3. Resolution 5208 - Annexation - Gateway Properties LLC - Valley RanchCity of Kalispell
Planning Department
17 - 2ndStreet East, Suite 211
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Telephone: (406) 751--1850
Fax: (406) 751-185 8
website: kalispeilplanning. co m
REPORT TD: Kalispell Mayor and City Council
FROBE Sean Conrad, Senior Planner
James H. Patrick, City Manager
SUBJECT Gateway Properties LLC. - Annexation and Initial zoning of
R-2, Suburban Residential
MEETING BATE: July 2, 2007
BACKGROUND: The Kalispell City Planning Board met on April 10, 2007 and held a
public hearing to consider a request for annexation and an initial zoning designation
of R-2, Single Family Residential, and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay
district on an 80.7f acre project site. The 80.7t acre project site is located on the east
side of Highway 93 approximately 1 1/2 miles north of the mtersection. of Highway 93
and West Reserve Drive. The project site has approximately 1,100 feet of highway
frontage between the Ponderosa Veterinary Hospital and Montana Home Outfitters.
The properties included in the project site can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3 and
Tract 2 B C in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West.
Sean Conrad of the Kalispell Planning Department, presented staff reports #KA-07-5
and KPUD-07-2, evaluated the proposal, and recommended the planning board
recommend approving both the R-2 and PUD zoning request subject to the 13
conditions contained in the staff report. He noted the future subdivision plans for the
property but at this time staff is only evaluating the initial zoning and PUD.
At the public hearing the developer and two of his consultants spoke to the merits of
the project. These include the mix of housing types, additional parkland and open
space and how larger lots were *included along the northern boundary of the project
site to provide a transition into the Ponderosa subdivision.
During the public hearing portion of the meeting the board heard from 9 neighboring
residents. The majority of the speakers opposed the project based on concerns with
the density of the project, potential water impacts to surrounding properties, traffic
impacts, inadequate setbacks from the Ponderosa Subdivision and light pollution.
Those favoring the project felt the increased density made sense and the type of
density proposed should be located within the city limits. Others thought the project
was well thought out, and provided a lot of open space to coincide with the increased
housing density.
The planning board was also notified during the public hearing that a protest to the
initial zoning district of R.-2 was being submitted by adjoining property owners in
accordance with State law. This provision states that if over 25% of the property
owners living within 150 feet of the zone change protest, a um. of 2/3 of the city
council must approve the zone change.
After the public hearing was closed the planning board discussed the initial zoning of
the project site and recommended on a vote of 3-2 that the city Council approve an R-
2 zoning district for the site. The two board members who opposed the R-2 zoning
cited concerns with the density of the project, requested deviations in the PUD and
traffic impacts associated with the development of the site.
After further discussion on the requested PUD portion of the project, a motion was
made to table action on the PUD for Valley Ranch until the May 3, 2007 meeting. The
motion, to table passed on a roll call vote of 3 to 2. The board tabled discussion and
action on the PUD portion of the proposal to address concerns both the board and
public had on the project.
After the April 10thmeeting the developer revised the PUD plan submitted to the
planning board's April lothmeeting. The altered PUD plan illustrated hover staff
conditions and input from the public during the April 10th meeting would affect the
PUD plan. The altered PUD plan was provided to the planning board with an attached
memo prior to the May Sth meeting.
At the May 8, 2007 planning board meeting two more people spoke on the proposed
PUD plan during the general public comment period. The main issues brought up
were the increased density of the project, stoanwater, the public benefit the PUD
would provide and the inadequate notice of the revised PUD plan before the planning
board. The board continued discussion on the requested PUD. The main focus of
discussion was preserving the existing trees on the project site located between future
lots in the Valley Ranch PUD and homes in the Ponderosa Subdivision. Planning
board members noted that the revised plan dated April 23, 2007 provides a greater
setback along the homes in the Ponderosa subdivision and would help to preserve the
trees.
A motion was made to amend condition # 1 to delete Valley Ranch PUD plan dated 3-5--
07 and insert the modified plan dated April 23, 2007 and recommend approval of the
proposed PUD zoning district with the recommended conditions in the staff report as
amended. This motion passed unanimously.
At the city council meeting of June 4ththe council heard from the developer and people
spearing for and against the proposed zoning of R-2 and the requested PUD. Planning
staff also informed the council that a petition had been received with. over 25% of the
property owners living within 150 feet of the land requesting the zone change
protesting the requested zoning. In accordance with state law, staff informed the
council that a minimum of 2 j 3 of the city council must approve the zone change
request which includes the R-2 zoning and PUD zoning districts.
Based on conceals of inadequate information to address issues such as water, sewer,
stormwater and traffic as well as an insufficient information pertaining to architectural
renderings of future homes on the site, council elected to not take action on the
annexation request and instead scheduled the project for June 11 th work session..
At the June 11 to work session the council heard again from the developer, planning
staff and interested citizens. Some council members still took issue with the fact that
a subdivision application was not submitted in conjunction with the PUD application
to address issues brought up at the June 4thcouncil meeting.
After the June 11 to work session the developer contacted the planning department and
requested the PUD portion of the project be withdrawn and the request for annexation
with the initial zoning district of R-2 be forwarded back to the city council for the July
2 nd meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: A motion to approve the resolution annexing the property and
a motion to approve the first reading of the ordinance for initial zoning of R-2 would be
in order
FISCAL EFFECTS: Minor positive impacts once fully developed.
ALTERNATIVES'. As suggested by the city council..
Respectfully sub d,
Sean Conrad ames H. Patrick
Senior Planner City Manager
Report compiled: June 22, 2007
Attachments:
c: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk
c w/o Att.- Gateway Properties, Inc.
P.U. Box 5776
Kalispell, MT 59904
Sitescape Associates
P.U. Box 1417
Columbia Falls, MT 59912
Return to:
Theresa White
Kalispell City Clerk
Po Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
RESOLUTION NO. 5208
A RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE ALTERATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF
THE CITY OF KALISPELL BY INCLUDING THEREIN AS AN ANNEXATION CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS TRACT 2, TRACT 3 AND
TRACT 2BC IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 29 NORTH, RANGE 21 WEST, P.M.M.,
FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA, TO BE KNOWN AS VALLEY RANCH ADDITION
NO. 393; TO ZONE SAID PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KALISPELL
ZONING ORDINANCE, AND TO DECLARE AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell has received a petition from Gateway Properties, Inc., the
owners of property located on the east side of Highway 93 approximately 1 V2 miles
north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive, requesting that the
City of Kalispell annex the territory into the City, and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell Planning Department has made a report on the petitioner's Annexation
Request, #KA-07-5, dated March 26, 2007, and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission recommended that the
territory be zoned City R-2, Single Family Residential, on approximately 80.7 acres
upon annexation into the City of Kalispell, and
WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell desires to annex said property in accordance with Title 7,
Chapter 2, Part 46, Montana Code Annotated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. That all the real property as described above be annexed to the City of
Kalispell and the boundary of the City is altered to so provide, and
shall be known as Valley Ranch Addition No. 393.
SECTION II. Upon the effective date of this Resolution, the City Clerk is directed
to make and certify under the seal of the City, a copy of the record of
these proceedings as are entered on the minutes of the City Council
and file said documents with the Flathead County Clerk and
Recorder.
r rom and after the date of filing of said documents as prepared by the
City Clerk, or on the effective date hereof, Whichever shall occur
later, said annexed territory is part of the City of Kalispell and its
citizens and property shall be subject to all debts, laws and ordinances
and regulations in force in the City of Kalispell and shall be entitled
to the same privileges and benefits as are other parts of the City.
SECTION III. The territory annexed by this Resolution shall be zoned in accordance
With the Kalispell zoning ordinance.
SECTION IV. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the
City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR. OF THE
CITY OF KALISPELL, THIS 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2007.
Pamela B. Kennedy
Mayor
ATTEST:
Theresa White
City Clerk
KA-0'7-05
Valley Ranch Aaaexat3oa
Coat of Services Analysis (Residential)
Once annexed to the City, full City services will be made available to the property owner.
Any necessary infrastructure associated with a future development will be required to be
constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell's Design and Construction standards
and any other development policies, regulations or ordinances that may apply.
Number of Dwelling Units prgposed to be annexed
9
Estimated Increase in Pa elation: (based on US Census Figure of 2.2 per household)
1
1. Cost of Services
Per capita casts
+ Fire: $68.84 per person per year.
Additional costs to the fire department o x 58.84 = $ o
* Police: $110 per resident per year.
Additional costs to the police department 9 x 110.00 = $ o
• Administration: $39.48.
