2. Resolution 5484A - Adopting Growth Policy Amendment - Annexation Policy Resolution 5484B - Rejecting Growth Policy Amendment - Annexation PolicyPLANNING FOR THE FUTURE MONT"A
REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council
FROM* Tom Jentz, Director
Jane Howington, City Manager
Planning Department
2011" Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (40 6) 758-7940
Fax: (406) 758-7739
www.katispell.com/planning
SUBJECT Draft Annexation Policy proposed as an amendment to the Kalispell Growth
Policy 2020
MEETING DATE: March 71, 2011
BACKGROUND: The city council at the February 22, 2011 city council meeting held a public
hearing concerning Resolution 5477 — a Resolution to Adopt, Amend or Deny the proposed
Annexation Policy. At the hearing Planning Director Tom Jentz gave the staff presentation on the
draft policy. No one spoke at the hearing and the hearing was closed. Action on the proposed
policy was set for the March 7, 2011 City Council meeting.
By way of background, the Kalispell City Planning Board met on January 11, 2011 and held a public
hearing to consider the adoption of an annexation policy as an amendment to the Kalispell Growth
Policy 2020. Kalispell Planning Department staff presented staff report #KGPA-10-01 noting that
the city council had requested the planning board to prepare such a policy last January. Staff
indicated that the draft policy is the product of 6 planning board work sessions and that the draft had
been sent out to 17 different agencies and groups for review and comment including the rural fire
departments, rural school departments, Evergreen water and Sewer District and Evergreen Disposal.
The planning board also met jointly with the county planning board in October and received strong
support for the policy as presented. Staff concluded by stating that the policy reflects the concerns
raised by the city council at the July work session.
At the public hearing one individual asked for some additional information, no one else testified. The
public hearing was then closed.
The board discussed the annexation policy at length and reviewed the boundaries of the proposed
annexation boundary map noting that the Stillwater River formed a very definitive eastern boundary
between Kalispell and Evergreen. They also noted that the new policy would encourage infill as well
as limited development on the fringes of the city while at the same time providing processes for those
projects that might lie further out from the immediate boundaries of the city. The planning board
then moved to adopt Resolution KGPA 10-01 which supported the proposed annexation policy and
recommended that the city council adopt the policy as an amendment to the Kalispell Growth policy
2020. The vote was unanimous.
RIECOMMENDATION: Recommend changes as necessary and approve the proposed annexat io n
policy.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Actual adoption of the annexation policy will have no fiscal impact initially;
however by following the procedures outlined in the policy each time an annexation is proposed, the
city should experience significant long terra savings through fiscally responsible annexations.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the city council.
Respectfully submitted,
Torn Jentz
Director
Report compiled: March Z, 2011
c: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk
c
Jane Howington
City Manager
WHEREAS, pursuant to MCA 76-1-601 the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020 was originally adopted
by the Kalispell City Council on February 18, 2003; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the statutory requirement that the enacted growth policy be reviewed on a
regular basis the Kalispell Planning Board has been reviewing land use information,
traffic patterns, environmental constraints, and growth trends in Kalispell; and
WHEREAS, based upon its review the Planning Board determined that it would be appropriate to
assist the development community and elected officials in determining appropriate
tinning and procedures for annexations of land to the City of Kalispell; and
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2011, the Kalispell City Planning Board held a public hearing, after
due and proper notice, received public comment upon., and reviewed Kalispell
Planning Department report #KGPA- 10-1, which evaluated the proposal based upon
the goals and objectives of the Growth Policy and current circumstances in the
planning jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said public hearing and after consideration of the proposed
amendment, the Kalispell City Planning Board adopted report #KGPA--10-1, as the
findings of fact and recommended approval of the proposed Growth Policy
amendment-, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell, on February 7, 2011, passed Resolution
5477, a Resolution of Intention to Adopt, Revise or Reject a Proposed Amendment to
the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020 and called for a public hearing to be held on
February 22, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell, after due and proper notice, held a public
hearing on February 22, 2011, and received no oral public comments on the
recommendations of the City Planning Board and the Kalispell Planning Department
report #KGPA.-10--1; and
WHEREAS, based upon the recommendations of the Kalispell Planning Board, as well as
considering all of the evidence provided by public comment, the City Council of the
City of Kalispell finds that it is in the best interest of the City to amend the Kalispell
Growth Policy 2020, pursuant to the recommendations of the City Planning Board
and to adopt, as its findings, Kalispell Planning Department report KG PA.-10-1, and
to amend the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020 as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A"
and consisting of an Annexation Policy and Map.
