/ZIP: t&etej Air 020it PHONE:.. 3WJ
4. INTEREST IN PROPERTY:
5. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT:
A. What is the proposed zon'
*2Ajr V 4M -1tow, *.*P2'-31-,AU,
A. Address of the property:
B. Legal Description: -ALA , 3-9 A &j �
(Lot and Block of Subdivision; Tract
(Section, Township, Range) (Attach sheet for metes and bounds)
C. The present zoning of the above property is: - �JAIVP
D. The proposed zoning of the above property is:
E. State the changed or changing conditions that make the proposed
amendment necessary:
Wd"11fivi
A. Promoting the Master Plan
B. Lessening congestion in the streets and providing safe access
C. Promoting safety from fire, panic and other dangers
D. Promoting the public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety and general
welfare
E. Preventing the overcrowding of land
F. Avoiding undue concentration of population
G. Facilitating the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools,
parks and other public facilities
H. Giving reasonable consideration to the character of the district
2
APPLICATION MATERIAL
PETITION NO.
moll
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL JUN 1 2000
OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO CITY F. R. D. O
a-� Ka lis !e n
COME NOW the undersigned and respectfully petition the City Council of the
City of Kalispell requesting city annexation of the following real property into the
City of Kalispell and to remove the following real property from the
—s i VRural Fire District.
The petitioner (s) requesting City of Kalispell annexation of the property
described herein hereby mutually agree with the City of Kalispell that
immediately upon annexation of the land all City of Kalispell municipal
services will be provided to the property described herein on substantially the
same basis and in the same manner as such services are provided or made
available within the rest of the municipality prior to annexation. Petitioner (s)
hereby state that there is no need to prepare a Municipal Annexation Service Plan
for this annexation pursuant to Section 7-2-4610, M.C.A. since the parties are in
agreement as to the provision of municipal services to the property requested to
be annexed.
Dated this 1Z day of J , 2000.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE ANNEXED:
PROPERTY ADDRESS: T,-� �� s G LA) IZ BA �^ � • T
19 ,TAU,R W
O
OWNER
PLEASE RETURN THIS
AND
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM
RURAL FIRE DISTRICT I
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ _day of
1)4VA
by and between P"WQ ;e 6;nWz1*fiC/$aV hereinafter
PARTY(S) OF INTEAtST (1N?tLUDES OWNER(S), LIENHOLDER(S), OR CONTRACT
SELLER(S) AND THE CITY OF KALISPELL, Flathead County, Montana, hereinafter CITY,
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar and/or other good and valuable
consideration to us in hand paid, and certain promises, mutual terms, covenants, provisions, conditions
and agreements, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the PARTY(S) OF
INTEREST, do(es) hereby consent to, and hereby do waive any and all right to protest, which we may
have or hereafter acquire in regard thereto, any attempt or proceedings made or to be made by or with
the consent of the City of Kalispell, M6ntana, to annex to and make a part of said City of Kalispell,
more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and which, by this reference, is made a part
hereof.
The PARTY(S) OF INTEREST do(es) further herein express an intent to have the property as
herein described withdrawn from the A. Fire District under the
provisions of Section 7-33-2127, Montana Code Annotated; iindthat incorporated into this Consent to
Annex Agreement is the Notice requirement pursuant to said Section; and that upon proper adoption of
an ordinance or resolution of annexation by the City Council of the City of Kalispell, the property shall
be detracted from said district.
THE PARTY(S) OF INTEREST further agree(s) that this covenant shall run to, with, and be
binding upon the title of the said real property, and shall be binding upon our heirs, assigns, successors
in interest, purchasers, and any and all subsequent holders or owners of the above described property.
This City hereby agrees to allow PARTY(S) OF INTEREST to hook onto the City of Kalispell
sa,jtdxo uoissiuituoC) AW
0=
RuBluow jo amS 'oilqnd AimoN
'11011!1M OAoqie )sj!j =A ptm ,Cep atp IMS FeL
'(W DOXIIJU PUB PULIq (Iu ias oww naqy3q aA. MON
I"JOn-19HAkSSat��ULlf.,M1 -,(j!IPd!*3iuntup!jr-j0jlnq3q
uoauresoq)olnooxaolpazuotpneAlnpolam,(otpIL,qlpuL,,qvojpsuIQ1a
-tp p*as o&nd pue sasn atp
STATE OF MONTANA )
ss
County of Flathead
On this day ofQZ�Lzbefore me, the undersigned, a Notary
ZZ
Public for the State of Montana, personally appeared L� _ c� i� ,
known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged
to me that he/she executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Notarial Seal the day and
year in this certificate first above written. j
STATE OF MONTANA }
ss
County of Flathead
On this day of P , before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public for the State -of Montana personally appeared
and , the and
respectively, of ,the
corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and the persons who executed said instrument on
behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Notarial Seal the day and
year in this certificate first above written.
Notary Public, State of Montana
Residing at
My Commission expires
STATE OF MONTANA )
ss
County of Flathead
On this day of , before me a Notary Public in and for the State
of Montana, personally appeared CHRIS A. KUKULSKI and AMY H ROBERTSON, known to me to
be the City Manager and Finance Director of the City of Kalispell, a municipality, that executed the
within instniment- Ant grVnov.,1P,4nnr4 ti— c-1, r; r., lk I . __ ` T - Tom'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HFARING
KALISPELL CITY-COU14TY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
Zoning Text Amendment to Allow Expansion of Non -Conforming Uses
Stratford Village Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning of R-4 and RA-1
Stratford Village Subdivision Preliminary Plat - A 102 Lot Residential Subdivisio
Park Bottling Co Annexation and Initial Zoning of 1-1
Montana Dept of Transportation Annexation of Hwy 93 to W. Reserve Dr.