Additional cost to administration. 9 x 39.48 = $0
Solid Waste:
Additional cost to solid waste (none for five years) = $ 4
• Roads: $193.56 per dwelling unit
Additional cost in road maintenance 0 x 193.56 =$ D
• Water: $221.21 per ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit)
Additional cost in water line maintenance 0 x 221.21 = $0
* Sewer: $329.64 per ERU
Additional cast in sewer maintenance 0 x 329.64 = $9
Storm crater: $72.68 per ERU
Additional cost in storm. maintenance 9 x 72.68 $0
Total Anticipated Cost of services. $0
2. Assessment revenue based on square foo e:
Average s uare foot per lot ca pped at 1/2 acre :
• Storm sewer assessment $0.004480 per square foot
(capped at 1/2 acre for residential)
1
Revenue -storm sewer assessments: 1 x 21,780 x $0.0040 18 = $ 87
• Street maintenance assessment $0.0101 per square foot
(capped at 1/� acre for residential)
Revenue -street maintenance assessments 1 x 21,780 x $0.0101 = $ 220
• Urban forestry assessment $0.00135 per square foot
(capped at $150 for residential)
Revenue -urban forestry assessments 1 x 21,780 x $0.00135 = $ 29
• Special Assessments: There are no special assessments. _ $ 0
• Light maintenance assessment $0.003 per square foot
(no cap)
Revenue -light maintenance assessment 1 x 21,780. x $0.003 = $ 65
Total Anticipated Revenue From Assessments: $401
3. Tank revenue:
Assessed value of property: $57992
Total assessed value: 1 x 5,992 = $ 5,992
Total taxable: 5,992 x 0.03543 = $ 212
Total revenue based on 170 mill levy: $212 x 0.170 = 3�
Total anticipated Revenue from Property tares: $36
4. Impgct fees revenue:
• Water system impact fee $2,155 per residence
Revenue -water system impact fee upon hook up
• Wastewater impact fee $2,433 per ERU
(A singe family home is (1) ERU)
Revenue -wastewater impact fee upon connection
• Storm grater impact fee $1,092 per ERU
(A single family home is (1) ERU)
Revenue - existing development
• Police impact fee $43 per single family residential unit
Revenue - existing development
0 x $2,155 =$ 0
0 x $2,433 =$ 0
0 x $L092 =$0
0 x $43 = $0
• Fire impact fee $533 per unit (single family residential)
Revenue -existing development 0 x $533 = $0
Total Anticipated Revenue From Impact Fees:
$o
K
REVENUE SUNMMRY
Total assessment and table revenue to the City (Items 2 8v 3) $437
Less costs of services to the city (item 1) �0
Net annual revenue to the city $ 437
One Time Impact Fee Payment to the City (Item 4) $ 0
NOTE: This information is based upon assumptions regarding building valuations and
does not tale into consideration the build -out time or changes in methods of assessment
and estimated costs associated with services. This information can only be used as a
general estimate of the anticipated cost of services and revenue. Additionally, the impact
fees are based on an assumption that water and surer impact fees will be paid at the time
of hook up for the existing house and that storm water, police and fire impact fees are
payable at the time of annexation of an existing residence.
3
Gateway Properties, Inc.
REQUEST FOR INITIAL ZONING OF R-2 UPON ANNEXATION
STAFF REPORT #IAA-07-5
REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT # .07-2
KALISPELL PLANNMG DEPARTMENT
MARCH 26, 2007
A report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding the
request for annexation and initial zoning of R-2 (Single Family Residential) and a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) on a property located on the east side of Highway 93
approximately 11/� miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive.
A public hearing has been scheduled before the planning board for April 10, 2007,
beginning at 7: 00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The planning board will
forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action.
A, Petitioner and Owners:
Technical Assistance.
Gateway Properties, Inc.
P.G. Box 8776
Kalispell, MT 59904
(406) 249-7317
Sitescape Associates
P.O. Box 1417
Columbia Falls, MT 59912
(406) 892-3492
B. Nature of the Request: The property owners have requested annexation into the
City of Kalispell with the initial zoning of R-2 , Single Family Residential, and a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay zoning district on the 80.7f acre project
site. The PUD will be known as Valley Ranch and is proposing 204 residential lots,
29 townhouse lots, a future assisted and independent living facility with up to 120
units and 15.1 acres of open space and parkland on the project site. The proposed
plan departs from the requested zoning of R-2 with regards to uses permitted within
the zoning district, rrlirlimurn lot area, .inimum lot width and setback requirements.
A detailed discussion of the proposed deviations from the R-2 zoning district can be
found on page 6.
G. Location and Legal Description of Property: The properties included in the
proposed project can be described. as Tract 2, Tract 3 and Tract 2BC in Section 19,
Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 30.7f acre project site is located on the
east side of Highway 93 approximately 1 1/2 miles north of the intersection of
Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. The project site has approximately 1,100 feet
of highway frontage between the Ponderosa Veterinary Hospital and Montana Home
Outfitters. From the highway the project site extends east and south wrapping
around the southern boundary of the Ponderosa subdivision.
D. Ecisting Land Use and Zoning: The property is currently in the County zoning
jurisdiction and is zoned SAG-10, Suburban Agx-* cultural. The purpose of the SAG-
10 district is to provide and preserve agricultural functions and to provide a buffer
between urban and unlimited agricultural uses, encourage separation of such uses
in areas where potential conflict of uses will be mini d, and to provide areas of
estate -type residential development. The 80.7t acre project site is currently
undeveloped. The land is level for the most part with a small hilt along the western
boundary of the site adjacent to Highway 93. Portions of the eastern boundary of
the project site are at the base of another small hill, the majority of which makes up
the area developed with the Ponderosa Subdivision, a single-family residential
subdivision located in the county.
E. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning:
North: Single-family homes and commercial business, County D-1 and
County R-1 zoning
East: Single-family homes; County R-1 and SAG-10 zoning
South: Agricultural lands; County SAG-5 zoning.
West: Commercial businesses and National Guard Armory; County SAG -10
zoning
F. General Land Use Character: This site is in a mixed use area generally
characterized as agricultural lands mixed with single family residences to the east
and north of the site. Immediately south of the site is a large agricultural tract of
land currently undeveloped. To the west, along Highway 93, are existing
commercial businesses and a church. Across Highway 93, on its west side, is a
private golf course.
G. Utilities and Public Services.
Sewer:
City of Kalispell
Water:
City of Kalispell
Refuse:
Private contractor
Electricity:
Flathead Electric Cooperative
Gas:
NorthWestern Energy
Telephone:
CenturyTel
Schools:
School District #k5
Fire:
Kalispell Fire Department
Police:
City of Kalispell
I. EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR MTIAL ZONING AND
PROPOSED PUD OVERLAY
The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-303,
M. C.A. Findings of fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the
itemized criteria described by 75-2-304, M.C.A. and Section 27.30.020, Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance.
2
1. Does the requested zone coin ply- with the growth policy?
Can August 7, 2006 the Kalispell City Council adopted Resolution 5129E which
amended the Kalispell growth Policy Future Land Use map north to the
intersection of Highway 93 and Church Drive. On the amended land use map the
80.7 acre project site is designated Suburban Residential with typical densities of
up to 4 dwelling units per gross acre.
The R-2 zoning designation being proposed for the 80.7 acne project site can be
found to be consistent with the Suburban residential land use designation shown
on the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map dated August 8, 2006.
The R-2 zoning district is intended primarily for detached single-family dwellings.
It has a nminirnum lot size requirement of 9,600 square feet and a mir3imum lot
width of 70 feet. Setbacks are 20 feet in the front and 10 feet on the sides and
rear. The requested PUD would deviate from the Mi ' urn lot sues but would
maintain a single-family residential development except for a proposed assisted
and independent living facility in the northwest corner of the project site.
The Kalispell Growth Policy 2020, Chapter 3, Policy 9 states in part that
suburban housing densities should not exceed two to four dwellings per gross
acre. The proposed PUD would exceed this density slightly at approximately 4.5
dwelling units per gross acre, however section 27.21.030(4) of the Kalispell
Zoning ordinance allows a maximum permissible density of 5 dwellings per acre
if a residential PUD is created.
Subsection b of Policy 9 further states that the suburban residential designation
is intended to reduce density and development impacts in sensitive areas and
existing rural neighborhoods. The proposed R--2 zoning district limits the land
uses to primarily single-family residences with a density of approximately 4. 5
dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed PUD would provide for larger lots,
varying between 15,000± square feet to 30,000± square feet adjacent to the
Ponderosa subdivision, as well as lots smaller than nu*nimumr. lot size under the R-
2 zoning district. The Ponderosa subdivision is a rural neighborhood plated in
the late 1970's and early 1980's. Lots within the Ponderosa subdivision vary
between 1/2 acre to 1 acre in size. The proposed PUD layout would provide larger
lots adjacent to Ponderosa as described above. The larger lots would provide a
transition between the smaller single-farnily lots proposed in the interior of the
PUD layout. Therefore, the proposed R-2 zoning district and PUD can be found to
comply with the Suburban Residential land use designation and irnplernent the
policies regarding Suburban Housing as found in Chapter 3 of the Kalispell
Growth Policy.
2. Is the reguested zone designed to lessen congestion m the streets?
As part of the overall project proposal the developer had a traffic impact study
conducted to provide possible mitigation measures to the increase in traffic the
development proposal will have on Hi93. It can be anticipated that the
proposed zone change of the property will increase traffic impacts in the area due to
the relatively lour density of the area currently and the relatively higher density
allowed under the proposed R--2 and PUD zoning districts. However, through the
3
PUD and subsequent subdivision review process conditions will be recommended to
insure that e�dsting streets are upgraded and new traffic routes are provided to lessen
congestion in the streets. A full discussion of the traffic impact study and
recommended mitigation measures can be found under the review for the PUD in this
staff report.
3. will the re uested zone secure safety from fire, panic and other dan ers?
