Loading...
Annexation IssuesPLANNING FOR THE FUTURE MEMORANDUM REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council FROM: Jane Howington, City Manager Tom Jentz, Director Planning Department 2011" Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispeU.com/planninCF SUBJECT: Annexation Issues: Majestic Valley Arena 40 acre site 8a Trumbull Creek Crossing Annexation MEETING DATE: September 12, 2011 joint council/planning board work session BACKGROUND: Two requests for annexation have been submitted to the city in recent months. Both properties lie outside the immediate annexation boundary of the city and as such our recently adopted annexation policy requires further discussion to determine the appropriateness of any action by the city. Trumbull Creek Crossing phase 2 was first submitted by Mike Anders in 2007. A letter requesting consideration as an annexation district was received on June 23, 2011. The second request is from the owners of the Majestic Valley Arena for annexation of a 40 acre tract of vacant land between the Majestic Valley Arena complex and Church Drive. Two addendums are attached to this memo containing a thorough analysis of each annexation proposal. Because the annexation policy is new and both of these projects could ultimately require both planning board and council action, a joint work session has been called to discuss these projects as well as the larger picture of annexations on the edge of our city. 1 APPENDIX A Majestic Valley Arena - 40 acre site Background: Bob and Jan Parker, owners of the Majestic Valley Arena sent a letter to the city dated April 8, 2011 asking for direction from the city concerning the potential for extension of water and sewer services to a 40 acre parcel of land they own immediately north of Church Drive. They are trying to sell the entire Majestic Valley Arena ownership and are putting together a marketing and development proposal for these 40 acres which is currently pasture land immediately south of the arena site. The 40 acre site is currently vacant. It is bordered by the Majestic Valley Arena to the north, Highway 93 on the east, Church Drive (a city street) and Silverbrook Subdivision on the south and farm land preserved in a conservation easement to the west. The property has city water and sewer mains stubbed underneath Church Drive which were installed by Howard Mann when infrastructure was extended to Silverbrook. The Parkers are in the process of master planning the 40 acre site with the intention of providing a development package that would be compatible with and support the Majestic Valley Arena. The Parkers stated that they went to the Flathead County Planning Office initially, but that office referred them to the city when they learned that Kalispell water and sewer served the site. The site is currently zoned "agricultural" under the county zoning ordinance. Status of municipal services available to serve the site: Water system - A municipal water line was stubbed underneath Church Drive to serve this area by Howard Mann when he developed the Silverbrook subdivision in anticipation of development to the north of Church Drive. Water pressure and volume are good. Future maintenance of the system however will place a disproportionate expense on Public Works crews because the property lies so far from the city core and the pattern of development (except for Silverbrook) has not filled in. Sanitary sewer - A municipal sewer line was stubbed underneath Church Drive to serve this area by Howard Mann when he developed the Silverbrook subdivision in anticipation of development to the north of Church Drive. The main was sized in anticipation of additional development north of Church Drive and the Silverbrook lift station which would serve this site was designed to accommodate such flows as well. Future maintenance of the system however will place a disproportionate expense on Public Works crews because the property lies so far from the city core and the pattern of development (except for Silverbrook) has not filled in. 2 Streets - Except for Silverbrook and Church Drive, there is no city development north of Reserve Drive. Silverbrook presently plows their own streets. The city has traded Church Drive snow plow maintenance with the county for a county street closer to the city center. At some time in the future the city will end up taking over snow plowing and general maintenance of all the streets including Church Drive in this area. Currently, maintaining any new roads in the subject site will place an increased disproportionate burden on city street maintenance crews. Parks - A commercial venue is being requested which will have no impact on the parks department as they primarily serve a residential population. Police - The site is significantly far from the city core and patrolling would continue to unduly stretch the department at this time. As future development infills the area the department could have a greater presence and efficiency of service. Fire - The site is significantly far from the city core and exceeds the 5 minute response time from station 62. Providing fire service would continue to unduly stretch the department. The department is currently responsible for response to Silverbrook which is slowly building out. Demand for service in this area is very low but will increase as development