Staff Report/Annexation & ZoningTri-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: Narda A. Wilson, Senior Planner
Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT Annexation and Initial PUD Zoning - DNRC Section 36
MEETING DATE: October 1, 2001
BACKGROUND: The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
(DNRC) has requested annexation into the City of Kalispell and an initial zoning
designation of B-5, Commercial / Industrial, R-5, Residential / Professional Office,
and R-4, Residential, with a Planned Unit Development (PUD), overlay on
approximately 454.4 acres otherwise known as Section 36. The State DNRC manages
this property as part of the State School Trust and is interested in developing it in
accordance with the Section 36 Neighborhood Plan and the planning objectives for the
property. The property is located on the west side of US Hwy 93 with Four Mile Drive
on the south, West Reserve Drive on the north and Stillwater Road on the west.
The PUD addresses the development of four land use areas identified on the section of
land which are designated as a specific development pod. A Mixed Commercial POD
is identified on the area adjacent to US Hwy 93 between the Hwy 93 Bypass
alignment and the center section line that contains approximately 118 acres. A Mixed
Professional POD is identified for the area located in the north half of the section,
north and west of the US Hwy 93 Bypass alignment which contains approximately
184 acres. A Mixed Residential POD is proposed for the area in the southwest quarter
of the section which contains approximately 152 acres. The Youth Athletic Complex
generally occupies the southeast quarter of the section and was previously annexed
into the city of Kalispell during its initial development phase. The property proposed
for annexation contains a total of 454.4 acres.
Prior to developing the annexation and PUD proposal, the Montana Department of
Natural Resources was subject to the Montana Environmental Protection Act (MEPA)
which included the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to
analyze alternative plans for the school section. The EIS analyzed the impacts related
to traffic, water and sewer facilities and mitigation needs. Certain elements of the
Section 36 Neighborhood Plan were modified as a result of the MEPA process and the
adopted Record of Decision. The details of the MEPA process resultant changes are
included in the project narrative.
The changes as a result of the MEPA process include a preference for the development
of high-tech industries as opposed to general commercial and a provision for an
elementary school and high school. The proposed zoning and PUD is in substantial
compliance with the Section 36 Neighborhood Plan and furthers its goals and polices.
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• City of Kalispell • City of Columbia Falls • City of Whitefish •
DNRC Annexation and Initial Zoamg
September 20, 2001
Paae 2
Part of the final analysis included the concept of a PUD overlay with City zoning for
implementation of the plan. A PUD for the site was developed to the greatest extend
possible and has been filed concurrently with the annexation request and will be
considered the initial zoning of the property upon annexation to the city of Kalispell.
The Kalispell Zoning Ordinance requires a public hearing before the planning board
and the city council as part of the PUD process. The Kalispell City -County Planning
Board held a public hearing at their regular meeting of September 11, 2001. A motion
passed on a vote of six in favor and two opposed to forward a recommendation that
initial zoning for this property should be the proposed zoning with a PUD overlay.
The zoning ordinances states that the city council has 60 days after receiving the
recommendation from the planning board to hold a public hearing on the PUD. A
resolution annexing the property and a resolution of intent to hold a public hearing
should be passed by the council. After holding the public hearing, the first reading of
the ordinance adopting the zoning and the PUD could be passed with consideration
given to the comments presented at the public hearing. Subsequent to the public
hearing and adoption of the first reading, the development agreement would be
finalized and a second reading adopting the zoning and PUD would be in order.
A submittal package has been given to the council and the interim city attorney for
review that includes a petition to annex, development agreement, site plan
designating the development pods and a narrative overview of the process undertaken
by the DNRC.
RECOMMENDATION: A motion to adopt the resolution annexing the property and a
resolution of intent to hold a public hearing to consider the proposed PUD would be in
order.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Minor positive impacts once developed.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the city council.
Narda A. Wilson Chris A. Kukulski
Senior Planner City Manager
Report compiled: September 20, 2001
c: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk
Attachments: Transmittal letter
Petition to annex and legal
Staff report KA-01-4 and application materials
Draft minutes from 9/ 11/01 planning board meeting
Tri-City PlanningOffice
17 Second Street East - Suite 211
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 751-1850
Fag: (406) 751-1858
tricity@centuryteI.net
September 20, 2001
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: Annexation and Initial PUD Zoning - DNRC Section 36
Dear Chris:
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board met on September 11, 2001, and held a public
hearing to consider a request by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation (DNRC) for annexation and initial zoning on property located on the west
side of Hwy 93 between Four Mile Drive and West Evergreen Drive. The applicants are
proposing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay on three development "pods"
containing approximately 454 acres. The proposed zoning and PUD overlay is intended
to reflect and implement the goals and polices of the Section 36 Neighborhood Plan.
Tom Jentz representing the Tri-City Planning Office, presented staff report KA-01-4,
evaluating the proposed zoning. He noted that this proposal is one more step in the
implementation of the development plan for the property. He noted that the southeast
quarter of the section was annexed to the City with the ba 1field development and this
annexed the rest of the section.
At the public hearing David Green, representing DNRC, spoke in favor of the proposal.
He noted the State had completed the MEPA process and there was substantial
information available on the future needs of the infrastructure. The first project that was
being considered was a high-tech business park which would require subdivision review.
After the public hearing the board discussed the proposal, taking into consideration the
neighborhood plan for the property. A motion was made and passed on a vote of six in
favor and two opposed that the that initial zoning for this property should be of B-5,
Commercial / Industrial, R-5, Residential / Professional Office, and R-4, Residential,
with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay.
Please schedule this matter for the October 1, 2001 regular city council meeting. You
may contact this board or Narda Wilson at the Tri-City Planning Office if you have any
questions regarding this matter.
Providing Community PIanning Assistance To:
• City of Kalispell • City of Columbia Falls • City of Whitefish -
DNRC Annexation and Initial Zoning
September 20, 2001
Page 2
Sincerely
GS/NW
Attachments:
c w/ Att:
c w/o Att
ty Planning Board
Original petition to annex and legal description
Staff report KA-01-4
Draft minutes 9/ 11/01 planning board meeting
Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk
David Greer, DNRC, 2250 Hwy 93, Kalispell, MT 59901
Jon Dahlberg, DNRC, 2250 Hwy 93, Kalispell, MT 59901
H: \FRD0\TRANSMIT\KALISPEL\2001 \KA01-4.DOC
MONTANA DEPT OF • • • t
OFFICETRI-CITY PLANNING
REPORTSTAFF 01-4
00
A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council
regarding a request for annexation and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning overlay.
A public hearing has been scheduled before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board for
September 11, 2001 beginning at 7:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers to
consider appropriate zoning upon annexation. The planning board will forward a
recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This is a request by the Montana Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation (DNRC) for annexation into the City of Kalispell with a
Planned Unit Development (PUD), overlay on approximately 454.4 acres otherwise known
as Section 36. This property will be annexed under the provisions of Sections 7-2-4601
through 7-2-4610, M.C.A., Annexation by Petition.