At the time this property is developed, the property owners will be required to
insure that there is adequate infrastructure in the case of an emergency. There
are no features related to the property which would compromise the safety of the
public. New construction will be required to be in compliance with the building
safety codes of the City which relate to fire and building safety. All municipal
services including police and fire protection, water and sewer service is available
to the property and will be utilized at the time another lot is created in the future.
The site is within the immediate service area of the new north Kalispell fire
station.
4. Will the requested zone romote the health and general welfare?
The requested zoning classifications will promote the health and general welfare
by restricting land uses to those which would be compatible with the adjoining
properties and provides a place for new housing in the community.
5. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air?
Setback, height, and coverage standards for development occurring on this site
are established in the Kalispell Zoning ordinance to insure adequate light and air
is provided.
6. will the re uested zone revent the overcrowding,.of land?
As previously noted, this area has been anticipated for suburban residential
development. The anticipated densities of the proposed zoning districts can be
found to be consistent with the land use designation for the site. All public
services and facilities will be available to serve this property. An overcrowding of
land would occur if infrastructure were inadequate to accommodate the
development in the area. This is unlikely to occur.
7. will the requested zone avoid undue concentration of eo le?
An increase in the number and concentration of people in the area will likely result
after this land has been converted from county agricultural zoning to a more intensive
residential use within the city. However, the intensity of the uses of the property
would be in direct relationship to the availability of public services, utilities and
facilities as well as compliance with established design standards. The design
standards and availability of utilities would provide the infrastructure needed to
insure that there will not be an overcrowding of the land or undue concentration of
people. Minn* mu m lot standards and use standards as well as subdivision
development standards will avoid the undue concentration of people at the time
the property is further developed.
4
8. will the re nested zone facilitate the adequate 2Lovision of transportation water,
sewerage schools arks and other ublic re ui ements?
Municipal water and sewer will be extended along Highway 93 past the site to the
Silverbrook Estates subdivision, located at the intersection of Church Drive and
Highway 93, this summer. The water and sewer lines will be sized to accommodate
this development. The developer would need to extend the needed city services that
are not currently extended to the property at the developers' expense and in
accordance with the city's policies and standards. New improvements to the property
such as roads, water, sewer, parks and drainage would be installed in accordance
with city policies and standards at the developers' expense thereby insuring that there
is adequate provision of services at the site prior to development. Fire, police,
ambulance and public access are adequate to accommodate potential impacts
associated with the development of this site. There will be impacts to services that
can be anticipated as a result of this proposal which can be met by the city. All
public services and facilities are currently available or can be provided to the
property.
9. Does the re nested zone 've consideration to the Particular suitability of the
pMpert or particu ar uses?
The 80.7 acre site is fairly level throughout with a small hill on the western
boundary of the site and some moderate slopes along the eastern boundary of the
site. The proposed R- 2 zoning would encompass the entire project site. As stated
previously, chapter 3, policy 9(b) of the Kalispell Growth policy states that the
Suburban Residential land use designation is intended to reduce density and
development impacts in sensitive areas. The Suburban Residential designation
encompasses the entire 80.7 acre project site.
Based on the location of the proposed R-2 and PUD zoning districts and their
corresponding uses and densities, the requested zoning does give consideration to
the particular suitability of the property for the particular uses under the
requested zoning districts.
10. Does the reguested zone 've reasonable consideration to the character of the
district?
The general character of the area is a mix of agricultural, commercial and rural
residential development. The proposed zoning allows this development to address
needs within the community for a variety of housing types an reasonable proximity to
the city core for the future. Availability of public water and sewer to the area indicate
that this type of development will continue to occur on the urban fringes of the
community to be developed with similar types of uses as is proposed with this
property, i.e. suburban residential rather than rural residential or agricultural uses.
It appears that the proposed rezoning gives reasonable consideration to the character
of the district.
11. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings?
The development anticipated under the proposed zoning is more intensive than the
5
land uses currently surrounding the project site. City standards will insure that there
is high quality development which will insure the value of buildings and homes is
protected, maintained and conserved. Value of the buildings in the area will be
conserved because the zoning will promote compatible and like uses on this
property as are found on other properties in the immediate area.
12. Will the re nested zone encouraize the most aRpropriate use of the land
throu out the munici ah ?
Suburban residential development is encouraged in areas were services and
facilities are available or can be extended to serve such development such as the
development being proposed in conjunction with the annexation, initial zoning
and PUD request. When the city council adopted the growth policy amendment
for this area and designated the 80.7f acre project site as Suburban Residential,
the council determined at that time suburban residential development was the
most appropriate use of this land. The proposed zoning is consistent with the
growth policy plan.
EVALUATION OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
Project Narrative: Valley Ranch is a residential planned unit development proposed
on property currently in the County. The property owners have requested
annexation into the city of Kalispell with the initial zoning of R-2. The proposed
PUD would allow a variety of residential uses on the 80.7 acre project site not
currently permitted within the R-2 zoning district. The PUD request includes
allowing 204 residential lots, 29 townhouse lots and a future assisted and
independent living facility. The 204 residential lots would vary in size from 6,000
square feet to over 1/2 an acre. The 29 proposed townhouse lots would range in size
from 2,640 square feet to 3,740 square feet. The assisted and independent living
facility is proposed in the northwest corner of the site. The facility would encompass
approximately 4.6 acres and., as stated in the application, will come back before the
planning board and city council as an amendment to the PUD when the developers
are ready to proceed with the facility. The intent of the initial zoning and PUD
request is to secure the zoning and requested deviations included in the PUD to
allow a future subdivision on the 80.7 acre site. The subdivision will, for the most
part, comply with the plan shown on the Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development.
In order to allow the design of the future subdivision shown as part of the
application, the proposed PUD seeks six deviations or relaxations from the Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance. The six relaxations are as follows:
1. Kalispell zoning Ordinance, Section 27. 05.040 (1) (Minimum lot size in the R-2
zoning district)
The ' ' um lot size of 9,600 square feet provides an overall maximum density
within the R-2 zoning district of 4 units per acre. The proposed PUD seeks a
density of approximately 4.4 units per acre (204 residential lots, 29 townhouse
lots, 120 unit assisted living facilty J 80.7 acres) which is slightly higher than the
Me
permitted density under the R-2 zoning district. However, this density does fall
within the permitted maximum permissible density of 5 dwelling units / acre under
section 27.21.030, Standards for Planned Um*t Development District (PULE), of the
Kalispell Zoning ordinance.
2. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (1) (Mininum. lot size in the R-2
zoning district)
This section requires a minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet for new lots created
in the R-2 zoning district. The owners are requesting a ' ' um lot size of 6,000
square feet for a detached, single family residence and 2,640 square feet for a
townhouse lot.
3. Kalispell Zoning ordinance, Section 27.05.020 (Permitted uses within the R-2
zoning district)
This section of the code does not permit townhouse units with a configuration. of 2
or more attached units. Townhouse units with a configuration of 2 or more
attached units are allowed as a conditional use requiring a conditional use permit
be secured prior to creating the townhouse lots. The developer is requesting that
the townhouse lots be a permitted use rather than a conditional use.
4. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (2) (Minimum lot width in the R-2
zoning district)
The rn *m-ir um lot width in the R-2 zoning district is 70 feet. The developer is
requesting the minirnurn lot widths be reduced to 48 feet for the detached single
family lots and 25 feet for the townhouse lots.
5. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (3) (Mm*u'num yard setbacks in the
R-2 Zoning district)
The section requires a front and side corner yard setback of 20 feet with side and
rear setbacks of 10 feet. The developer is requesting the setbacks be reduced to
10 feet for snide corner property boundary on all of the lots within the subdivision.
A reduction down to 5 feet from the side setbacks is also requested on all lots
except the larger detached single family lots lining the northern and eastern
boundaries of the project site (lots 1-1 b and 179-204 as shown on the valley
Ranch Planned Unit Development) . A 5-Moot rear yard setback is also proposed on
all lots with alley access. The 10-foot rear setback would still apply to those lots
without alley access.
6. Kalispell Zoning ordinance, Section 27.05.020 (Permitted uses within the R-2
zoning district) and Section 27.05.030 (Conditional. uses within the R-2 zoning
district)
The developer is requesting that an
up to 120 units be permitted within
and independent living facilities ar
within. the R-2 zoning district.
assisted and independent living facility with
the R-2 zoning district. Currently assisted
e not permitted or conditionally permitted
7
Criteria for the Creation of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District
The following information and evaluation criteria are from Section 27.21.020(2), of the
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the panned 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 of the neighborhood and the environmental values of an area.
The zoning ordinance has a provision for the creation of a PUD district upon annexation
of the property into the city.
Review of Application Based UR2n PUD Evaluation Criteria: The zoning regulations
provide that the planr»ng board shall review the PUD application and plan based on the
following criteria:
L The extent to which the plan departs from zoning and subdivision
regulations otherwise applicable to the subject property, including, but not
limited to, density, holy and use, and the reasons why such departures are
or are not deemed to be in the public interest;
As stated above the owners are requesting six relaxations in the zoning and subdivision
regulations. Below are the six relaxations requested with the consultants reasoning on
why such departures are deemed to be in the public interest. Planning staff has
provided its comments in italics.