;:i
',
E IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. That pursuant to Section 76-1-604, MCA, the City Council of the City of
Kalispell hereby adopts an amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020,
said amendment as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" consisting of an
Annexation Policy and Map.
SECTION II. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage by the
City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE
CITY O [. DAY O
. 1.:; . 1. I
ATTEST.
Theresa White
City Clerk
Ta.mrni Fisher
Mayor
� IT "A"
1CLISPELL ANNEXATION POLICY
RECOMMENDED BY THE KALISPELL PLANNING BOARD
JANUARY 11, 2011
The Kalispell Annexation Policy is uniquely crafted to address and balance the competing demands
of developments proposed in those areas adjacent to the city with the timing and provision of
municipal services that accompany any development that occurs in the greater Kalispell Growth.
Policy area. The Annexation policy consists of a reap and text. The map graphically portrays those
areas adjacent to the city where requests for annexation would be routinely embraced and conversely
those areas further out where requests for annexation or municipal service may be provided using
alternative measures. The associated policy text provides further guidance in interpreting the map
and providing suggested procedures to follow. The focus of the annexation policy is threefold:
1. To provide for the most efficient pattern., of growth in and adjacent to the city.
2. To provide for the most efficient extension of municipal services to lands proposed for
annexation either now or in the future.
3. To provide for the viable future growth of the city of Kalispell unhindered by the
encroachment of substandard rural development.
The Annexation Policy Map (attachment 1) provides a graphic policy statement showing a boundary
around the city where direct annexation upon request by a property owner would be supported.
Those areas beyond the annexation boundary would require additional scrutiny and possibly be
subject to various alternative methods both in terms of the method of annexation as well as the
timing and provision of municipal services.
The annexation boundary reap was intended to be a general policy statement not a fixed regulatory
document. The boundary was intended to address the impacts of logical development patterns and
growth within the city that would occur over the next 5. 10 years. It was noted that the city has
experienced an historical boom during the first decade of the 2 1 " century in which both our
population and boundaries grew 50%. At the same time the end of this decade brought upon us one
of the greatest recessionary periods experienced by our residents that literally brought development
in the city to a standstill, while neither should be used to predict the future of our community, the
ramifications of both must be factored into our planning considerations.
In developing the annexation boundary map, a series of factors were melded together to create a
unified policy. The boundary was intended to reflect growth that would occur in the next 10 years.
Many factors were considered in developing this map. First, obvious topographic boundaries were
used: Flathead and Stillwater Rivers and Ashley Creep and Lone Pine Sate Park. where geographic
boundaries were not evident, a boundary that generally extended 1I4 nude beyond the current city
limits was incorporated to allow for efficient annexation adjacent to the city without a hard and fast
policy that new growth had to touch the city. In addition, the availability of city services including
the 5-minute fire response service area and presence of municipal water and sewer lines were
factored into the process.
The annexation policy reap needs to be reviewed at least every S years to beep it relevant as the city
grows.
The policy statements below must be used to interpret the annexation policy map. This policy is
intended to apply to all annexations of land as well as requests for municipal services for lands
outside the city. This would include both obvious annexations as shown within the annexation policy
boundary map, lands outside the annexation boundary area and wholly surrounded lands inside the
city limits proposed for annexation. This framework describes various options for annexation (direct
annexation, the use of waiver of protest to annexation and the creation of annexation districts) and
when it is appropriate to consider each.
1. Properties inside the Kalispell .Annexation Boundary area when an owner petitions for
annexation:
a. The property owner submits a written petition for annexation to the Planning
Department.
b. City would follow the `Direct .Annexation" process.
2. Properties outside of the Kalispell .Annexation Boundary Area when an owner petitions for
annexation:
a. The property owner submits a written petition for annexation to the Planning
Department.
b. The Planning Board would review the merits of the annexation and make one of the
following recommendations based on promoting a logical and efficient development
pattern for the city:
1) Direct Annexation:
i. Available if the property meets two or more of the following criteria:
1. The property lies in the immediate path of additional annexations
which will form a logical extension of the city.
2. The property lies within the existing service area of the Fire
Department.
3. The annexation achieves one or more key goals of the growth policy
or provides a necessary community connection, facility or
infrastructure component.
2) Petition to waive Right to Protest .Annexation
i. Available if the property meets a majority of the following criteria:
1. The property is outside of the city's annexation boundary.
2. The property lies in the immediate path of additional annexations.
3. The property is in an area that may possibly be adjacent to existing
city infrastructure (sewer, water, fire service area) in the next 10 — 20
years.