A. Petitioner and Owners: DNRC
Jon Dahlberg
2205 Hwy 93 North
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 751-2240
DNRC
David Greer
2205 Hwy 93 North
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 751-2240
B. Nature of the Request: A request by the Montana Department of Natural Resources
and Conservation (DNRC) for annexation into the City of Kalispell and an initial zoning
designation of B-5, Commercial / Industrial, R-5, Residential / Professional Office, and
R-4, Residential, with a Planned Unit Development (PUD), overlay on approximately
454.4 acres otherwise known as Section 36. The State DNRC manages this property
as part of the State School Trust and is interested in developing it in accordance with
the Section 36 Neighborhood Plan and the planning objectives for the property.
There are four land use areas identified on the entire section of land designated as a
specific development pod. A Mixed Commercial POD is identified on the area adjacent
to US Hwy 93 between the Hwy 93 Bypass alignment and the center section line that
contains approximately 118 acres. A Mixed Professional POD is identified for the area
located in the north half of the section, north and west of the US Hwy 93 Bypass
alignment which contains approximately 184 acres. A Mixed Residential POD is
proposed for the area in the southwest quarter of the section which contains
approximately 152 acres. The Youth Athletic Complex generally occupies the southeast
quarter of the section and was previously annexed into the city of Kalispell during its
initial development phase. The property proposed for annexation contains a total of
454.4 acres and lies on the west side of US Hwy 93 with Four Mile Drive on the south,
West Reserve Drive on the north and Stillwater Road on the west.
Page 1 of 9
Prior to developing the annexation and PUD proposal, the Montana Department of
Natural Resources was subject to the Montana Environmental Protection Act (MEPA)
which included the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze
alternative plans for the school section. The EIS analyzed the impacts related to traffic,
water and sewer facilities and mitigation needs. Certain elements of the Section 36
Neighborhood Plan were modified as a result of the MEPA process and the adopted
Record of Decision. The details of the MEPA process resultant changes are included in
the project narrative.
Part of the final analysis included the concept of a PUD overlay with City zoning. A
planned unit development (PUD) for the site was developed to the greatest extend
possible and has been fled concurrently with the annexation request and will be
considered the initial zoning of the property upon annexation to the city of Kalispell.
C. Location and Legal Description of Property: The property being proposed for
annexation and the PUD zoning is located on the west side of US Hwy 93 with Four
Mile Drive on the south, West Reserve Drive on the north and Stillwater Road on the
west. The property can be described as the southwest quarter of the northwest
quarter and that portion of the northeast quarter lying westerly of the westerly right of
way line of US Highway 93 as shown on Federal Aid Project Nos. F 5-3(32)115 and F 5-
3(24)115, excepting there from the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the
northwest quarter and the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the
southwest quarter all in Section 36, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, PM.M.,
Flathead County, Montana.
D. Existing Land Use and Zoning: The site is currently being used for agricultural
purposes under a lease agreement. Currently this property is in the County zoning
jurisdiction and is zoned AG-80, an Agricultural zoning district which has a minimum
lot size requirement of 80 acres and generally anticipates large scale agricultural
production.
North: Single family and multi -family residential, County R-2 and
RA-1 zoning
South: Undeveloped, single family homes, City ball fields and agricultural,
City P-1, County R-1, SAG-10 and R-2
East: Home Depot, Ole's, college and agricultural, City B-2 / PUD and R-1,
County B-1 and SAG-10 zoning
West: Agricultural, AG-80 zoning
P. General Land Use Character: The general land use character of this area is a mix
of rural residential, suburban residential, high density residential, commercial,
industrial and agricultural. It lies in a transition area between the rural and urban
areas of north Kalispell.
G. Utilities and Public Services: Once annexed City services would be available to
this site.
Sewer:
City of Kalispell
Water:
City of Kalispell
Refuse:
City of Kalispell
Electricity:
Flathead Electric Cooperative
Telephone:
CenturyTel
Page 2 of 9
Schools:
School District #5
Fire:
Kalispell Fire Department
Police:
City of Kalispell
Relation to Zoning Requirements: The applicants are proposing a zoning designation of
B-5, Industrial / Commercial, R-5, Residential / Professional Office, and R-4, Two Family
Residential, with a Planned Unit Development (PUD), overlay on approximately 454.4 acres.
The PUD would identify three distinct development areas with an internal road system
established with a limit the permitted and conditionally permitted uses listed in the various
zoning districts. The speck terms of the development proposal are outlined in the
development agreement and the PUD application. The PUD development proposal has no
deviations from the zoning that relate to the various development pods. Lots have not been
created for lease, but would be subject to subdivision review and the design standards of
the City.
The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-205, M.C.A. and
the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. Findings of fact for the zone change request are discussed
relative to the itemized criteria described by 76-2-203, M.C.A and Section 27.30.020,
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.
R01110578 •- -•.- '•WASIMN41008403IN.� • •- 11. ' R•
This property is within the Kalispell city -county planning jurisdiction and subject to
a neighborhood plan for the area. The Montana Department of Natural Resources
and Conservation drafted a neighborhood plan that went through the public hearing
process and public meetings. The plan was approved by both the City of Kalispell
and Flathead County in 1999. In May of 2000 the City, County and State entered
into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) agreeing that the DNRC would develop
the property in accordance with the neighborhood plan and would comply with all
applicable zoning, subdivision and construction standards. The DNRC completed
the required MEPA process which resulted in some deviations from the Section 36
Neighborhood Plan. The proposed annexation and zoning with the PUD overlay is an
additional step in the implementation of the neighborhood plan and the development
of the property in compliance with the DNRC Section 36 Neighborhood Plan.
The development is proposed to be served from several accesses to the site. Two
accesses would be off of Hwy 93 with the existing access near the DNRC offices
being improved. A north access would be developed that would generally align with
the access to the east serving the Mountain View Plaza (Home Depot) development.
This intersection will be a signalized and the plan has been reviewed and approved
by the Montana Department of Transportation. Two accesses would be developed off
of Four Mile Drive to the south. This roadway is in marginal condition and would
warrant additional upgrades by the developer as a result of the development of this
area. The wide swing to the north attempts to circumnavigate the large hill on Four
Mile. One access is proposed from Stillwater Road and one from West Reserve Drive.
The full implications of the development and the most appropriate location of the
traffic lights and accesses as well as review and approval by the City and Montana
Department of Transportation. Some more specific analysis of the traffic impacts
can be found in the EIS prepared as part of the MEPA process.