increases. Planning Issues - The property, while lying immediately adjacent to the city, is outside the Growth Policy Map therefore an amendment to the growth policy would be in order if it were to be considered for some method of annexation (either outright annexation, a waiver of protest of annexation, or annexation district) . The property abuts the Majestic Valley Arena to the north and is served by the junior interchange off of Highway 93. Direct access onto Highway 93 is otherwise prohibited along the frontage of the 40 acre parcel because MDT has designated Highway 93 as a limited access highway. However the tract does have access to the Majestic Valley Arena main intersection to the north out onto Highway 93. Additional users at this intersection will increase the likelihood that intersection improvements and possibly a light could be warranted. This is not a preferred outcome. Some form of commercial development is being considered by the applicant. This is not unreasonable given the neighborhood, presence of the Majestic Valley Arena to the north and being adjacent to Highway 93. From a land use perspective, the property abuts the city, has access to city sewer and water and is part of the entrance corridor to the City of 3 Kalispell. If the property is to develop, it should be done under city overview and specifically in accordance with city policies and city entrance design standards. The Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment contains policies that would guide development of this site. Conversely, if the property were to develop outside city review, three issues arise: 1. The property will be planned, marketed and built to a rural standard in terms of infrastructure and highway frontage design. 2. The use of the property will conflict with the long range development processes and entrance corridor policies of the city. 3. The property will ultimately look to the city for urban services in the future setting up an untenable situation of trying to adapt and incorporate the development that exists at that time with the city. Growth Policy - Annexation Policy analysis: The recently adopted Annexation Policy (amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy) provides policy guidance on how to proceed with the question of annexation in such situations. According to the annexation policy Section A., Annexation Options - Policy 2 states as follows: When an owner petitions for annexation or the extension of services for property that lies outside of the Kalispell Annexation Boundary Area there are four different options that could be pursued based on conditions and circumstances: 1. Direct annexation of the property into the city, 2. Filing a petition to waive the right to protest annexation, 3. The creation of an annexation district, or 4. Denial of the request. Options analysis: 1. Direct annexation - The property must meet 2 of 3 criteria. The site meets one criteria in that it abuts the city and annexation would form a logical extension of the city. However, at present time it fails the 2 remaining criteria. The property is outside the immediate 5-minute response time of the fire department. Secondly the property will unduly stretch all other city services. It is beyond the reasonable and efficient police response area as well as reasonable snow plowing, street maintenance and sewer and water maintenance crew's access. 2. Waiver of Protest to annexation - It must meet the majority of 6 criteria. It appears to meet 4 1/2 to 5 of the criteria as follows: a. The property is outside the city's annexation boundary: Yes M b. The property lies in the immediate path of additional annexations: Yes, the site is adjacent to the city. c. The property will be adjacent to existing city infrastructure in the next 10 - 20 years: Yes. Sewer and water service is available today. There is a future fire station site in Silverbrook adjacent to the site. Church Drive is a city street which abuts the south side of the site. d. The property is within the service area of the Kalispell Fire Department and is serviceable by proposed/existing municipal water and sewer. The site is outside the 5 minute response time of the fire department however it is adjacent to a future fire station site. City water and sewer serve the site. e. Services to the site can be provided in the near term by other than municipal means. Fire - West Valley could continue to provide fire protection. Streets - A private owners association could be responsible for road maintenance in the short term. Police - the county sheriff's office could continue to provide law enforcement, park maintenance and policing development standards. Sewer and water - Municipal water and sewer are already there, thus it would be most reasonable for the city to provide maintenance and service. f. Development of the property achieves key goals of the growth policy, or provides a necessary community connection, facility, infrastructure component or community benefit. The only community benefit ascertainable at this time would be the ability of the city to influence the type and pattern of development on this property and to set the level of urban standards it could and should be built to. This would include implementing the entrance corridor design standards espoused in the Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment and a design that addresses traffic flows so as to avoid a new traffic light at the Majestic entrance. 