The regular meeting of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission
scheduled for Tuesday, September 12, 2000 beginning at 7:00 PM in the Kalispell C:
Council Chambers, Kalispell City Hall, 312 First Avenue East, Kalispell. During the regular
scheduled meeting of the planning board, the board will hold public hearings and take pub
comments on the following agenda items. The board will make a recommendation to t
Kalispell City Council who will take final action:
A request by Louise E. Swanberg for amendments to the Kalispell Zoning ®rdinanc
Chapter 27.25, Nonconforming Lots, Uses and Structures. As proposed, non-conformis
uses and / or structures may be allowed to be expanded subject to a obtaining a no:
conforming use expansion permit. Expansions of a non -conforming use of 25 percent
less would be subject to a nonconforming use expansion permit issued as
administrative condition use permit. Expansions of a non -conforming use more than
percent but less than 50 percent would be subject to a nonconforming use expansic
permit following the procedures established for a conditional use permit. Th
amendment would potentially affect all areas within the city of Kalispell where not
conforming uses exist.
2. A request by Apex 1 LLC and Reggie Lyman Lindsay for annexation into the City
Kalispell and an initial zoning designation of R-4, Two Family Residential, and RA-1, Lo
Density Residential Apartment, on approximately 30.66 acres. The property proposed fc
annexation lies south of Lone Pine View Estates, west of South Meadows and Ashley Pai
subdivisions and east of the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way. The property:
currently in the County zoning jurisdiction and is zoned SAG-10, Suburban Agricultura
The purpose of the annexation and zoning is for a 102-lot residential subdivision know,
as Stratford Village Subdivision that has been filed concurrently with the annexatic
request. The property proposed for annexation can be described as Assessor's Tracts 6
6LA and 12BA located in Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M
Flathead County, Montana.
3. A request by Jackola Engineering on behalf of Apex 1 LLC for preliminary plat approval c
a 102-lot residential subdivision known as Stratford Village Subdivision. The subdivisic
contains approximately 30.66 acres with 1018.7 acres in lots, 8.9 acres in roads and 3.
acres in common area. Most of the lots within the subdivision are between 6,000 an
8,000 square feet with one lot containing approximately 3.57 acres that would be used fc
low -density apartments. New public roadways will be extended to serve the subdivisior
A request for annexation into the City of Kalispell has been filed concurrently with th
subdivision with a request for R-4 zoning, Two Family Residential, and RA-1, Low Densit
Residential Apartment, upon annexation. The property proposed for subdivision i
located south of Lone Pine View Estates, west of South Meadows and Ashley Par
subdivisions and east of the Burlington Nor -them Railroad right-of-way in the southwe:
part of Kalispell. The property can be described as Assessor's Tracts 6L, 6LA and 12B.
located in Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead Count
Montana.
4. A request by Park Bottling Co. for annexation into the City of Kalispell and an initial
zoning designation of 1- 1, Light Industrial, on approximately 4.00 acres. The property
proposed for annexation lies on the south side of Kelly Road and east of Highway 93
approximately 1,000 feet. The property is currently in the County zoning jurisdiction and
is zoned 1-1, Light Industrial and B-2, General Business. The purpose of the annexation
and zoning is so that the property owner can obtain City water to service additional
hydrants needed for a proposed expansion to the existing warehouse building. The
property is located at 100 Kelly Road and can be described s Assessor's Tract 7-OB
located in Section 20, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County,
Montana.
5. A request by Montana Department of Transportation for annexation into the City of
Kalispell and initial zoning on approximately 12.00 acres. The property proposed for
annexation is the Highway 93 corridor that lies between the Kalispell Youth Athletic
Complex on the south and West Reserve Drive on the north. The property is currently in
the County zoning jurisdiction and is zoned in accordance with the zoning that the
highway adjoins. The purpose of the annexation is so that the property in the city limits
along the Highway 93 corridor will be contiguous to the city limits of Kalispell. The
property can be described as Tract 1 on Certificate of Survey No. 7860 located in Section
36, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, and Section 31, Township 29 North, Range 21
West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana.
Documentspertaining to these agenda items are on file for public inspection in the Flathead
Regional Development Office, 723 Fifth Avenue East, Room 414, Kalispell, MT 59901, and are
available for public review during regular office hours.
Interested persons are encouraged to attend the hearings and make their views and concerns
known to the Board. Comments in writing may be submitted to the Flathead Regional
Development Office at the above address prior to the date of the hearing or you may- contact
Narda Wilson, Senior Planner, for additional information.
Thomas R. Jentz 61 U
Planning Director
fall
7A
10 2 a
r e
8 3 i C#k
140
i
i SA i
x
v
i'.
1TIC 5-,4. 95
t
z, 14 sc ,
�21
m
m
8
4 }
�m. 2E
....�
4a jig 2W
VICINITY MAP
APEX 1 LLC & REGGIE LYMAN LINDSAY
REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING OF
R-4, TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND
RA-1, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT
FROM SAG-10, SUBURBAN AGRICULTURAL
WEST SIDE ZONING DISTRICT
FILE #KA-00-6 SCALE 1" = 600'
Ic
am
0
PLOT DATE:8/21/00
H: \tis\site\KAo0_B. dwg