Page 3 of 9
MMMITIOXII
This property is at the northern boundaries of the city limits which creates some
concerns regarding the emergency response times and increases the need for a
second fire station in the area. The site is approximately three and one-half miles
from the fire station. However, the development of the Mountain View Plaza site to
the east has a site for a new fire station. All of the buildings within the development
will be required to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code.
ail •- -� .- -• •.••' � ••• - •- •- • .•• -•- �- -
A planned unit development proposal gives the public and administration the
opportunity to review the development plan on the site which should result in better
overall design, integration into the landscape and as an entrance to the community.
Part of the development proposal includes the extension of public water and sewer
throughout the site. The extension of these services and the ability of the City of
Kalispell to provide services to this site and other properties in the area would be
assessed as part of an overall evaluation and review of the utility extension plan.
Additional land for commercial expansion will be added to the inventory of
developable properties.
The planned unit development does not deviate from the zoning regulations and
would be subject to all of the development standards of the zoning and those
performance standards included in the development agreement.
The development proposal includes a phasing of the development pods which should
pace the development of the site. At some point the applicants would file for a
subdivision that would create these parcels so that the development sites would be
able to be conveyed as separate parcels. All of the parcels would comply with
minimum standards of zoning. The future development potential of the site would
have substantial impacts on traffic and people in the area. Traffic impacts
associated with the type and intensity of development proposed pose the greatest
concern with regard to undue concentration of people. Mitigation of potential traffic
impacts associated with the development of this site would be identified in an traffic
impact analysis that will be required by the Montana Department of Transportation
and the City of Kalispell which would deal primarily with impacts along West
Reserve Drive and Highway 93. This may include the use of deceleration lanes,
limited access along the highway, traffic signals and other appropriate means of
mitigation.
New City infrastructure will need to be extended to the site as it relates to water and
sewer. A complete and adequate analysis of the needs of the development and the
existing infrastructure and the ability of the City to serve the project have not been
fully developed or analyzed but would occur at the time of subdivision review or as a
project proposal is fully developed. Fire and police services will also be required to
service the site which will require fire safety improvements that will include
Page 4 of 9
11
10.
11.
improvements to the water system, hydrants and sprinkled buildings, for example.
The location of this development in relation to the City fire department poses some
concerns regarding the City's ISO rating and response times to the site.
The location at an intersection of two major arterials and the proximity to City
services appears to make this property particularly suited for the particular uses
proposed for the site.
•
The character of the area is a mix of rural residential, high density residential,
agricultural, industrial and commercial. Development of this property to a
commercial use appears to give reasonable consideration to the character of the
area.
Most of the properties in the area are residential or agricultural in nature with
emerging commercial to the east. This development proposal will help to conserve
the value of buildings in the area.
Because this rezoning request complies with the neighborhood plan for Section 36,
particularly with a PUD overlay, it would seemingly encourage the most appropriate
use of this property. The planned unit development will offer some predictability as
to how and when this property would be developed. It appears that this rezoning
would encourage the most appropriate use of this property and the use of land in
the planning jurisdiction.
Page 5 of 9
Project Narrative: The Montana Department of Natural Resources Section 36 contains a
total of 640 acres. The Kalispell Youth Athletic Complex is located in the southeast quarter
of this section and the City has a lease with the State. The complex occupies nearly the
entire quarter section which was annexed several years as part of the development of the
ball fields. Groswiler Dairy has approximately 20 acres on the west side of the section that
is not part of this proposal with within Section 36. There are approximately 454 acres that
are part of this proposal and would be subject to the zoning, the PUD overlay and the
development agreement.
There are four land use areas identified on the entire section of land designated as a
specific development pod. A Mixed Commercial pod is identified on the area adjacent to US
Hwy 93 between the Hwy 93 Bypass alignment and the center section line that contains
approximately 118 acres. A Mixed Professional pod is identified for the area located in the
north half of the section, north and west of the US Hwy 93 Bypass alignment which
contains approximately 184 acres. A Mixed Residential pod is proposed for the area in the
southwest quarter of the section which contains approximately 152 acres.
The project is proposed to be phased over a number of years. The State plans to develop
the property on a lease basis wherein the developer would install the infrastructure such
was water, sewer, roads and storm drainage in accordance with City design and
construction standards. The infrastructure is proposed to be developed and the
subdivision stage and would be subject to review and / or bonding at that time.
Phase I would be the mixed commercial pod that would be given a B-5, Commercial /
Industrial zoning designation. The PUD overlay would limit the types of uses allowed in the
development pod and require certain performance standards beyond that required under
the zoning. The initial project under consideration would be a high tech business part
that is planned for the mixed commercial area. Technology uses have been stated as a
priority use for this area which contains approximately 118 acres. The mixed commercial
area will be extended to include the entire northeast quarter of the section or an addition
42 acres which would be held as a reserve area for expansion of technology uses beyond
the original pod area. This high tech business part currently under consideration would
occupy approximately 60 acres of the site and contain approximately 40,000 square feet.
Should this project expand an additional area north of the power lines would be available
for additional development. There are restrictions on the size and type of uses that would
be allowed in this development pod area. Expansion of the mixed commercial pod would
not be permitted until at least 60 percent of the initial develop pod has been leased for
development.
Phase II would be in the mixed professional pod that lies in the northwest corner of the
section. This area would be designated with an underlying zone of R-5, Residential /
Professional Office. The PUD would have specific development standards for this area.
This development pod would contain approximately 180 acres initially with approximately
42 acres to be transferred to the mixed commercial area if the thresholds on development
are met. This includes an approximately 18-acre site for a school and natural resource
agency campus. Development of this site would be restricted to not more than 20 percent
of the site, excluding the school and campus area, until at least 50 percent of the mixed
commercial pod is leased for development.
Phase III would be in the mixed residential development area located in the southwest
corner of the section. This would have an underlying zoning designation of R-4, Two
Family Residential. This area contains approximately 150 acres that includes an
Page 6 of 9
approximately 20-acre site designated as a deferred development area that could be used
for a school or other public facilities.
Speck performance standards are outlined in the development agreement that addresses
access, development improvements, parking, landscaping, signage building orientation,
setbacks as well as exterior finishes and architectural compatibility. None of these
standards present a deviation from the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.
The following information and evaluation criteria are from Section 27.21.020(2), of the
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the planned unit development provisions are to
provide a zoning district classification which allows some flexibility in the zoning
regulations and the mixing of uses which is balanced with the goal of preserving and
enhancing the integrity and environmental values of an area. The zoning ordinance has a
provision for the creation of a PUD district on annexation of the property into the city.