4. The property is within the service area of the Kalispell fire
department and is serviceable by existing or proposed extensions to
municipal water or sewer services.
S. Services within the property can be provided in the near term by other
than municipal means (private road user's agreements, private
homeowner's association maintenance of parks and open space,
contracting with rural fire districts, etc.) until the time that the city
actually annexes the property.
6. Development of the property achieves one or more key goals of the
growth policy or provides a necessary community connection, facility,
infrastructure component or community benefit.
3} The Creation of an Annexation District.
i. Available if the property meets the following criteria:
1. The property .meets a significant number of criteria as listed in
number 2) Petition to waive Right to Protest Annexation above and,
2. The property would be adjacent to or inside the city's annexation
boundary area in the next 5 - 10 years.
ProcessesB, Annexation
1. Direct Annexation Process (Property owner petitions)
a. The property owner submits a petition for annexation to the Planning Department.
b. Staff would prepare a cost of services plan.
C. The Planning Board determines that direct annexation is appropriate.
d. The Planning Board holds a hearing for the purpose of recommending the most
appropriate zoning.
e. Planning Board recommendations on annexation and zoning are forwarded to the
City Council.
f. The City Council would act on the annexation request and if appropriate approve the
appropriate zoning.
. Petition or Waiver of Right to Protest Annexation: (Property owner Petitions)
a. The property owner submits a petition for annexation to the Planning Department.
b. Staff would prepare a cost of services plan.
C. The Planning Board makes a reconunendation on the most appropriate process to
follow — in this case waiver of protest to annexation - to the City Council.
d. The City Council acts on the Planning Board recommendation. If the Council
concurs that a waiver of annexation is most appropriate the following procedures
occur:
1) The property owner enters into an inter -local agreement with the city and the
county stating that the city will provide specified services (typically water
and/or sewer) extended at the property owner's expense and that in exchange:
i. The property owner will agree to submit a waiver of protest of
annexation to- the city.
ii. The property owner ensures that the development will be built to
Kalispell Urban Standards and allow city inspection of the
improvements as they are installed to ensure that all future public
infrastructure is built to proper standards.
iii. Finally the property owner agrees to require that all structures will be
built in accordance to the building codes adopted by the city of
Kalispell at the time of construction and that they will provide for
proper inspections.
2) Kalispell Site Review Committee will review the development proposal to
ensure that the development is built to Kalispell Urban Standards.
3) Kalispell Site Review Committee passes these recommendations on to the
Flathead County Planning Board to incorporate into their staff review.
4) If infrastructure is not built to Kalispell Urban Standards, the requested
municipal public services will be withheld.
5) Under this policy, the city will annex this property at its own discretion,
without protest from the property owners, after giving due notice to the
property owners of the intent to annex.
e. The city staff would then monitor the development over time and make a
recor i-nendation to the City Council when actual annexation would appear to be
appropriate. As a justification for annexation an updated "Cost of Services Plan"
would be prepared by staff .
3. The Creation of an Annexation District: (Properties Owner's Petition)
a. The property owner submits a petition for annexation to the Planning Department.
b. Staff would prepare a cost of services plan.
C. The Planning Board makes a recommendation on the most appropriate process to
follow — in this case creation of an annexation district - to the City Council.
d. The City Council acts on the Planning Board recommendation. If the council concurs
that the creation of an annexation district is most appropriate the following
procedures occur:
1) The property owner enters into an inter -local agreement with the city and the
county stating:
a. The city will be creating an annexation district.
b. The city and its boards and staff will be responsible for review and
approval of any development proposal on the site.
C. The city will utilize its zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations and
be guided by its growth policy in the review of any project or
development plan.
d. Any development will be built to Kalispell Urban Standards.
e. All public infrastructure will be inspected by the city.
f. The agreement will list a timetable and responsibility for the
provision of each of the basic urban services.
i. Urban services include sewer, water, storm water, street
construction and maintenance, street tree maintenance, police
and fire services, building inspection, parrs development and
maintenance and garbage collection.
ii. where services are initially to be provided by an entity other
than the city such as a private contractor, home owners
association, local government district or the county,
provisions shall be made by the property owner to
compensate those entities.
iii. where any services are provided directly by the city,
assessments or payments in lieu of taxes shall be assessed
and collected by the city to adequately compensate for the
services rendered.
g. At the time of building permit, all city impact fees shall be collected
and placed in an escrow account until the property is actually
annexed.
h. The agreement shall have a 10 year maximum life. At the end of the
specified agreement the city shall either provide for an extension (if
provided for in law) or annex the property.
mill U I I I I I IIII 11� ITIN I IRS
.. ..