3. Annexation district - available if the property meets the following: a. The project meets a significant number of criteria in 2. above. As stated above, the project meet 4112 - 5 criteria above. G b. The property would be adjacent to or inside the city's annexation boundary in the next 5 - 10 years. The site abuts the city limits and the annexation boundary today. It is expected that it will be within the annexation boundary within 10 years. 4. Denial of request - this would be the "no action" position. • Because the site abuts the city limits and has access to city streets and sewer and water, this would only be considered a feasible short term option if the applicants agreed not to proceed with development plans at this time. • It would only be considered a viable long term option if the city determined that in the very long term future Church Drive was the permanent northern boundary of the city. Annexation policy conclusions: • The site is not conducive to immediate annexation. • The site could be considered for extension of services and waiver of protest to annexation; however using this method would allow the site to be planned and developed typically under county review and county rural standards. It would not provide for building department review of construction and would not allow for collection of impact fees. A possibility would be to enter into an MOU with the county allowing the city to take lead in the design review process. • The site could be considered for an annexation district where the planning and design would happen at the city level and the provision of urban services could be timed and orchestrated between the city (water and sewer), homeowners association (streets and parks) and current rural service providers (West Valley Fire, Sherriff's Office). It would also allow for building inspection and the payment of impact fees. • "No action" would not be beneficial in the long term to the city unless the city council so determined that the city will never grow north of Church Drive. I APPENDIX B TRUMBULL CREEK CROSSING PHASE 2 Background: Please note that Trumbull Creek Phase 1, a 54 lot single family residential development received final plat approval from Flathead County in 2007. At that time the City of Kalispell entered into an MOU with Flathead County and accepted a waiver of protest to annexation to allow the subdivision to hook up to the Evergreen Sewer District collection system. Immediately after this approval, the developer, Mike Anders, submitted Trumbull Creek Phase 2 to the City of Kalispell. The developer initially submitted a petition for annexation, and initial PUD zoning and subdivision approval. After a cursory review by the city staff the developer elected to put the entire project on hold until the project engineer could work out a proposed storm water plan for the subdivision. The developer's consultants resubmitted the project in August, 2009. The project was heard by the Kalispell Planning Board in October, 2009. The board did recommend approval of Phase 2 with a series of conditions and that recommendation was forwarded to the city council. In addition, the planning board sent a separate letter to the council pointing out that while the PUD and subdivision proposal was well put together, the planning board, which did not review the annexation request, felt that the council needed to take a close look at the location of this project so far from the city core. At that time, the city had not yet adopted a formal annexation policy. The project has been somewhat dormant until June 23, 2011 when Sands Surveying, on behalf of Mike Anders sent a letter to the city requesting permission to have Phase 2 considered as an annexation district. Project summary: Trumbull Creek Phase 2 included 160 acres for consideration of annexation with a subdivision proposal requesting 176 single- family residential lots on a portion of the site. The southern boundary of the project site is located at the northern terminus of Mountain View Drive located in Trumbull Creek Crossing Phase 1. Trumbull Creek Crossing Phase 1 is located on the north side of East Reserve Drive, just over 1/4 of a mile east of the intersection of Highway 2 and East Reserve Drive. The project site continues north from the northern boundary of Trumbull Creek Crossing Phase 1 to Rose Crossing. The western boundary of the project site includes approximately 2,000 lineal feet of frontage on Highway 2. The eastern boundary of the project site is made up of existing farm land and portions of Trumbull Creek and Spring Creek. The 160 acre project site can be described as Assessor's Tracts 3A, 313, 3BA, and 7F in Section 28, and 3C in Section 27, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Principle Meridian, Montana. 