Review of Application Based Upon PUD Evaluation Criteria: The zoning regulations
provide that the planning board shall review the PUD application and plan based on the
following criteria:
1. The extent to which the plan departs from zoning and subdivision regulations
otherwise applicable to the subject property, including, but not limited to,
density, bulk and use, and the reasons why such departures are or are not
deemed to be in the public interest;
The planned unit development as proposed does not deviate from the zoning or subdivision
regulations. On the contrary, some of the design standards have been developed to be
more restrictive as they relate to use, building height, signage and landscaping
2. The nature and extent of the common open space in the planned development
project, the reliability of the proposals for maintenance and conservation of the
common open space and the adequacy or inadequacy of the amount and function
of the open space in terms of the land use, densities and dwelling types proposed
in the plan;
Open space is defined in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance as "Any part of a lot unobstructed
from the ground upward. Any area used for parking or maneuvering of automotive vehicles
or storage of equipment or refuse shall not be deemed open space." Open space has been
addressed in the covenants for the property which would be addressed through a common
maintenance agreement and assessments to the leaseholders. Perimeter landscaping is
proposed in accordance with Kalispell's Street Tree Ordinance which requires spacing of
trees at 40-foot intervals with a 21/4-inch caliper tree. The overall landscape plan would
ultimately be coordinated with the Kalispell Parks and Recreation Director.
All of the parking lots, roadways, sidewalks and landscape areas will be would be held in
common or have cross easement agreements recorded to ensure unrestricted accesses
within the site. Although not specified, these common parking and access areas will be
maintained by the leaseholders within the development. Covenants were included with the
application address the maintenance and assessments for the common areas.
3. The manner in which said plan does or does not make adequate provision for
public services, provide adequate control over vehicular traffic and further the
amenities of light or air, recreation and visual enjoyment;
Page 7 of 9
The extension of public water and sewer to the site is proposed as part of the overall
development of the site on t the time of subdivision review. All of the infrastructure would
be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell design standards and
reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department. A rather extensive
review of the services and facilities needs was done in association with the Montana
Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) prior to the submittal of the application for
annexation and can be found the in the DNRC's Environmental Impact Statement. The
impact of additional development on the existing City systems have not been quantified
since no specific proposal has been development at this juncture in the process. Impacts
and needed infrastructure improvements associated with a specific development proposal
would be addressed in conjunction with the subdivision review process. Access to the site
has been designed in accordance with the neighborhood plan document and is reflected on
the site plan included with the PUD application.
4. The relationship, beneficial or adverse, of the planned development project
upon the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be established;
Development of the property in accordance with the neighborhood plan is intended to fulfill
the State mandate for managing school trust lands for the benefit of the schools while
further the goals of the community. This proposal may benefit the community as a whole
by filling a perceived need within the community for additional area for commercial,
industrial, office and residential development. The greatest adverse impacts to the
neighborhood would be related to increased traffic from the site and the creation of a large-
scale commercial element in an exurban area of the county. The impacts of the commercial
development can be mitigated to a certain extent with landscaping, good site design and
internal circulation, and the limitation on certain uses allowed within the various zones.
5. In the case of a plan which proposes development• of
sufficiency of • conditions proposed • protect and maintain the
attorney;integrity of the plan which finding shall be made only after consultation with
the City
This development is proposed to occur in phases over the next ten to 50 years. Phase I
would include the technology oriented businesses at the northeast corner of the site with
subsequent development to the north and to the west. The subsequent phases would
occur in a counter clockwise fashion from the mixed commercial to the mixed professional
to the mixed residential pods. The deferred development areas within the site would not be
subject to phasing requirements outlined in the development agreement, but would be
available for development of schools and other public facilities.
6. Conformity with all applicable provisions of this chapter;
No deviations from the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance are being proposed with this PUD
proposal or the development agreement.
G 'tea* : The zoning regulations require that once a final plan is approved by the city
council, the applicant shall submit a revised plan in accordance with the approval of the
council which incorporates any conditions which have been imposed by the council. After
all of the terms and conditions of the agreement have been determined along with a final
site plan, a development agreement will be drafted between the City of Kalispell and the
Developer outlining and formalizing the terms. The final plan as approved, together with
the development agreement and any conditions, terms or restrictions which may be
imposed, shall constitute the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning for the site.
Page 8 of 9
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board adopt staff report #KA-01-
4 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that upon annexation the
property be given the proposed zoning with a PUD overlay subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with the Section
36 Neighborhood Plan as amended through the MEPA process, the development
agreement, application, the site plan and conditions for the PUD as approved by the
city council.
2. The proposed development areas within the site shall be substantially the same as
indicated on the preliminary site plan submitted with the application or as modified
by these conditions.
3. That the plans and specifications for water, sewer, drainage and grading shall be
designed and installed in accordance with the Kalispell Design and Construction
Standards and shall be subject to review and approval by the Kalispell Public Works
Department at the time of subdivision review.
4. The fire access and suppression system shall be reviewed and approved by the
Kalispell Fire Department for compliance with the Uniform Fire Code.
5. A plan shall be developed and in place that addresses the grading, revegetation,
irrigation and maintenance of the undeveloped areas that creates a weed free, dust -
free area until such time as that phase is fully developed.
6. That the necessary easements be obtained for the extension of water and sewer
services to the site.
7. That a traffic impact study be completed which identify all expected traffic impacts
and proposals for mitigation, and that appropriate approach permits be obtained from
the Montana Department of Transportation and the City of Kalispell at the time
development occurs.
8. That pedestrian walkways be provided as the site develops that provides a continuous
and connected system with the existing walkways along Highway 93, Four Mile Drive
and within the developed areas of the site.
9. That the uses allowed within the development shall not include those which require
areas for the display of large merchandise such as new and used automobile sales,
manufactured home sales, recreational vehicle sales and lumberyards. This would
not preclude incidental events associated with the other businesses on the site.
10. That the phasing and timing of the development shall occur as proposed. Bonding for
the proposed infrastructure and improvements or other acceptable means of insuring
that the improvements will be completed as proposed shall be provided by the
developer at the time of subdivision review.
11. The developer and City of Kalispell shall execute a development agreement based on
terms and conditions included in the planned unit development.