1. Kalispell zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (1) (Minimum lot size in the R-2
zoning district)
The minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet provides an overall density within the
R-2 z0n.ing district of 4 units per acre. The proposed PUD seeks a density of
approximately 4.4 units per acre (204 residential Lots, 29 townhouse lots, 120
unit assisted living facilty/ 80.7 acres) which is slightly higher than the permitted
density under the R-2 zoning district. However, this density does fall within the
permitted maximum permissible density of 5 dwelling units/acre under section
27.21.030, Standards for Planned. Unit Development District (PUD).
Section 27. 03. 010, Intent of the R-2 zoning district, states that it is a district to
provide adequate lot areas for urban residential development. Development within
this district should have good thoroughfare and be in proximity to community and
neighborhood facilities such as schools, parks and shopping areas. Although much
of the immediate land surrounding the ,proposed PUD site is agricultural or rural
residential lands, the city of .Kalispell is quickly growing north into this area.
Silverbrook Estates, a. 586 residential and commercial development, has recently
been approved with the 32,E acre site annexed into the City. Sil verbrook Estates is
located approximately % mite north of this project. A proposal for a 'lifestyle center"
incorporating commercial office, retail and a mix of residential housing has been
discussed for the land immediately south of the project site. With recent
annexations and upcoming development proposals in this area, the proposed
development at 4.4 units an acre would provide a mix of housing types within close
proximity to community and neighborhood facilities. Me planning department
would encourage higher densities within close proximity to community and
neighborhood facilities.
2. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (1) (Minimum lot size in the R-2
zoning district)
This section requires a minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet for new lots created
in the R-2 zoning district. The owners are requesting a min mum lot size of 6,000
square feet for a detached, single family residence and 2,640 square feet for a
townhouse lot.
The Proposed reduction in lot sizes would allow the overall density of the
subdivision to increase. As stated above, the planning department does not have a
problem with the increase in density for the R-2 zoning district in this particular
area. The PUD would create smaller lots, however, the developers have offset the
smaller lots by creating larger lots, 113 of an acre and larger, along the northern
and eastern project boundaries. These larger tots would abut existing rots within
the Ponderosa subdivision and provide for a transition from the smaller single
family and townhouse lots within the project site to the larger 1/2 acre to I acre lots
within the Ponderosa subdivision. In addition, the project proposes 1 S. I acres Of
open space and park area totaling approximately 19 % of the site.
3. Kalispell zoning ordinance, Section 27.05.020 (Permitted uses within the R-2
zoning district)
This section of the code does not permit townhouse units with a configuration of 2
or more attached units. Townhouse units with a configuration of 2 or more
attached units are allowed as a conditional use requiring a conditional use permit
be secured prior to creating the townhouse lots. The developer is requesting that
the townhouse lots be a permitted use rather than a conditional use.
Townhouse lots are a conditionally permitted use within the R-2 zoning district. The
proposed PUD would allow 29 townhouse lots or roughly 8 percent of the total
number of dwelling units proposed as part of the Valley Ranch project. The
developers have included in the project proposal 15.1 acres of open space and
parkland. Planning staff would consider the amount of proposed open space and
parkland a reasonable offset to permit the 29 townhouse lots as part of the project
proposal.
4. Kalispell zoning ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (2) (Minimum lot width in the R-2
zoning district)
The minimum lot width in the R-2 zoning district is 70 feet. The developer is
requesting the minimum lot widths be reduced to 48 feet for the detached single
family lots and 25 feet for the townhouse lots.
The reduced lot widths would apply to the smaller, interior lots within the
subdivision. Planning staff does not have a problem with the reduced tot widths as
the developer has placed the larger lots which conform to the R-2 zoning district
adjacent to emisting► large residential lots in the Ponderosa subdivision.
Furthermore, the developer has widened the corner lots in order to accommodate the
side corner setbacks required under the zoning code. The sidecorner setbacks are
9
greater in width than side setbacks and can be problematic if not taken into account
during the design of future homes.
5. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (3) (Minimum yard setbacks in the
R-2 zoning district)
The section requires a front and side corner yard setback of 20 feet with side and
rear setbacks of 10 feet. The developer is requesting the setbacks be reduced to
10 feet for the side corner property boundary on all of the lots within' the
subdivision. A reduction down to 5 feet from the side setbacks is also requested
on all lots except the larger detached single family lots lining the northern and
eastern boundaries of the project site (Lots 1-16 and 170--204 as shown on the
Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development) . A 5-foot rear yard setback is also
proposed on all lots with alley access. The 10-foot rear setback would still apply
to those lots without alley access
The planning department does not have a problem with the reduced setbacks for
homes on the individual lots. The setbacks proposed as part of the PUD are more
conducive to the smatter, urban scale development the developer is trying to
achieve. However, the 10 foot side corner setback and 5-foot rear yard setback
would not apply to garages. Existing developments in the city have proved
problematic when garages are allowed within 10 feet of the side corner property
boundary. The potential to park in front of the garage is high which often times
results in a car or truck extending over the adjacent sidewalk. This same problem
can be extended to the garages setback just 5 feet from the alley. A car parking in
front of the garage would extend into the travel lane of the alley. A 5-foot setback
would work for a garage off of an alley if the garage is side loaded wherein the
garage doors are facing parallel to the alley instead of perpendicular.
6. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.020 (Permitted uses within the R-2
zoning district) and Section 27.05.030 (Conditional uses within the R-2 zoning
district)
The developer is requesting that an assisted and independent living facility with
up to 120 units be permitted within the R-2 zoning district. Currently assisted
and independent living facilities are not permitted or conditionally permitted
within the R- Z zoning district.
Assisted and independent living facilities are currently permitted as a conditional
use within the loin and medium density residential apartment zoning districts and
the H 1 (Health Care) zoning district. The proposed assisted and independent living
facility wou l d take up an area approximately 4. 6 acres or roughly 6 percent of the
entire site. The assisted and independent living facility would provide options for
residents in the area that many want to live close to family residing in homes to the
south or east within the same subdivision. Chapter 3 of the Kalispell Growth Policy,
Goal 1 states, "Provide an adequate supply and mix of housing that meets the
needs of present and future residents in terms of cost, type, design and location."
Me incorporation of the assisted and independent living facility into the overall
project would help the PUD achieve this goal.
10
Upon reviewing the PUD proposal the Fire Department and Building Department
recommended that an automatic fire suppression system be required as part of
construction for the assisted and independent living facility. The building and fire
codes may not require it depending on the size of the future building and type of
construction, however, the departments felt that requiring the developer to include
an automatic fire suppression system in the building's design would help to
alleviate life safety issues. Furthermore, the Planning Department is recommending
that future design of the facility incorporate a public transportation stop since many
of the residents within the facility may not be driving.
Because of the lack of specific detail provided for the assisted living facility, the
oumers shall submit an amendment to the PUD specifically addressing architecture,
access, parking, landscaping and screening and other impacts as deemed
appropriate by the staff.
Figure 1: View of the project site looking north towards whitefish. Highway 93 is on
the left side of the picture. The Ponderosa Veterinary Hospital and existing homes
within the Ponderosa subdivision are in the background.
The proposed PUD is deemed to be in the public interest because it provides housing
options in an area of the city for which the type of density proposed has been
anticipated.
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;
The PUD plan calls out 15.1 acres of open space and parkland throughout the 80.7 acre
site. The 15.1 acres is in the form of neighborhood parks, perimeter buffers and accent
areas at project gateways. The application states that the open space areas will be
11
governed by a homeowners association with portions of the large open space/park areas
offered to the City of Kalispell for public park space.
The Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development plan shows seven areas labeled on the plan
as park area. These park areas range in size from approximately 6,400 square feet to
close to three acres in size. The park areas, as shown on the plan, are spread
throughout the proposed project with a 20-foot wide buffer area located along the
eastern and northern boundaries of the site to provide some separation from the project
site and existing rural residential and agricultural tracts of land. One of the larger park
areas proposed is adjacent to the park area of the Ponderosa subdivision. The
Ponderosa park is privately owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The
developer has proposed a large park area next to the existing park within the Ponderosa
subdivision to allow for a generous sized open space transition between two residential
developments.
The proposed 15.1 acres of open space and parkland is adequate to provide for the
active and passive recreational uses within the residential PUD. The PUD request would
allow 204 residential lots, 29 townhouse lots, 80 assisted living units and 40
independent living units- a total of 353 dwelling units on the project site if the PUD is
approved. Section. 3.19(A)(2) of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations requires the
subdivider to dedicate to the City a cash or land dedication equal to 0.03 acres per
dwelling unit when residential densities in a proposed subdivision exceed 11,880 square
feet per dwelling unit. This equates to a cash or land dedication equal. to 10.59 acres.
Although the assisted and independent living units technically would not be included in
this calculation because no land is being subdivided to accommodate those units, the
PUD still requires the city to address the open space needs of the development as a
whole. Therefore, these units have been included in the open space review.
The proposed 15.1 acres exceeds what would be required under subdivision regulations
and can be considered appropriate for the amount of dwelling units proposed. However,
of the 15.1 acres proposed as open space and parkland, at a minimum, 10.59 acres
should be incorporated as parkland meeting the parkland requirements in the Kalispell
Subdivision Regulations along with a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation
Director. Not only shall this land be included as parkland but improved to function as a
park with improvements to be proposed by the developer and reviewed by the Parks and
Recreation Director.