Part 7--2-45 MCA provides a process for the city to annex wholly surrounded land. The law
provides that the city shall pass a resolution of intent, give notice to the affected property
owners and precede with annexation without a petition or request from the affected
surrounded property owners. The basis of this law is that properties, because of their
location within the boundaries of a city are in effect already receiving some municipal
services without paging their fair share in support. The residents drive city streets, have
access to city parrs, have city police patrolling in and around their neighborhoods, have
access to fire protection in case of a major incident, etc. In addition such annexations
simplify the provision of emergency services creating a clear line of agency primary
responsibility when an emergency does arise.
a. The City Council directs the Planning Board to proceed with the annexation of
properties wholly surrounded per 7-2-(4501-4511) MCA.
b. The planning staff notifies the affected property owners within the wholly surrounded
area to be annexed.
C. Staff would prepare an extension of services plan showing how all municipal services
can be provided to the properties, either immediately in the case of fire, police, road
maintenance, parr maintenance or where .major utilities or facilities are messing such
as water mains, fire hydrants or sewer mains, financing options that would be
available to the property owners.
d. Informational materials are made available to the property owners explaining the
process, the type of zoning proposed and the impacts this annexation would have on
their property.
e. The Planning Board holds a public hearing for the purpose of recommending the
most appropriate zoning.
f. Planning Board recommendation is forwarded to the City Council.
g. The City Council would act on the Planning Board recommendation for annexation
and approve the appropriate zoning classification or classifications.
r r ' i
T 14 �'H"'Y FAj� • F ..� L L'
:
i
{
wip
e .
At
p
:
N t,"
1
.. a.
4 _
�r Y
n 1r�
U 21
I v
. i-
•J
p.
u�
�`� S.. � • � 5 ' dye l Jam,. �.
•i # 9
p
� p � :
3 IM
:
e. •
I r y
at A
h — w
y x-
ot
.A.
j � I ' •
w
- j1 YI
i
I �
+ y �
: 1
x.
r � •
M - fi
, ,4dW r
k„
Legend
(imagery from October 2009)
x�.
r City of Kalispell
"�* h
ir
L,
h i J
Evergreen Sewer FB ID
Alternate U.S. Highway 93 Route
Annexation Policy Boundary
Miles
0 0,25 0.5 1.5 2 2.5
1 > A�;SOLUTION REJECTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE KALISPELL GROWTxTJ
!• ',`
WHEREAS, pursuant to MCA 76-1-601 the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020 was originally adopted
by the Kalispell City Council on February 18, 2003; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the statutory requirement that the enacted growth policy be reviewed on a
regular basis the Kalispell Planning Board has been reviewing land use information,
traffic patterns, environmental constraints, and growth trends in Kalispell; and
WHEREAS, based upon its review the Planning Board determined that it would be appropriate to
assist the development community and elected officials in determining appropriate
timing and procedures for annexations of land to the City of Kalispell; and
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2011, the Kalispell City Planning Board held a public hearing, after
due and proper notice, received public comment upon, and reviewed Kalispell
Planning .Department report #KGPA.-10-1, which evaluated the proposal based upon
the goals and objectives of the Growth Policy and current circumstances in the
planning jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said public hearing and after consideration of the proposed
amendment, the Kalispell City Planning Board adopted report # KGPA-10-1, as the
findings of fact and recommended approval of the proposed Growth Policy
amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell, on February 7, 2011, passed Resolution
5477, a Resolution of Intention to Adopt, Revise or Reject a Proposed Amendment to
the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020 and called for a public hearing to be held on
February 22, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell, after due and proper notice, held a public
hearing on February 22, 2011, and received no oral public comments on the
recommendations of the City Planning Board and the Kalispell Planning Department
report #KGPA-10-1; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell finds that it is not in the best interest of the
City to amend the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020, as recommended by the Kalispell
City Planning Board, said proposed amendment consisting of an Annexation Policy
and Map.
tiow, THEREFORE,
BE
KALISPELL, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. That pursuant to Section 76-1-604, MCA, the City Council of the City of
Kalispell hereby rejects the amendment that was the subject of the Kalispell
Planning Department report #KGPA- l0- I and recommended by the City
Planning Board to the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE
CITY OF KALISPELL, THIS 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011.