Page 9 of 9
e?WDR
I
3 '
PUD
rs
S-AG-5 IMA PUI
D R4 ME ff SAG-10
Rok-1
AG430 2 1
VICINITY MAP
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION
ANNEXATION & INITIAL ZONING WITH PUD OVERLAY ON 454 ACRES
B-5, COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL — MIXED COMMERCIAL
R-5, RESIDENTIAL PROFESSIONAL OFFICE — MIXED PROFESSIONAL
R-4, RESIDENTIAL MIXED RESIDENTIAL
FROM AG-80, AGRICULTURAL — WEST SIDE ZONING DISTRICT
Proposed Annexation Area
FILES# KA-01-4 & KPUD-01-1 SCALE 1" = 1000'
Section 36 Utility Plan
C
g
Section 36, T29N R22W
29
zs West Reserve Drive zs35
II 1 12" WATER MAIN
` Mixed professional
r
�•
�♦ WATER MAIN �d�
(
TO LIFT STATION
IN SECTION 31
IV/,,�
12" i /
12" COLLECTOR `12" COL KTOR
'i
_ _-- �— --
i
` ' �e�� / j;� 12" COLLECTOR
t
i —' FORCE
9cme in feat
( J' - ,�� � �♦
%
i
M
MAIN
LEGEND
1'4" WATER MAIN i �•' a�`g j� Mixed Commercial
�—
t
.I. Sector comer
g
— b�a/� �r
•' ; 14" WATER MAIN
MAINwATER
-- .. Quarter section comer
�•` ��
j
® Cemarquartersedion comer
�
Q� 6" WATER MAIN
�
1
t
o SPA tower
y� i �
� I
t
HwY93Bypas�-�—.�
-----sewar0-SYears
�
�-
� f
� DNRC
� O`� i• � I
I
I
Water0. 5 Years
= /
/ '
i
I
-----Sewer5-10 Years
Waters. 10 Years
.•/ fd' f
-----Sewer 10-20 Years
Wafer 10-20 Years
t 12" WATER MAIN ( fl
6"/FORCE (MAIN —
t
1
• Water We05-10 Yeas
i
SECTIION
�j7/
/ I Mixed i Residential 36 WELL
}
t
0 WeterReservoir5-10 Years
Sports Fields
t
`l �I 12" SUPPLY
.z•
12"tWATER-MAIN]
I;
f
I
:STATION t
t
14" SUPPLY)
�
3g
J
eadidr�mw
rsrmtw
2' 1 STORAGE RESERVOIR Four Mile Drive
1 g *�+az+w
ATHEAD ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
SEP b 5 2061
August 30, 2001
Narda Wilson, Senior Planner
Tri-City Planning Office
17 Second Street E Ste 211
Kalispell MT 59901
Re: DNRC Section 36 Annexation and Initial Zoning — PUD — Comments
Dear Ms. Wilson,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed zoning change and
annexation. After review of the documents, we would offer the following comments:
• Because this proposal will significantly increase vehicle traffic on West Reserve
Drive, and because the existing road is too narrow to safely accommodate the
present commercial (truck) traffic; provision should be made for a road easement
along the north side of the section so that West Reserve could be widened to the
south. The north side has already been developed out to the existing right-of-
way and, in addition, contains a major transmission line.
• Because 6f the present traffic congestion at the junction of West Reserve Drive
and Highway 93, the proposed Alternate 93 (by-pass) makes little sense. A route
taking the by-pass further north before intersecting the present route would ease
the congestion.
• We would anticipate providing electrical service to this complex primarily from
West Reserve Drive, with a secondary approach from Four Mile Drive. Thought
should be given to providing utility easements that will provide adequate access.
• Given the present need for a new high school, we wonder if a site shouldn't be
reserved within this section.
Sincerely,
Warren G. McConkey
General Manager
WGM/dh
ENGINEERING
2510 HwY 2 EAsT, KALiSPELL, MT 59901 PHONE 406-751-4483/FAx 406-756-3647
STATE OF MONTANA )
ss
County of Flathead County
On this day of vt i i <_ Zc= l , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public for
the State of Montana, personally appeared known
to me t(-) 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 Notary Seal the day and
year in this certificate first above written.
Notary Public, State of Montana
Residing at (.j.y \;ic L�
My Commission expires:
STATE OF MONTANA )
W,
County of Flathead County
On this day of before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public for
the State of Montana, personally appeared 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 Notary Seal the day and
year in this certificate first above written.
STATE OF MONTANA )
ss
County of Flathead
Notary Public, State of Montana
Residing at
My Commission expires:
On this day of , 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 Notary Seal the day and
year in this certificate first above written.
Notary Public, State of Montana
Residing at
My Commission expires
MONTANA DEPT OF • 1 CONSERVATION (DNRC)
PLANNING OFFICE
STAFF • i 01-4
tt
A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council
regarding a request for annexation and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning overlay.
A public hearing has been scheduled before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board for
September 11, 2001 beginning at 7:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers to
consider appropriate zoning upon annexation. The planning board will forward a
recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This is a request by the Montana Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation (DNRC) for annexation into the City of Kalispell with a
Planned Unit Development (PUD), overlay on approximately 454.4 acres otherwise known
as Section 36. This property will be annexed under the provisions of Sections 7-2-4601
through 7-2-4610, M.C.A., Annexation by Petition.
A. Petitioner and Owners: DNRC
Jon Dahlberg
2205 Hwy 93 North
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 751-2240
DNRC
David Greer
2205 Hwy 93 North
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 751-2240
B. Nature of the Request: A request by the Montana Department of Natural Resources
and Conservation (DNRC) for annexation into the City of Kalispell and an initial zoning
designation of B-5, Commercial / Industrial, R-5, Residential / Professional Office, and
R-4, Residential, with a Planned Unit Development (PUD), overlay on approximately
454.4 acres otherwise known as Section 36. The State DNRC manages this property
as part of the State School Trust and is interested in developing it in accordance with
the Section 36 Neighborhood Plan and the planning objectives for the property.
There are four land use areas identified on the entire section of land designated as a
specific development pod. A Mixed Commercial POD is identified on the area adjacent
to US Hwy 93 between the Hwy 93 Bypass alignment and the center section line that
contains approximately 118 acres. A Mixed Professional POD is identified for the area
located in the north half of the section, north and west of the- US Hwy 93 Bypass
alignment which contains approximately 184 acres. A Mixed Residential POD is
proposed for the area in the southwest quarter of the section which contains
approximately 152 acres. The Youth Athletic Complex generally occupies the southeast
quarter of the section and was previously annexed into the city of Kalispell during its
initial development phase. The property proposed for annexation contains a total of
454.4 acres and lies on the west side of US Hwy 93 with Four Mile Drive on the south,
West Reserve Drive on the north and Stillwater Road on the west.
Page 1 of 9
ATHEAD ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES LLTC.
SEP - 5 20,13 t
August 30, 2001
Narda Wilson, Senior Planner
Tri-City Planning Office
17 Second Street E Ste 211
Kalispell MT 59901
Re: DNRC Section 36 Annexation and Initial Zoning — PUD — Comments
Dear Ms. Wilson,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed zoning change and
annexation. After review of the documents, we would offer the following comments:
Because this proposal will significantly increase vehicle traffic on West Reserve
Drive, and because the existing road is too narrow to safely accommodate the
present commercial (truck) traffic; provision should be made for a road easement
along the north side of the section so that West Reserve could be widened to the
south. The north side has already been developed out to the existing right-of-
way and, in addition, contains a major transmission line.
Because of the present traffic congestion at the junction of West Reserve Drive
and Highway 93, the proposed Alternate 93 (by-pass) makes little sense. A route
taking the by-pass further north before intersecting the present route would ease
the congestion.