The Parks and Recreation Department reviewed the proposed PUD park plan and had
the following comments on the project. The Department recommends that when a
subdivision is proposed the park areas should be condensed from seven down to two
park areas which would serve an active recreation function in the subdivision. The
Department felt that should the city accept the larger park areas, as stated in the
application, maintaining two larger parks would be more economical than maintaining
several smaller parks. The Department added that the 20-foot buffer areas along the
perimeter of the project site may be counted towards the parkland requirements if a trail
system is provided which connects the residential units throughout the project with the
parkland areas.
In addition, the Department felt that the proposed park area adjacent to Highway 93
would not be counted towards the overall parkland needs of the subdivision due to its
location and undulating topography. The planning department would recommend. that
12
this area remain as it provides additional open space within the overall PUD and, as
stated in the application, would make a great site for passive recreation and excellent
views of the valley floor and beyond. The open space area also provides a noise barrier
for future residents to the east of the open space and Highway 93.
Figure 2: View of the open space/parkland adjacent to Highway 93 looking south
towards Kalispell. Highway 93 is just outside the picture frame on the right.
The Kalispell Growth Policy, Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment, Policy 3. i. i
recommends a minimum 100-150 foot impact area be provided for major entrances. The
PUD proposes a 50-foot setback as well as a passive park area along the project's
Highway 93 frontage. Fifty foot setbacks for minor entrances are recommended in the
growth policy however Policy 2. c of the Highway 93 Forth. Growth Policy Amendment
identifies whitefish Stage from. West Reserve Drive to Birch Grove as a minor entrance
way. Therefore, a condition on the PUD will require the impact area along Highway 93
to be expanded to a minimum of 100 feet. This would add approximately 30,000 square
feet (0-7± of an acre) in addition to the proposed 15.1 acres of open space and parkland.
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 fight or air, recreation and visual enjoyment,*
The extension of water and serer to the site will be required to serve the development.
The application states that an 3-inch water main will be installed as part of the internal
water distribution system. The 8-inch water main Will connect to a future major
transmission pipeline to be constructed along the east side of the Highway 93 right-of-
way to service the Silverbrook development located north of the project site.
The application also states that sewage collection will be provided by an 8-inch diameter
or larger gravity sewer collection main that will drain to a pump station.. The pressure
main from the pump station will convey the sewage to the future new interceptor that
will be installed along the east side of Highway 93 to serve the Silverbrook subdivision.
13
The General Layout for water, Sewer and Storm water for the proposed project indicates
a sewage lift station would be located in the proposed park area immediately south of
lots 70-76. Due to the visual presence and fencing accompanying a typical lift station a
recommended condition of approval for the PUD would require a landscaping plan be
provided as part of the preliminary plat of the future subdivision and implemented prior
to final plat approval. The landscaping would help to screen the lift station from
residents, pedestrians and vehicular traffic coming into and out of the subdivision.
Storm water management will be required to be handled and retained on site. The storm
water layout plan indicates a number of underground storm water detention areas will
be utilized within the park areas throughout the project site. If the park areas are
required to be condensed, then the storm water plan will need to be modified
accordingly.
The developer hired wGM Group, Inc. of Missoula to conduct a traffic impact study for
the proposed project. The traffic impact study determined weekday average daily traffic
to be approxianately 2,600 vehicles trips. The majority of these trips during peak traffic
hours are anticipated to travel south of the project site.
As a result of the traffic impact study the Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development layout
shows two access points along Highway 93 that would be 3/4 turning movements at this
time (allowing left and right -turns in and right -turns out, but prohibiting left turns out
for traffic to travel southbound on Highway 93) . A full movement intersection onto
Highway 93, which would allow traffic to travel south from the project site, is not
proposed because of the poor level of service for this turning movement. Due to the
access limitations to the site the traffic impact study recommends a connection with the
commercially zoned property immediately south of the project site when the site is
developed. A connection to the south would provide the project site with a connection
with Rose Crossing and a potential future signalized intersection of Rose Crossing and
Highway 93. The project proposal also includes future roadway connections to the east
and south as well as a road right-of-way dedication to tracts 2BAA and 2BA located west
of the site between the project site and Highway 93.
Based on the traffic impact study, city staff is recommending that a condition of the PUD
require the future subdivision on this site not be given final plat approval until a
connection is made to the south or east which provides a full movement intersection.
The access to the south would be through a potential commercial site and connect with
Highway 93 as stated in the traffic impact study. To the east a future road connection is
possible through existing agricultural land with a road intersection at whitefish Stage.
In either case, the future roadway connection will need to be constructed to city
standards and be adequate to handle the volume of traffic generated by this
development and subsequent development in the immediate area.
The project includes approximately 2.7 miles of internal roadways constructed to city
design standards. However, the developers have opted to design the roads with 7-foot
wide boulevards instead of the standard 5-foot boulevards. The project design also
includes the use of alleys on the smaller detached single-family lots and the townhouse
lots. With the use of alleys planning staff is recommending the power, phone, natural
gas and cable television lines normally placed just outside the road right -of -way instead
be located within the alley right-of-way. This would place potential electrical and phone
14
pedestals in the alley preventing the street sides of the lots from being obscured with
utility boxes and pedestals.
The proposed R-2 zoning as well as the proposed PUD amendments still require housing
setbacks and height limitations to provide for adequate light and air within the project
proposal. Design guidelines have been included to provide housing standards to
maintain the visual quality of the entire project.
The park areas and open space area will provide the recreational amenity within the
development. These facilities will be owned and maintained by the homeowners
association with the larger parks within the project being offered to the city to own and
xnain.tain.
4. The relationship, beneficial or adverse, of the planned development project
upon the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be established;
The project is proposed in a rural area of Flathead county with existing rural residential
development immediately north of the project site. There are also several businesses
located along Highway 93 immediately vest and north of the site. Development of the
80.7 acre project site has the potential to impact existing residences of the Ponderosa
subdivision located north of the project site. The Ponderosa subdivision is a rural
neighborhood platted in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Lots within the Ponderosa
subdivision vary between 1/2 acre to 1 acre in size. For decades residents in the Ponderosa
subdivision have lived in a relatively quiet rural setting but as the city grows northward it is
reasonable to expect city densities to accompany this northward expansion. The developers
have tried to offset some of the housing density impacts by incorporating larger lots, varying
between 15,000± square feet to 30,000t square feet, adjacent to the Ponderosa
subdivision and proposing a park area next to the existing homeowners park in Ponderosa.
The developer has also proposed a 20-wfoot wide open space corridor between the
proposed lots and the existing lots within the Ponderosa subdivision thereby creating a
greater setback from future houses within valley lunch to existing homes within
Ponderosa.
For the past 5 years the city of Kalispell has been experiencing tremendous growth outward
from its city limits. Along the Highway 93 corridor large commercial subdivisions have been
approved allowing larger, "big box" retailers to locate on the northern end of Kalispell. A new
high school is currently under construction approximately 1 11/2 miles to the southwest of the
project site. The Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map designates the 80.7t acre
project area as Suburban Residential for which the map provides a density not to exceed 4
dwellings per gross acre. This Suburban Residential land use designation was designed to
lessen the impacts future city growth may have on surrounding agricultural lands and rural
residential development.
5. In the case of a plan which proposes development over a period of years, the
sufficiency of the terms and conditions proposed to protect and maintain
the integrity of the plan which finding shall be made only after consultation
with the city attorney;
The application states that a phasing plan will be developed as soon as access
connections are developed to facilitate a left turn access to Kalispell.. The left turn
access depends in large part on the development schedule of the property immediately
15
south of the project site. The developer is requesting that as soon as the connection to
Rose Crossing can be made to facilitate a left turn movement south on Highway 93, the
future development of Valley Ranch will proceed as phased preliminary and final plats.
The developer has therefore not provided development phasing at this time.
Although planning staff acknowledges the development constraints on the property and
the developer's dependence on future projects located to the south, the proposed PUD, if
approved, should have a sunset date. Planning staff recommends that the PUD be valid
for a period of three years with the option for a one year extension.. within this time the
developers would need to obtain approval of a preliminary plat for the project site.
When a prelim nary plat is submitted and approved for the site the preliminary plat will
have up to three years to complete the first phase and two years to complete subsequent
phases, if applicable. However, the PUD will expire if, after preliminary plat approval is
given, the final plat is not filed within the above stated tim.eframes (i.e. a maximum of 7
years from the PUD approval date) .
6, Conformity with all applicable provisions of this chapter.
No other specific deviations from the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance can be identified based
upon the information submitted with the application other than those addressed in the
be ' ' g of this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission
adopt staff report KA-07-5 and recommend that initial zoning of the 80.7 acre site
be R-2 as shown on the zoning district map for the property.
11. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission
adopt staff report KPUD- 07-2 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell
City council that the PUD for Valley Ranch be approved sub j ect to the conditions
listed below:
General Conditions:
1. That the development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with the
following plans, materials and other specifications as well as any additional
conditions associated with the PUD as approved by the city council:
• Valley Ranch PUD plan dated 3-5-07
• Valley Ranch. PUD plan indicting lots sizes and land use types dated 3--5-07.
Note: The approved PUD allows the density to increase in the R-2 district as
well as alloy a reduced lot size and width to accommodate the proposed PUD
plan.
2. Townhouse lots with a configuration of 2 or more units shall be permitted within.
the Valley Ranch PUD however all garages shall be alley loaded.