.ATTEST:
Theresa White
City Clerk
Tammi Fisher
Mayor
PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE
January 27, 2011
MONTANA
Jane Howington, City Manager
City of Kalispell
201 First Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Planning Department
201 V Avenue East
Kalispell MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940
Fax: (406) 758-7739
www.kalispell.com/plann'ing
Re: Adoption of Annexation Policy as an amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy
2020
Dear Jane:
The Kalispell City Planning Board met on January 11, 2011 and held a public hearing
to consider the adoption of an annexation policy as an amendment to the Kalispell
Growth Policy 2020.
Kalispell Planning Department staff presented staff report #KGPA- 10-0 1 noting that
the city council had requested the planning board to prepare such a policy last January.
Staff indicated that the draft policy is the product of 6 planning board work sessions
and that the draft had been sent out to 17 different agencies and groups for review and
comment including the rural fire departments, rural school departments, Evergreen
Water and Sewer District and Evergreen Disposal. The planning board also met
jointly with the county planning board in October and received strong support for the
policy as presented. Staff concluded by stating that the policy reflects the concerns
raised by the city council at the July work session.
At the public hearing one individual asked for some additional information, no one
else testified. The public hearing was then closed.
The board discussed the annexation policy at length and reviewed the boundaries of
the proposed annexation boundary map. The planning board then moved to adopt
Resolution KGPA 10-0 1 which supported the proposed annexation policy and
recommended that the city council adopt the policy as an amendment to the Kalispell
Growth Policy 2020. The vote was unanimous.
Please schedule this matter for the February 7, 2011 regular city council meeting. You
may contact this board or Tom Jentz at the Kalispell Planning Department if you have
any questions regarding this matter.
Attachments: Letter of transmittal
Staff Report #KGPA-IO-O 1 and supporting documents
Draft minutes from the I /I I /I I planning board meeting
c w/ Att: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk
lu'�,_*_-.LaISPELL
R POLICY
:= a t'
�>
KGPA-10-01
A report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding
the development and refinement of an annexation policy which will serve as an
amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy. A public hearing on this proposal has
been scheduled before the planning board for January 11, 2011. The planning board
will forward a recommendation to the city council for a second subsequent public
hearing and final action.
BACKGROUND: The Kalispell Growth Policy was adopted on February 13, 2003.
Page 62 of the Growth Policy states that the Growth Policy should be reviewed a
minimum of every 5 years in order to maintain relevance with existing conditions and
trends. Additionally the growth policy offers recommendations of further policies or
studies that should take place to allow the community to keep abreast of changing
situations and grow pressures. This is the basis of the proposed Annexation Policy
text amendment. Chapter 2 of the Growth Policy entitled Growth Management offers
the following goals and recommendations-.
Goal 1. Encourage efficient use of space, orderly growth consistent with
high quality of life, fiscal soundness, environmental conservation and
community vitality.
Goal 6. Provide adequate areas for growth and expansion with regard to
amount, tinting and location.
Recommendation 1. Adopt and maintain a municipal annexation program in
conjunction with the City of Kalispell water, Serer and Storm Drainage Facility
Plan to address service to fringe developments.
The Kalispell City Council sent a request to the Kalispell Planning Board in January
to prepare a draft annexation. policy. The purpose of the policy would be to give the
planning board, the council and the development community direction when outlying
property owners are requesting municipal services and annexation.
Public Process:
The Planning Board began the process in earnest holding 4 planning board work
sessions between January and April, 2010. Based on those discussions a draft was
prepared and presented to the Kalispell City Council in. July, 2010. The council
generally supported the process undertaken to -date and gave broad policy direction to
further refine the annexation. policy.
The planning board took the council suggestions, made modifications as appropriate
and then entered into a public outreach. phase. The planning board mailed a copy of
the draft policy to a broad group of affected agencies, organizations and individuals.
The mailing was intended to make these parties aware of the an.n.exation policy draft,
to invite their comments and to also make there aware of several planning board work
sessions on the policy in September and October that they could personally voice
their concerns if they had any. The mailing list included the following:
Evergreen solid Waste
Evergreen Rural Fire Department
Evergreen water and surer District
Evergreen school District
Flathead County Commissioners and Flathead County Planning Board.