We would anticipate providing electrical service to this complex primarily from
West Reserve Drive, with a secondary approach from Four Mile Drive. Thought
should be given to providing utility easements that will provide adequate access.
Given the present need for a new high school, we wonder if a site shouldn't be
reserved within this section.
Sincerely,
Warren G. McConkey D
General Manager
WGM/dh
ENGINEERING
2510 HwY 2 EAST, KALISPELL, MT 59901 PHONE 406-751-4483/FAx 406-756-3647
> iLOTDMRC LOT
g
r
Pj
f
Youtht
mletic
Complex
E
FM &kdjo
SA-;�, D t6-
F
PUD
�y E
-•
-- tLa Ire 3
fD i €
VICINITY MAP
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION
ANNEXATION & INITIAL ZONING WITH PUD OVERLAY ON 454 ACRES
B-5, COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL — MIXED COMMERCIAL
R-5, RESIDENTIAL / PROFESSIONAL OFFICE — MIXED PROFESSIONAL
R-4, RESIDENTIAL — MIXED RESIDENTIAL
FROM AG-80, AGRICULTURAL — WEST SIDE ZONING DISTRICT
® Proposed Annexation Area
Section 36 Utility Plan
Section 36, T29N R22W
500 300 0 600 1200
actlem feet
LEGEND
-y- + Secuon comer
-- .-. Ouartersection comer
® Centerquaftersecflonmmer
M BPA imer
Proposed road
Hwy93 Bypass
�- — — — Sswar0-5Yaars
WaWO.SYasm
+— — — — — Sew 5.10 Years
Watar5-10 Years
— — — — — Sewer 10-20 Years
Water 10.20Yeers
—�— Water WeUS-10Years
1
WaWReservdr5-10 Years
26 25 West Reserve Drive 25
35 , 5 - I� —
36--
j I 12" WATER MAIN
i II I
— — — Mixed rofessional
1 ♦ 12" WATER MAIN
♦♦ 12" COLLECTOR / 12" COLL�TOR
�6�'l
'" 12" COLLECTOR
14WATER MAIN j �' a��9
� Mixed Commercial
o:
w
I
35
�' ♦ y /� 14" WATER MAIN
12" WATER MAIN
6"/FORCE N.N }I
' 36 WELL
Mixed Residential
--�-- 1-- — 1 --
12" SUPPLY
12"IWATER MAIN( l
LIFT 1
STATION
I �I
---- —I I 114" SUPPLY t
35
2— 1 STORAGE RESERVOIR FoOI
/-6" WATER MAIN
DNRC
Sports Fields
2" WATER MAIN
F�
TO LIFT STATION
IN SECTION 31
i
1
I 6" FORCE
MAIN
1 14" WATER
MAIN
1
mm samua
rrexaz+w
7 6 'RBN R21w
t
MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
CITY PROJECTS
CALL TO ORDER AND Chairman Greg Stevens called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
ROLL CALL Members present were: Don Garberg, Dale Pierce, Ron Van Natta,
Rob Heinecke, Bill Rice, Greg Stevens; Don Mann, and Brian Sipe.
Don Hines had an excused absence. Tom Jentz represented the
Tri-City Planning Office. There were approximately 15 people in
the audience.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion by Pierce and second by Mann to approve the
OF AUGUST 14, 2001 minutes of the meeting of the city portion of August 14, 2001 as
AND AUGUST 21, 2001 presented and the minutes of the meeting of August 21, 2001 as
amended.
DNRC ANNEXATION &s A request by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and
ZONING/ PLANNED Conservation (DNRC) for annexation into the City of Kalispell and
UNIT DEVELOPMENT an initial zoning designation of B-5, Commercial / Industrial, R-5,
Residential / Professional Office, and R-4, Residential, with a
Planned Unit Development (PUD), overlay on approximately 454.4
acres otherwise known as Section 36.
STAFF REPORT Tom Jentz of the Tri-City Planning Office gave a presentation of
staff report #KA-01-4, stating this was a request by the Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) for
annexation into the City of Kalispell and an initial zoning
designation of B-5, Commercial / Industrial, R-5, Residential /
Professional Office, and R-4, Residential, with a Planned Unit
Development (PUD), overlay on approximately 454.4 acres
otherwise known as Section 36.
Jentz stated that the State DNRC manages this property as part of
the State School Trust and is interested in developing it in
accordance with the Section 36 Neighborhood Plan and the
planning objectives for the property.
Jentz said the applicants were proposing four land use areas on
the entire section of land designated as a specific development
pod; a Mixed Commercial POD on the area adjacent to US Hwy 93
between the Hwy 93 Bypass alignment and the center section line
that contains approximately 118 acres; a Mixed Professional POD
for the area located in the north half of the section, north and
west of the US Hwy 93 Bypass alignment which contains
approximately 184 acres; and a Mixed Residential POD proposed
for the area in the southwest quarter of the section that contains
approximately 152 acres.
Stevens said that according to the staff report the PUD overlay is
not in accordance with the Neighborhood Plan.
Jentz said David Greer would address that issue.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of September 11, 2001
Page 1 of 10
APPLICANT/AGENCIES David Greer, staff planner of the Department of Natural
i sources, spoke in favor of the pt' osal saying the project was
started in 1998 and they still hau to go through subdivision
review. Greer said the project was still being called Section 36
and would like to go on record and have it called the Spring
Prairie PUD because the tree that is in the ball field complex is
called the Spring Prairie tree.
Greer said in 1999 a Neighborhood Plan had been approved, and
as part of that plan a memorandum of understanding had been
done with the City and County which said that any development
that they did would adhere to the City of Kalispell's design
standards for roads, water, sewer, etc. and that DNRC would pay
both personal and property taxes. Greer said that all
improvements on the property would be the responsibility of the
lessees.
Greer said they were working with Hampstead Partners out of
California who are still interested in building a 60-acre tech park
and they were trying to move this process along to accommodate
that particular development.
Greer said the first part of the application was a petition to annex
and they were asking for the entire project to be annexed and
zoned. Greer said in developing the proposal they had to choose
what zoning would be appropriate and that was why they were
proposing many performance standards so that this would
present a very nice entry to the City of Kalispell. Greer said the
City didn't have any zoning classifications that would work and
after they had gone through the environmental impact process, it
had been suggested that they do it as a PUD overlay. Greer said
with the PUD overlay the commercial area would be zoned B-5,
which allows hundreds uses, but the PUD restricts it to 19
possible uses instead.
Greer said the project would be phased over the next 40-50 years,
and they wanted to anticipate future needs. Greer said the school
district was interested in one of the sites for a high school and
grade school; and they had prioritized technical uses over retail
commercial uses.