3. An assisted and independent living facility shall be permitted within the Valley
Ranch PUD. Prior to obtaining a building permit for the assisted and
independent living facility the developer shall submit an amendment to the Valley
16
Ranch PUD for a public hearing showing the location, size, elevations,
landscaping and parking associated with the assisted and independent living
facility. Note: The building shall incorporate four sided architecture and an on -
site public transit location. Building plans shall incorporate the use of an
automatic fire suppression. system.
4. Setbacks shall be amended as follows and shall apply only to the house unless
otherwise specified:
a. 10 feet for the side corner property boundary on all of the lots
b. 5 foot side setbacks on all lots except the larger detached single family Lots
lining the northern and eastern boundaries of the project site (lots 1-16
and 1.79-204 as shown on the Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development)
C. 5-foot rear yard setback for the garage only on all lots with alley access.
The 10-foot rear setback shall still apply to those lots without alley access.
Note: In order for a garage to utilize the 5-foot setback the garage doors
shall be side loaded (garage doors are facing parallel to the alley instead of
perpendicular)
5. The impact area along Highway 93 shall be expanded to a minimum of 100 feet.
Within this area the developer shall incorporate a combination of bermin.g,
landscaping and a 10-foot wide bike/pedestrian path along the proj ect's Highway
93 frontage. A detailed plan of this impact area shall be provided with the
submittal of a preliminary plat for the project site.
b. Any parking or signage within the impact area shall only be permitted as an
amendment to the Valley Ranch PUD. Signs shall be limited to monument signs
and shall be located in the rear portion of the impacted area, other free standing
signs shall not be allowed.
7. A landscaping plan for any Lift stations on the project site shall be provided with
the submittal of a preliminary plat. The landscaping plan shall incorporate a
combination of trees and shrubs with a density adequate to screen the lift station
from public view.
8. The future subdivision on the project site shall not be given final plat approval
until a street connection is made to the south or east which provides a full
movement intersection in order for traffic to travel south on either Highway 93 or
Whitefish Stage Road.
9. The open space and parkland shall comprise of 15.1 acres plus the additional
land area needed to provide a minimum 100 foot buffer along Highway 93. The
area shown on the approved PUD plan as parkland adjacent to Highway 93 shall
remain in size and shape as shown on the approved plan. Exact size and location
of other parks shown on the approved PUD plan shall be determined by the city
council with recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Director and
planning board.
10. Upon submitting a preliminary plat for the project site the developer shall submit
a parrs improvement plan to be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Director.
Of the 15.1+ acres of open space and parkland a nu*ni'mum. of 10.59 acres shall
be incorporated as parkland.
17
11. The power, phone, natural gas and cable television lines shall be located within
the alley right-of-way. Where an alley is not adjacent to the lot the power, phone,
natural gas and cable television lines shall be located within a separate 5-foot
easement outside of the road right-of-way easement.
12. Street lighting shall be located within the development and shall have a full cutoff
lens so that it does not intrude unnecessarily onto adjoining properties.
13. Approval of the planned unit development shall be valid for a period of three years
from the date of approval with the possibility of a one-year extension to be
granted by the city council. Within this time the developers shall obtain approval
of a preliminary plat for the project site. When a preliminary plat is submitted
and approved for the site the preliminary plat will have up to three years to
complete the first phase and two years to complete subsequent phases, if
applicable. The Valley Ranch PUD shall expire if, after preliminary plat approval
is given, the final plat is not filed within the above stated timeframes
18
Return to:
Theresa white
Kalispell City Clerk
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
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 7-2-46 10, 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) er herein express an intent to have the property as herein described
withdrawn from the EVV VALt.�r '1--3 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.
This City hereby agrees to allow Petitioner(s) to connect and receive all available utilities from
the City of Kalispell excluding solid waste services. MCA 7-2-4736 prohibits the city from
providing solid waste services to this property for a minimum of 5 years from date of annexation.
Petitioner/Owner Date
Petitioner/Owner Bate
NOTE: You must attach an Exhibit A that provides a bona fide legal description of
the property to be annexed.
STATE OF MONTA.NA
ss
County of Flathead County
On this Ae day of before e the undersi ed, 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 WITNES c
r R
year In this at in
.` 0 ;•• .
E �.
�w •
0i
STATE OF M
: ss
County of Flathead County
ve hereunto set m
written.
d an4 affi�ced my Not* Seal the day and
Notary -Pub is S e n - a
Residing at jA�..�-
My Commission expires:
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.
fN 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:
STATE of MONTANA }
ss
County of Flathead
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 WHER.EO , 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
Exhibit A
Legal Description
.Valle v Ranch Planned Unit Development
That portion of land situated and lying in the West Half (W'/2) of
Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Principal Meridian
Montana, Flathead County, Montana, described as follows:
Government Lot 2 (shown as Tracts 1 & 2 of Certificate of Survey No.
4491, records of Flathead County Montana), the North Half (NY2) of
Government Lot 3 (shown as Tract 3 of Certificate of Survey No.
4491, records of Flathead County Montana), and the Northeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NEY4 SW'/2 - shown as Tracts 7 &
8 of Certificate of Survey No. 4491, records of Flathead County
Montana).
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING TRACTS OF LAND:
Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey No. 5324, records of Flathead County,
Montana, located in the North Half (N"/2) of Government Lot 3 of
Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West; Principal Meridian
Montana, Flathead County, Montana and
Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey No. 5975, records of Flathead County,
Montana, located in the South Half (SI/2) of Government Lot 2 and the
North Half (N1/2) of Government Lot 3 of Section 19, Township 29
North, Range 21 West; Principal Meridian Montana, Flathead County,
Montana and
That portion conveyed to the Sate Highway Commission in Bargain
and Sale Deed recorded July 9, 1956 in Book 391, Page 408 and
conveyed to the State of Montana Department of Highways in
Bargain and Sale Deed recorded July.23, 1996, Instrument No. 96-
205-10010, records of Flathead County, Montana and
That portion conveyed to the Safe Highway commission in Bargain
and Sale Deed recorded July 9, 1956 in Book 391, Page 408 and that
portion granted to the State of Montana Department of Highways in
Judgment and Final Order of Condemnation recorded January 11,
1996, Instrument No. 96-011-10250, records of Flathead County,
Montana.
METES and BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of Government Lot 4, Section
19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Principal Meridian Montana,
Flathead County, Montana, which is a found brass cap, thence North
00' 09' 50" West 3,956.91 feet along the west boundary of Section 19
Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Principal Meridian Montana,
Flathead County, Montana, to the northwest corner of Government
Lot 2, Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Principal
Meridian Montana, Flathead County, Montana, thence, leaving said
west boundary of Section 19, South 89' 39' 45" East along the north
boundary of said Government Lot 2, a distance of 95.73 feet to the
east R/W of U.S. Highway 93 and THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING OF THE TRACT OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; said
point is a found rebar with cap stamped #2516S, thence
Continuing South 89' 39' 45" East along the north boundary of said
Government Lot 2, a distance of 1,196.53 feet to the northeast corner
of said Government Lot 2; said point is a found rebar with cap
stamped #2516S, thence
South 000 22' 21" East along the east boundary of said Government
Lot. 2, a distance of 1,318.91 feet to the southeast corner of said
Government Lot 2; said point is a found rebar with cap stamped
#2516S, thence
South 89' 36' 28" East along the north boundary of the Northeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE '/4 SW '/4) of Section 19,
Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Principal Meridian Montana,
Flathead County, Montana. a distance of 1,329.98 feet to the
northeast corner of said Northeast quarter of the Southwest Quarter
(NE '/4 SW Y4), thence
South 00' 16' 47" East along the east boundary of said Northeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE %4 S W '/4) a distance of
1,321.22 feet to the southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter (NE Y4SW Y4), said point is a found rebar, thence
North 89' 34' 58" West along the south boundary of said Northeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE '/4 SW Y4) a distance of
1, 327.88 feet to the southwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter (NE Y4SW Y4), said point is a found rebar with cap
stamped #2516S, thence
North 000 21' 59" West along the west boundary of said Northeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE Y4SW Y4) a distance of 660.24
feet to the southeast corner of North Half (N '/2) of Government Lot 3,
of Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West; Principal Meridian
Montana, Flathead County, Montana, thence
North 890 35' 39" West along the south boundary of said North Half of
Government Lot 3 a distance of 561.63 feet to the southwest corner
of Tract 2 of Certificate of Survey 5975 in said Section 19, records of
Flathead County Montana, thence
North 00' 20' 38" East along the west boundary of said Tract 2 of
Certificate of Survey 5975 and the east boundary of Tract 1 of said
Certificate of Survey 5975 a distance of 928.89 feet to the northeast
corner of said Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey 5975, said point is a
found rebar, thence
North 890 40' 37" West along the north boundary of said Tract 1 of
Certificate of Survey 5975 a distance of 632.78 feet to a point along
the east R/W of U.S. Highway 93, said point is a found rebar, thence
North 14' 28' 57" East along the east RIW of U.S. Highway 93 a
distance of 33.77 to a found Montana Department of Transportation
2-inch diameter aluminum cap, thence
Continuing along the east RAIV of U.S. Highway 93 North 00' 21'47"
East a distance of 499.90 feet to a found Montana Department of
Transportation 2-inch diameter aluminum cap, thence
Continuing along the east R/W of U.S. Highway 93 North 13' 40' 24"
West a distance of 144.31 feet to a point, thence
Continuing along the east R/W of U.S. Highway 93 North 000 20'43"
East a distance of 377.40 feet to the point of beginning and
containing 80.626 acres of land, more or less.