Kalispell school District 5
Smith valley Rural Fire Department
Smith Talley school District
Somers school District
Somers Rural Fire Department
Somers County Water/Sewer District
South Kalispell Rural Fire Department
West Valley Rural Fire Department
West Talley school District
West Walley Land Use Advisory Committee
Engineers, surveyors and planners in Flathead County
Citizens for a Better Flathead
The Kalispell Planning Board then held a joint work session with the Flathead County
Planning Board on Tuesday October 26, 201 o and discussed the annexation policy at
length. The result of that meeting was a strong encouragement by the county
planning board to proceed with adoption of this policy.
The Kalispell Annexation Policy is uniquely crafted to address and balance the
competing demands of developments proposed in those areas adjacent to the city with
the tinning and provision of municipal services that accompany any development that
occurs in the greater Kalispell Growth Policy area. The Annexation Policy consists of
a map and text. The map graphically portrays those areas adjacent to the city where
requests for annexation would be routinely embraced and conversely those areas
further out where requests for annexation or municipal service may be provided using
alternative measures. The associated policy text provides further guidance in
interpreting the map and providing suggested procedures to follow. The focus of the
annexation policy is threefold:
1.. To provide for the most efficient pattern of growth in and adjacent to the city.
2. To provide for the most efficient extension of municipal services to lands
proposed for annexation either now or in the future.
3. To provide for the viable future growth of the City of Kalispell unhindered by
the encroachment of substandard rural development.
A copy of the proposed annexation boundary map and policy are attached. The
annexation policy text further describes the actual process undertaken to choose the
map boundaries and how the policies themselves were crafted. In brief, the planning
board worked to incorporate the general policy statements that were individually
voiced by various council members at the beginning of this process as presented
below:
2
1. consider lands to be near or immediately adjacent to existing city limits before
they are annexed. Consider the availability of municipal services.
2. Consider setting a boundary around the city based on distance ('/-i2mile or l
mile) from the existing city limits.
3. Set an annexation boundary around the city that is limited by natural
topography.
4. Set a boundary around the city based on a certain amount of anticipated
development (5 years or 10 years worth).
Require new annexations be infi.11 thus setting a boundary around the city
using the exterior limits of the islands (old school station, Silverbrook and
Three Mile Drive) .
6. For development proposals lying further out, consider annexation districts or
wa- vers of right to protest annexation instead of outright annexation.
Recommendation:
The Kalispell City Planning Board should take public comment at the public hearing.
Based on that comment and additional board discussion, the board should make
changes as they feel appropriate. staff recommends at that point the planning board
should, by resolution (sample to be provided) resolve to recommend to the city council
that the Kalispell Annexation Policy be adopted as an amendment to the Kalispell
Growth Policy.
The council will also hold a public hearing on the Growth Policy Amendment prior to
taking final action.
3
RESOLUTION NO., KGPA-10-1
ANNEXATION POLICY
AN AMIENDPAENT TO THE KALISPELL GROWTH POLICY 202A
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE KALISPELL CITY GROWTH
POLICY 2020 ADOPTED FEBRUARY 18, 2003 TO BE KNOWN AS THE KALISPELL
ANNEXATION POLICY AM:ENDMIENT
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Growth Policy 2020 was adopted by the Kalispell
City Council on February 18, 2003 with Resolution No. 4773; and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Council did request that the Kalispell Planning
Boa-rd develop an annexation policy for the city to assist both the development
communi C1 ty and elected officials *in.deter-mining appropriate timing and procedures for
annexations of land to the City of Kalispell, and
WHEREAS, for the previous gear the Kalispell City Planning Board has been
reviewing historical annexation activity, land use development patterns adjacent to the
city, environmental and geographic constraints in the areas adjacent to the city and
the availability of services and ability to extend those services beyond the city limits of
Kalispell, and
WHEREAS, the planning board has developed draft policies concerning
annexation of lands adjacent to the city, and
WHEREAS, the planning board contacted. approximately 17 interested agencies,
organizations and local units of government in and around. the Kalispell area seeking
their input and comment, and in addition held a joint work session with the Flathead
County Planning Board on October 26, 20 10 on this issue, and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board held a public hearing on January
111 2011 in the Kalispell City Council Chambers on the proposed amendments,
received comments. from the public, and proceeded to discuss the comments and
Growth Policy at length;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Kalispell City Planning Board
recommends to the Kalispell City Council, Exhibit A, Kalispell Annexation Policy and
Exhibit B. - Kalispell Annexation Policy Map to be adopted as an amendment to the
Kalispell Growth Policy 2020.
January 11, 2011
e s . icrent
?1s'pell City Planning