Greer said they would be back before Board to create lease lots
which will had to go through subdivision review and at that time
they would have another opportunity to review the extension of
the infrastructure to the property. Greer said one thing they had
learned from the environmental impact statement was that this
area north of Kalispell is already water deficient, and as
development occurred they would have to compensate for those
deficiencies, and sometime in the future they may have to look at
having a well and storage stank which would tie into the City
water supply system or they may have to develop a community
water system to service the needs of Section 36.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of September 11, 2001
Page 2 of 10
wens asked if this proposal comp;' i with the adopted plan or
the amended plan.
Greer said in regard to the deviations from the original
neighborhood plan the response from the MEPA was a desire to
promote technical industry over retail, so they had prioritized
technical industry in one area, and if over the next 40 years there
were an opportunity to expand, one area would be held in
anticipation of future need. Greer said it was not amending the
neighborhood plan because they would not do anything until they
received permission to do so.
Stevens asked how that philosophy jibed with the enabling act of
the Montana State constitution to acquire the full -appraised fair
market value of the lands to the School Trust.
Greer said the land value would not change whether it was
commercial or technical.
Stevens said he didn't understand this process because when the
master plan is amended with a neighborhood plan, there are a
series of public hearings before the Planning Board, the City
Council and the County Commissioners, and when they amend a
neighborhood plan, there are also public hearings before the same
boards and governing bodies. Stevens said the staff report is
telling him that there are deviations from the neighborhood plan
by virtue of the PUD, and when he read the PUD it was essentially
telling hiin that DNRC's decision for the EIS requires certain
modifications to the Section 36 Neighborhood Plan. Stevens
asked how they were avoiding amending the neighborhood plan
with participation by the County Commissioners and that they
were doing a PUD before they had a neighborhood plan that would
accommodate it.
Greer said the staff report meant that the deviations were more
restrictive that what had originally been anticipated in the original
neighborhood plan. Greer said there was a lot more clarity
regarding annexation, the use of City services, and enforcement of
architectural control. Greer said the only question was the holding
area for future technical uses, but a tech park is only professional
offices, and if there was movement into that area, it was at least
10 years away, and if at that time it was necessary to do an
amendment to the plan they would.
Stevens said it may be more restrictive than the approved plan
that the Board recommended approval for and the plan that the
County Commissioners approved, but it seemed to him that the
School Trust fund was being put on the second burner and that
the whole project was designed not to increase revenue to the
maximum extent to the School Trust fund, but to meet someone's
particular aesthetic designs for that piece of property, and the
School Trust fund should have been moved to the first burner.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of September 11, 2001
Page 3 of 10
Greer said with State government and the requirement to do a,
' IEPA analysis, they also had <'' follow that process which
6ometimes softens certain intei�,ions to satisfy the State'
environmental law. Greer said if the tech was successful they
wanted to make sure that they had an opportunity for it to
proceed, and that after five years it wasn't successful, then the
original retail and commercial -,AU be allowed to go in. Greer said
another threshold was that if the tech meets the 40,000 thousand
square foot allowance and then it stops so that noting happens
between years 5 8, 10, then the original mixed commercial and
retail will go back in.
Stevens said page 7 of the PUD said the Section 36 neighborhood
plan adopted in 1999 was modified by the record of decision.
Stevens said that contrary to the MOU and everything they had
been told before that they could unilaterally modify a
neighborhood plan, that they didn't have to go before the
Commissioners or the regular process of amending the master
plan like every one else had to do. Stevens said he finds that
disturbing in the sense that when the process first started it was
to include every body, and they were now evading the
Commissioners involvement. Stevens said page 4 says essentially
the same thing. Stevens said at this point in the hearing process
he would vote against it because a neighborhood plan should be
recommended by the Commissioners and Council and this was
circumventing the system.
Greer said there was no difference in the plan, it was being
restricted even further than it was previously. Greer said the uses
were allowed in the adopted plan, and they were only prioritizing
them now.
Stevens asked if DNRC paid rent.
Greer said the EIS showed that they had been granted that piece
years ago as an easement, but they had discovered they occupy a
little more land then they had thought so they would have to start
paying rent on the land they weren't deeded.
Stevens asked if the area designated as a state campus would
generate funds to the schools.
Greer said anything that went on that piece of ground would have
to make some type of payment to the School Trust fund. Greer
said if a school went on there, they would buy a permanent
easement from them, but they would be a tax-exempt agency and
wouldn't pay property taxes, but they would have to pay full
market value for the land.
Sipe asked how the residential homes would be developed.
Greer said they struggled with that through the process because
how could they do that if they were leasing land. Greer said they
had decided to prioritize that area for exchange so that someone
could give them land someplace else in exchange for that land so
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of September 11, 2001
Page 4 of 10
-it it could go to private owns'aip and be developed in
a.:cordance with this plan.
Sipe asked how that would help the School Trust fund.
Greer said they would have to get the equivalent value or more
somewhere else to compensate the trust.
Sipe said it was hard for him to see why anyone would lease state
lands when there was so much land in the county, because the
banks would not back them, and asked now that it was more
restrictive how it would help the School Trust.
Greer said they were doing the same in Bozeman and Great Falls
and because of the location people were will to lease the land.
Greer said it didn't work well for residential, which is why they
chose to prioritize the southwest quarter for land exchange.
Garberg said leasing commercial land was very common in other
places and that under the right criteria the banking community
would go for a long-term lease.
Jeanie Fairbanks, from the Special Uses Bureau in Missoula,
stated she was a certified appraiser and spoke in favor of the
project saying she believed they could get a fair market value
through leasing because the property is not for sale, but the
location is right. Fairbanks said it was a financing tool and the
location created the market for the state lands.
PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on
the proposal.
PROPONENTS Mayre Flowers, Citizens for a Better FIathead, spoke generally in
favor of the plan and commended the DNRC on the thoroughness
of the PUD.
Flowers said that the additional land that had been set aside for
technology should be developed to provide jobs for the community
and provide a stable economy. Flowers said in order for this to be
successful and if it was appropriate the City and State should
work together to recruit the type of economic development to
make the plan a success.
Flowers said on page 9, Condition #5 referred to the maintenance
plan and wanted to be sure there was maintenance for the
duration of the development.
Flowers said on page 8, Item #5 referenced that the city attorney
was to review this document, but she didn't see a letter or any
comment from the city the attorney. Flowers said it needed to be
reviewed to ensure there were safeguards so there was not
another situation like the Valley Dome.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of September 11, 2001
Page 5 of 10
Flowers said on page 9, Condition #8 referred to pedestrian/bike
vay and she would like to,( e them included in the
recommendation.
Flowers said page 6 of the Plan referred to the architectural
standards of buildings and asked if there were any plan to put
alleys in the development so that the backs of buildings can be
buffered from the commercial to the residential.
Flowers said page 27 of the Plan references that the sidewalks
upon completion will become under ownership of the City and
asked if this was normal procedure.