7 Below is an aerial photo of the 160 acre project site and surrounding area. The project site is outlined in red and filled with the cross hatching. The associated floodplains are also shown along Trumbull Creek, Spring Creek and a historic drainage channel. Trumbull Creek Crossing Project Vicinity Map The property is currently in the county zoning jurisdiction and is zoned SAG-10 (Suburban Agricultural) with a minimum lot area requirement of 10 acres and provides areas of estate -type residential development. The 160 acre project site is minimally developed with one house and six out buildings located centrally within the project site and one house and detached garage located on the north side of the project site. The site is currently farmed. The issue: The crux of the issue faced by Mr. Anders is that he would like to have access to municipal sewer. Phase 1 was partially in the Evergreen Sewer District, but a majority of the site was outside the district boundaries. The City of Kalispell, via a waiver of protest to annexation allowed Mr. Anders to secure sewer to all 54 residential lots in Phase 1. The process involved an MOU with Flathead County allowing the Kalispell Planning Board the opportunity to review phase 1, modifying conditions of approval as were warranted and requiring the infrastructure to be built to Kalispell city standards. The Flathead County Planning Board and Flathead County Commissioners then generally honored the Kalispell Planning Board recommendations and granted preliminary and final plat approval. Mr. Anders in 2007 then approached the Flathead County Planning Office with a request to rezone phase 2 for his next phase of development. Flathead County ultimately denied the rezone request and directed Mr. Anders to work with the city of Kalispell. Mr. Anders then began working with the City of Kalispell and as described above in the introduction, the project continues to be on hold. Annexation Policy Review - This project is reviewed under the current Kalispell Annexation Policy criteria: Status of municipal services available to serve the site: Water system - The site lies within the Evergreen Water District. Evergreen Water currently serves Phase 1 and the developer is proposing the same relationship for his proposed Phase 2. Sanitary sewer - The site lies 1,000 feet north of the Evergreen Sewer District boundary. By agreement between the City of Kalispell and the Evergreen Sewer District, the city has allocated an additional 100,000 gallons of additional capacity that can be utilized for projects that lie outside of the Evergreen Sewer District. Phase 2 would be eligible for access to this capacity. The site lies over two miles away from the nearest city main located at Village Greens or more practically three miles from the West Reserve and Highway 93 intersection thus a new sewer extension to Kalispell is not feasible at this time. Streets - The closest city streets are 2-3 miles away. The existing phase 1 project is utilizing private streets maintained by a homeowner's association. Phase 1 streets were built to Kalispell city standards and inspected by our inspectors as part of the MOU developed when Phase 1 C was approved. The proposed Phase 2 project being considered now proposes the same relationship. Parks - There are no city parks within 2 miles of this site. The developer has proposed a parklands and open space program maintained by a private homeowners association. This is currently being done for phase 1. Police - The site is significantly far from the city core. Phase 1 is currently served by the Flathead County Sherriff's office. Phase 2 is requesting the same arrangement. Fire - The site is significantly far from the city core and exceeds the 5 minute response time from either station 61 or 62. Providing municipal fire service would unduly stretch the department and response times would be slow. The proposed phase 2 site is within a 2 - 3 minute response time of the Evergreen Fire Department. Phase 1 is presently served by the Evergreen Fire District. Planning Issues - The Kalispell Planning Board in their 2009 review noted that the council should move cautiously forward with any annexation proposal as the phase 2 site is over 2 miles from the nearest city boundary. The city growth policy anticipates that urban scale development in the range of 4 units per acre gross density will occur here however there is no timing mechanism associated with the plan which casts a vision for the next 20 or more years. The annexation policy which serves as a timing mechanism for the growth policy sets a logical eastern annexation boundary for at least the next 10 years at the Whitefish River which is over one mile away from Trumbull Creek phase 2. The planning board did review Trumbull Creek Crossing Phase 2 in October 2009 and after a public hearing did unanimously recommend approval of the project. They concluded it was well thought out, properly designed and would serve as a logical extension of the existing phase 1. Growth Policy - Annexation Policy analysis: The recently adopted Annexation Policy (amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy) provides policy guidance on how to proceed with the question of annexation in such situations. According to the annexation policy Section A., Annexation Options - Policy 2 states as follows: a When an owner petitions for annexation or the extension of services for property that lies outside of the Kalispell Annexation Boundary Area there are four different options that could be pursued based on conditions and circumstances. They are as follows: 1. Direct annexation of the property into the city, 2. Filing a petition to waive the right to protest annexation, 3. The creation of an annexation district, or 4. Denial of the request. Below is a summary of each option: 1. Direct annexation - The property does not meet any of the three criteria established for direct annexation to the city. a. The site does not lie within or immediately adjacent to the annexation boundary and in fact lies one mile beyond the boundary. b. The property is outside the immediate 5-minute response time of the Kalispell Fire Department and there are no imminent plans to change this. c. Finally, the property will unduly stretch all other city services. It is beyond the reasonable and efficient police response area as well as reasonable snow plowing, street maintenance, sewer and water maintenance and parks crew access. 