City of Kalispell
Planning Department
17 - 2"' Street fast, Suite 211, Kalispell, Montana 59901
Telephone: (406) 7.5 1 -1850
Fax: (406) 75 I -1858
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZoNIING
NAME OF APPLICANT: Gateway Properties Inc. (Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development)
MAIL ADDRESS: P.O. Box 8776
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Kalispell, Montana 59904 PRONE: Brent Card 249-7317
INTEREST IN PROPERTY: owners
Other Parties of Interest to be Notified:
PARTIES OF INTEREST: Sitescape Associates, ATTN.: Bruce Lutz
MAIL ADDRESS: Box 1417
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Columbia Fails, MT 59912 PHONE: 892- 3492, Fax: 892-0367
INTEREST IN PROPERTY: Land Planner, Landscape Architect
PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
Address of the property: 3225 Highway 93 North, Kalispell
Legal Description: Tract 2 in NESW, Tract 3 and Tract 28C, Section 19, T29N, R21 W, Flathead County,
Montana
(Section, Township, Range) (Attach metes and hounds as Exhibit A)
Land in project (ac) 80.678 Acres
The present zoning of the above property is: Suburban Agriculture (SAG) 14
The proposed zoning of the above property is: Kalispell R-2 with a PUD overlay
State the changed or changing conditions that make the proposed amendment necessary:
This request for initial zoning and annexation supports the applicants desire to develop a Planned Unit
Development intended to accommodate single-family residential, townhouse and assisted/independent
living units on the 80.68 acre property north of the current Kalispell City Limits. once the zoning and
PUD are approved the project will move forward as a phased residential development.
The signing of this application signifies that the foregoing information is true and accurate based upon the
best information available and further grants approval for Kalispell Planning staff to be present on the
property for routine inspection during the annexation process.
(Applicant) (Date)
April 10, 2007
To: The Kalispell City Planning Board
Please accept the following detailed comments on the proposed valley Ranch Planned
Unit Development being developed by Gateway Properties. In brief our concerns include
the following:
1. Failure of the applicant to comply with Section 27.21.030 (5) page 66: Standards
for Planned Unit Development District .(PUD), that requires specific information be
submitted as part of a PUD application including subdivision documents and other
essential information that has not been provided as required. Details comments on this are
provided in the comments that are attached_
2. Failure to comply with state law 76-2-303 MCA on annexation hearings which
allows that a municipality may only conduct a hearing on the annexation in conjunction
with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation when the proposed new zoning
is comparable with the existing county zoning. The proposed zoning of R.-2 with a PUD
is not comparable with the current zoning of SAG 10.
3. Failure to demonstrate that the proposed density and relaxed R--2 standards
proposed under the PUD provide, as is required, that there will be an improved
overall site design or comparable public benefits in additional open space. In fact the
relaxed PUD standards provide for an equivalent R--4' zoning with little to no public
benefit. R- 1 is the classification associated with the Suburban Residential classification
called for in the Kalispell Growth Policy, which the public was led to believe was the
future density for this area unless significant public benefit was to be provided for
increased density under a PUD. A PUD under the R.-1 classification would allow for 3
dwelling units/acre not the 4.5 proposed. A. PUD for this proposed development should
demonstrate the significant public benefits and improved site design should include
elements that.
• Create an increased buffer (100 ft) between lots for lots 170-1 S 9 which
back into a steep ponderosa tree covered slope and lots 7-1 8 which are in an area
of historic drainage problems and an area with existing trees that should be
retained for buffering.
• Consolidate internally (as opposed to highway frontage) public park
facilities in excess of the minimum required of 10.59 to offset density increases
requested;
• Assure that trail systems are scaled compatible with proposed trails in
adjoining subdivision and that they include and provide connectivity to parks and
trail systems in adjoining developments,
0 Provide greater buffers to adjoining development in exchange for
requested higher density internally,
■ Do not allow for storm water or lift station facilities to be considered as -
part of calculations for park facilities or to be sited so as to interfere with the
optimal function of park areas,
' See attached Exhibit A chart that compares zone classifications
v
Retain existing trees,
Address areas of high around water and seasonal flooding.
4. Inadequate transportation infrastructure or solutions are in place to address
transportation issues identified in TAC committee discussions and in the current
new draft Kalispell Transportation Plan. Conditioning this development on the future
development of a full movement intersection is premature and allows for speculative
development not consistent with the predictability and time lines that a PUD is clearly
required to provide as part of the City of Kalispell Zoning Regulations. This application
is premature until comprehensive transportation guidelines are In place for the
development being proposed north of Reserve Street. For example, it is of concern that
the Sliverbrook development at Church Drive was approved with the assumption that an
over -pass would be built and yet now it has apparently been announced that no funding
for this bypass exists!
5. Staff recommendations for a series of future amendments to the PUD are not
allowed under Kalispell Zoning regulations 27.21.020 (7) Limitation on Rezoning or
under requirements under 27.21.030 (5) that require certain information to be part of a
PUD application not future amendments to a PUD. Missing information and issues
proposed for future amendments include: phasing of the development under the PUD, a
park improvement plan, location of parks, development of a proposed assisted living
center, future parking and. signage plans, and a street connection for a future full
movement intersection. Encouraging and allowing for a series of future amendments also
opens the door for amendments for other uses than say a proposed assisted living center.
Lack of deadlines for future amendments may result in the inability to make adjustment
to lots, parks, buffers, and streets.
6. Potential inappropriate citing of the proposed future assisted living center in an
area where height, noise, and high groundwater may create unacceptable problems
should be addressed now, not by future amendments to the PUD.
Each of these six points is addressed in greater detail below. We request that you deny
the application before you tonight and direct the developers to address the incomplete
information that is required to be provided as well as the issues raised within these
comments. This application is speculative in nature given that road infrastructure is not
in place to serve it and time should be taken to create a better and more complete plan for
this development_
1. Incomplete PUD-Application due to failure to submit Subdivision documents
required bv the Kalispell zonin re ulations for a PUD application
Section 27.21.030 (5) page 66: Standards for Planned Knit Development District
(PUD), of the Kalispell Zoning Regulations, require that "The property owner applying
for a PUD district classification shall submit three copies of a PUD preliminary plan
which shall contain the following information. If a PUD also involves a subdivision, the
submittal shall also include the information and documents required for application
stated in the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations." (Emphasis added)
2
PONDEROSA ESTATES KALISPELL, MT 59901
March 3 01 2007
Flathead Valley's Finest Sub -Division * 4 Miles North on Hwy 93
A PR 0 2007
f�41 #iYJ
City of Kalispell Planning Department �_ L L�
Attn: Mr. Sean Conrad
17 Second Street East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
Gentlemen:
On Friday, March 16, 2007, I met with Mr. Sean Conrad regarding the PUD proposed by
Gateway Properties. During our discussion I emphasized that in no way is the Ponderosa Estates
Homeowners Board connected. with Gateway Properties in the development and construction of
the Malley Ranch Planned Unit Development.
Last summer Gateway Properties briefly met with the Ponderosa Board and said that they
44 fight" buy property adjacent to our development. They explained what they "might" build and
then went on their way. Some individuals on our board did express some concern regarding
water tables, lighting, streets, lot size, etc. But in no way did we make specific requests
regarding anything GateWay Properties was contemplating. Therefore, the sentence in Section
Ea on page 1 of their PUD, i.e., "This complies with a request by the Ponderosa Homeowner's
Board of Directors." does not apply.
I have discussed this with Mr. Brent Card of Gateway Properties Inc. and he has agreed that the
afore mentioned sentence was placed on their PUD in error. Please do not, consider it in any of
your future deliberations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
ZaAt,.,
Mrs. Elaine Cl-ahan,
President
Ponderosa Estates Homeowners Board
Copy to:
zv rs. ► Karon Demeester
Mr. Brent Card
April 5, 2007 WOLFORD
GatewayProperties
Attn: Brent Card
P.O. Box 8 776
Kalispell, NIT 59904
rear Mr. Card,
Thank you for meeting with us on your project located to the north of Glacier Town
Center. As we discussed, while I am not necessarily opposed to connecting to your
development and providing some access there are some concerns that I have with the
project.
I ani not willing to have two comicctions north of my property. Two access points will
have a negative impact on any ability to seal these single family residential. lots. In
addition, it would require an awkward configuration within any development. I would
also like to have you provide similar butler to nay property that'.[ am providing. you. I
have attached a current image of our planning effort to this letter that indicates the access
point, that we are willing to provide you..
Since I ani not planning to develop this section for some time, per our discussion, I will
expect that you will install the access= road to meet my extension of Rose Crossing to City
standards. This should include a 60' Row", curb and gutter, a 7' grass boulevard behind
curb line and a 6' walk on each side.
While I am not asking you to install the utilities in. this section, I will wish to coordinate
with your contractor to stub utilities in this location with the contractor working on. our
lifestyle center. we had not anticipated working in that area for a while but I do not wish
to have a temporary road running through my property nor a road that I have to damage
in the future to install utilities.
Good luck on your project and should you have any questions, please feel free to contact
either myself or Wayne Freeman with CTA.