Flowers said she feels the plan, especially the residential
component, added a much stronger viability to it and she
appreciated the process that this has gone through.
OPPONENTS Tom Chokovsky, presiding overseer for Valley View Jehovah
Witnesses, stated he was not for or against the proposal but did
have concerns regarding safety. Chokovsky said their hall was
located near the site, and when they had applied in 1992 for a
road easement, they had wanted to put their road where the new
road is being proposed, and they were told they couldn't because
of the safety and clear visibility. Chokovsky said the Plan would
provide traffic lights on the other heavily traveled road, but there
were no sidewalks on the north side of West Reserve, and they
cautioned their people to be careful when they turned into the hall
because of the poor visibility. Chokovsky said if visibility was a
problem in 1992, then how were they going to handle this
additional traffic.
Stevens asked who would determine where the access went.
Jentz said the road was a state secondary road, and when the
access was put in both the State and the County would do a
traffic study. Jentz said if it were not the best place for the access,
it would be put in the safest place.
MOTION Van Natta moved that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board
adopt Staff Report #KA-01-4 as findings of fact and recommend to
the Kalispell City Council that upon annexation the property be
giving the proposed zoning with a PUD overlay subject to the 11
conditions as outlined. Rice seconded the motion.
BOARD DISCUSSION Van Natta said he would vote in support of the project, and that
the State had done a wonderful job in analyzing what could and
should happen on this land and did not feel that the master plan
is being amended inappropriately or that it was even being
amended. Van Natta said if the wording in the staff report was
wrong perhaps they could amend it.
Stevens said the terminology throughout the whole PUD says it
deviates from the neighborhood plan and the language is
appropriate.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of September 11, 2001
Page 6 of 10
T''-�e called for the question.
ROLL CALL Rice, Garberg, Pierce, Heinecke, Mann, and Van Natta voted aye.
Stevens and Sipe voted nay. The motion passed on a 6-2 vote.
GLACIER VILLAGE Sipe excused himself from the Board.
GREENS PHASE VI AND
VII ANNEXATION A request by Glacier Village Greens Inc. for annexation into the
city of Kalispell and an initial zoning designation of R-4,
Residential, for Phase VI and Phase VII which contain
approximately 8.8 acres.
STAFF REPORT Tom Jentz of the Tri-City Planning Office gave a presentation of
staff report #KA-01-5, stating that the City of Kalispell has
initiated the annexation of the two subdivisions that have been
final platted as continued development of Glacier Village Greens.
Jentz said that a petition for annexation request by Glacier Village
Greens Inc. was submitted with the plats as a requirement. Jentz
said Glacier Village Greens Phase VI has 21 lots and two parks
and contains approximately 4.698 acres and that Glacier Village
Greens Phase VII has 17 lots and contains approximately 4.109
acres. Jentz said the applicants were requesting an initial zoning
designation of R-4, Residential, for both Phase VI and Phase VII.
Jentz said Tom Reese, president of the Homeowners Association
had stopped by the office that afternoon and had said some of the
property owners were concerned that the parks would become city
property. Jentz said he had told Reese the parks will be annexed,
but they will still be maintained and managed by the homeowners
association.
APPLICANTS/AGENCIES George Schultz, applicant, spoke in opposition saying he hadn't
been aware until a few days ago that the property was being
annexed. Shultz said he hadn't signed anything, that the City
was blackmailing them because if they didn't annex they couldn't
file the final plat and they wouldn't be able to develop the lots.
Van Natta said there was a petition signed by Glacier Village
Greens that requested annexation.
Schultz said the only thing they signed was the petition to annex,
which Duane Bitney had signed because if they didn't the City
won't file their plats.
Stevens said they had a petition that was signed in 2001 and that
it was for Phase 6.
Schultz said the City had opted not to annex Phase 6 until Phase
7 was done.
Schultz said the staff report says he requested annexation and he
didn't ask, he was being made to.
Rice asked Schultz why he didn't want the property annexed.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of September 11, 2001
Page 7 of 10
PETITION NO.:
PETITION TO ANNEX.
AND
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM RURAL FIRE DISTRICT
The undersigned hereinafter referred to as Petitioner(s) respectfully petition the City Council of
the City of Kalispell for annexation of the real property described below into the City of
Kalispell.
The Petitioner(s) requesting City of Kalispell annexation of the property described herein and
further described in Exhibit A 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 to other properties within the rest of the municipality.
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.
The Petitioner(s) further herein express an intent to have the property as herein described
withdrawn from the West Valley Rural Fire District under the provisions of Section 7-33-2127,
Montana Code Annotated; and that incorporated into this Petition to Annex 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.
In the event the property is not immediately annexed, the Petitioner(s) 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 Petitioner(s) to connect and receive the utilities from the City of
Kalispell.
a �3, ZCOJ
Petitioner/Owner Date
Department of Natural Resources &
Conservation. State of Montana
Montana Department of Transportation David A. Galt, Director
'F"L- Judy Martz, Governor
Missoula District Office
2100 W Broadway
PO Box 7039
Missoula, MT 59807-7039
September 7, 2001
Narda Wilson
Senior Planner
Tri-City Planning Office
17 Second Street West
Kalispell, MT 59901
S bj t: '„°TP A' Section 26 Annexation and unit.al Zoning - PUT.? u cC�. vir ��.. �.:. iiiix �y
s
SEP 1 1 2001
'_
The MDT has no comments on the DNRC's request for annexation into the City of
Kalispell and the initial zoning.
-A, -I�k-
Shane Stack
Missoula District Traffic Engineer
523-5830
copies: file
Phone: (406) 523-5800 An Equal Opportunity Employer
TN: (800) 335-7592
Toll -free: (888) 231-5819 Web Page: www.mdt.state.mt.us
V
2 � 0 1
September 5, 2001
Tri-City Planning Office
17 Second Street E Ste 211
Kalispell MT 59901
Re: Comments on DNRC Section 36 Annexation and Initial Zoning — PUD
Dear Sirs:
I have reviewed the documents, and have concerns in the following areas.
® With the existing heavy truck traffic (logging trucks, gravel trucks, etc.) on the
very narrow West Reserve Drive, additional traffic is an invitation for disaster. As
part of this development, West Reserve Dr. should be widened. Since the north
side has been developed, and there is a major powerline present, the widening
should be to the south. I would recommend that there be a deeded easement along
the north boundary of the development.
The proposed Alternate US 93 (by-pass) makes very little sense in that it by-
passes nothing. The junction of West Reserve and US 93 is already a very busy
intersection, with many wrecks. The by-pass should be taken further north before
connecting with US 93 — maybe in the area of Church Drive.
Lastly, what area is being set aside for Kalispell's new high school?
Sincerely,
oseph T. Nelson, Jr.
100 Ranch Rd.
Kalispell, MT 59901