2. Waiver of Protest to annexation - To be considered for this option, the site must meet a majority of 6 criteria. At this time however, Trumbull Creek Phase 2 appears to meet less than half of the criteria as follows: a. The property is outside the city's annexation boundary: Yes - this criterion is met. b. The property lies in the immediate path of additional annexations: No, the site is adjacent to Trumbull Creek Phase 1 which has a signed waiver of protest to annex to the city, however, there are not any pending negotiations with any other development parcels between Trumbull Creek and the current annexation boundary. c. The property will be adjacent to existing city infrastructure in the next 10 - 20 years: It is immediately adjacent to city sewer via the Evergreen Sewer District collection system. It is immediately serviceable by the Evergreen Water District. All other municipal services are significantly far away at this time with no adopted plan to extend them in this direction within the next 5-10 years. 11 d. The property is within the service area of the Kalispell Fire Department and is serviceable by proposed/existing municipal water and sewer. The site is outside the 5 minute response time of the fire department however it is immediately adjacent to public water and sewer. e. Services to the site can be provided in the near term by other than municipal means. This criterion is met. Fire - Evergreen Fire provides immediate response times to the site and could continue to provide fire protection. Streets - A private owners association could be responsible for road maintenance in the short and long term. Police - The county sheriff's office could continue to provide law enforcement. Sewer and water - Public water and sewer are already available to Phase 1 of Trumbull Creek, thus it would be most reasonable for Phase 2 to continue to use these services with Evergreen providing public water and through agreement, access to Evergreen Sewer. Parks - Phase 1 currently uses a private park system, phase 2 could also incorporate a private homeowner's maintenance association. f. Development of the property achieves key goals of the growth policy, or provides a necessary community connection, facility, infrastructure component or community benefit. The Planning Board indicated this was a well planned and well thought out project and phase 1 appears to be a very high quality development. However, at this time the proposed neighborhood is significantly far from Kalispell proper and any neighborhood connection is remote. 3. Annexation district - Available if the property meets the following: a. The project meets a significant number of criteria a - f above in section 2. As stated above, the project meets less than half of the criteria above. b. The property would be adjacent to or inside the city's annexation boundary in the next 5 - 10 years. The site lies over a mile from the current annexation boundary (Whitefish River) and presently there are no ongoing negotiations with any properties that would cause the boundary to move in the short term. 12 4. Denial of request - This would be the "no action" position. This option does not allow the applicants to have access to the Evergreen Sewer collection system as is provided for in the interlocal agreement between Kalispell and Evergreen Sewer. The applicant would then either pursue an alternate sewage disposal program and/or dramatically reduce density. Annexation policy conclusions: • The site is not conducive to immediate annexation. • The site does not meet the explicit criteria for extension of services with a waiver of protest to annexation. However using this method would allow the site to be planned and developed encouraging urban design standards. The Phase 1 development could serve as the template. However, there is only 100,000 gallons of treatment capacity available through the Evergreen Sewer District agreement with Kalispell and this will not meet the entire project demand for lands owned by Mr. Anders. It does not provide a permanent long term fix for his needs. • The site does not appear to be ripe for an annexation district because of the 10 year time frame and the depressed economy that pervades the valley at least in the short term. A majority of services can be provided by agencies other than the city; however, there is no expectation that in 10 years Kalispell will be in the position to take over these services. • "No action" would resolve the issue on the part of the city but would leave the developer in a lurch without a clear indication of whether he had access to any of the 100,000 gallons in capacity that was negotiated between Kalispell and the Evergreen Sewer District. 13