.Best Regards,
Buckv eolford
Cc: "Torn .luentZ City of Kalispell, Planning
Four Squares Business Coaster 1200 Mountain Creek Road! Suite 102 Chattanooga, Tennessee : 740_'�,
-423.8740811 , FAX: 423.874.0748
i
I Aye 29 2007 1 L)
Stephen and Cheryl Wilson
348 Blue Spruce Lane
Kalispell, MT 59901
March 26, 2007
Ialisd ell City Planning Board
17 nStreet East, Suite 2 11
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development
Dear Planning Board:
We recently received your correspondence regarding the above mentioned development
and are writing to express some of our concerns.
We have enclosed photos we, took of the property being proposed- for the. development,
and you will find references to the, photos on the. enclosed plot plan.
Photo #1 shows 2 red flags -- the one on the left is 100 feet from the north boundary of the
property and the one on the right is 20 feet from the boundary.
Photo 42 shows a red flag 20 feet from the north boundary, where you see the chain link fence.
Note the yellow stake warning of a buried gas line. There is a 3 -cable electric transmission line
buried just north of the gas line.
Photo 93 shows the weeds and ground cover growing on the old slough that used to run across
the parcel. Most of this area is too wet to even farm.
Photo #4 shows the ground water that came from the area in photo #3. In the mid 1990s water
floured across Ponderosa Lane at this point. There is an on going drainage problem in this
area.
We have many concerns about this proposed development, but the issues that immediately came
to mind are as follows:
1. Is the 20 foot -wide designated park area at the north side of the proposed development
adequate to accommodate both the busied utilities and the walking path that the developers have
indicated will be along this corridor? In addition, there is only a tern foot set back requirement
on the back of the lots south of this corridor, which will add further congestion.
2. The "buffer zone' between the building lots on the north side of the proposed development
and Ponderosa Estates should be a min=mum of 100 feet.
3. A public walking path is being proposed along the northern edge of the development within
the proposed 20 foot designated park area. How is this to be maintained? An area of public
access iva such close proximity to the wooded environment of Ponderosa Estates is of great
concern to us, primarily because of the potential fire hazard this would create.
4. As shown in photos #3 and 94, there is a serious drainage problem that needs to be addressed.
Is it prudent to put in a housing development over an area with such serious drainage issues?
Your consideration of these concerns will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
4. `�ieryl and Steve Wilson
M1
.. �. Ir }r�l.r .H'. �• "-e'.'�a�`.:>5. �, � nf.iM..,., H. � .'3' _ �
_ _ ; P:e . .,ray., �', •?Y-ir...:� - e. a; f�,:� �,.. i ;.� 5 �.y , - at"�•.- � 's '�'f -'t•.: -.G _ ."j.:�ecyr
•.r: .. �_�;f��-:'t-��`'�""La7r„ ,�,.}y� �€.�r>��t;1�'- i.r.'r� y� w-'
'�; ��. ..�.'.�"�'.tri' - _ :-Y'��7rr" "' �" r'' �7 � 7^,',14,.i.�.','„or �i .'���:.- i�,i•; .. p
-
-
,� � ,;.R�ri: ' ...+#.'�x .s`• -_ nrt�iF'Wp�.",• rrr�';Y4''' .�. - 'tii ,,;'gyp... �^ -
�+-� Y�'•�•`Sa"�'i.' �✓T:.'�� :t, �sip°,•.+L,.r,�• �hak 1..,.: ,s.- � s
1z4 •� � R'i, ri `} �rT�''. r.' � :. i•:di� ,�j�y-_ i:. wr � ..- r_,. _�.
tom.: ;k+K„s-"�:�•'' •{`: , _ t�'k:-t�_r�::;�,�a"f?+; �''^>=.,' � �x ;
x_,;;s„-�'.�a: �;,.��"�- fir'' . �''�"".•. �,,;.:: ��.,,,>�. r,� �r <.:+�'
• �" ' ti- 'k�r�1a�1i�Fµ• _ �'' �,�. l.�if•• ' •.r`� r�+�Py�-.:ter- = ���°'�_ fa'{=,' ,Pt'�':.-� ; .
M Y .:c. tee• 1 M{:.... _ w
1 4.
�',*y�'�'7►,' _ ]MYp!'•'1`-R," Li "+fir. T Fs: --+S' -4 �'
+x.. _ �t.-'r}�='''ri...al.. 1 _ f :�� •r:F� ��r^��:a� ,>`� '-.�, �_.'°`.�.•`%�
,:iei, 'rY_ ��l�a' ti . .ate _ �_ �'•'"��." !'n " � `� y.:. •:�:.::. Y'' ..{1., .£?7w�"� � �F?>��'�
[��'„` �.. '.�... r►`�?k;��'Y is .«y: ' r"►: x ",t�y '�. (i; � •-: � r +::� :�;
'.sF:n:.*a'...y t�,• ^4 ;r`. - .�►}
4�
Wy. r.�+.. �•� .kY� �Tr]!� .�+R�ss�€��,� �.Y �.y.F �' r.M,.i �. 'j"'eZ�v,.e'. 3?'S'`. �{{�'�s.'n .e�.r�
�Pis•-. �T�'�.q, `�:.��., �:..�..1, .'�.�yn .t• �"...:(�:• �Ya• V. fir'"b' ' k' f� 'Yas..� .�, .:� �i�w:i� ���!'.�.�`°�:<.. .] -�` :.�
x"•- - . �.; ' � .;�. _ _ ...¢..:.-.: 'fir`¢: e.•�..', �..
w ter. '. .��: :..xn Y E. "�. f 0.:. � .�- •�- �� +.�:;
•d",;.r :a '.'� tiC'r.+ Gs,'•-•v. .L x✓"-.. - "ii - 'ails L'-
:y:i. �"i: �'• "�., v��,.,-..r y�.�i� �..Tf ri .[�. G�i,�'�4' .7. .4•. "/ •.w�r�i. � .'R.� - ♦ 'Ise.. ..''}�.f`.'f: `-ri• y�"'.�
y. 7 - - �Lf � r4r•• - ' Sr �. �S' .-»,« .�A
_ ��'�'�•r�S•:`� „YR"•! G .£ F -U �. ' �-�1'�.'.• .�'^T r. _ Yr ' „b.
�'z 1 i A ,�C ...-:■..�-a � 4 T►u S Ti[.�P� _ "' 4 x �'� t,•^✓' ♦ L L�'r • r�, r• J A� eG .. i t`. � S�A:.�"�,� 3 . hr "�.�i f ..�, �.: ,�•� :aq:-y�F.�y �''`� ..Tf `.'!�' `Z1'+ .: '{�,� .i - �-�'i�. .r �`: r �'�i� :�'S �'+F`; .«� ii�: •c� '"� �F �°:'
'��'„ �'ai -4' �.' �'.. _ - + •'7R�' �? k'a' � .ice .L'.. .�.r �•�y. e��
} �' , ;r. ..: ;dy ,c�,• � '_ � ••'.:.. i W ,4 _ '1[ yr. '�i� i' ,c _ �� - � yi�a
•4�T < :�[.. •i.l�:. 4,, ��. 4. • �Yj.!y k '•:3:YM ��'Cw� i3+.
,.�r .' w ..�". _ j* =,ti r_.iy- .••� f is '-z., ..,F :. _
Ot. c �•s��','f:;s ��' - '.�, �_Z��. •.. � •+r..-��u�R�"yE�� • " i:r �.•'• '�a�r '� '." k'. �. srt iy.,'•�.['•,.j-;. �y� i�',r •?,•,: �:i 2' - Y�'•'`°L _=��-
ar'T r$' ���i',�n 3'F� w^ i'4��ti•• ti�' -�y, .:F�.. ��� ,.y �i �+��.,�:.'� - �� ^•'�1_,- � ���`-- '"}I
Tf
;•,. -<! •`�iWe i y{r}�� _ ?:.<. J F� ..4",r ,�jW��''' F�'°`'� 'mrf;l
:.A�_ . , r1..si-r •K'�' � -- ,. , ��� :�r'.- ,'r 1� _ ,'�y ate" 1 ��r ' �': _ .. ..� - �?.'� : ,f�. � r
�� i> ,�,�� �'�...t'' �'. .Y-.I. y !_.:••.i��� f.,`. r•.ri 'ro.it,- a.� 'i�54. , i,,:'' l:�` ''•a ,`i xLr':��
[[" x'.!e'
fir. r 1' z }� ,,y,.w4 Kati tf:• ~� n":.�h .v iiKa.,c°.w
�.�w"`ri'•Y,�rr-.' _i.i :a3':Y'^-:'f•�2''+ +. "f ' r:. y_u - 4 .f*QkU
yr
,,x, i'1. Li 7'..r' �y rr "�Y -_ ~.rl w . '."Yi ..�'• -r � • Sa _ _ "1!`�'. �+�} '� �� " � Vi'w xi.J�y� � _ � •,Y '" � }�...,� = �'rF.'4
`�h: � J' .1�'7.r i:ry �_ �,. ��: _ 4' �. •�Qti/'� - L� � i+n r • �7 R'� - �'�f'� .J
rr �.�.. �.',� ,'; •[ . ►'" . i � t.y r� • ��"•i�- •�Fhr!'jM.lb.. 7 r - t:: � �. � yw-'- �, :"J.4'� r,{� � „rr�,' - vJ r' ' � �r' �.�1.•,€!' ,E,.�
. J - 'k A �-rt'.. - _ .... y _ _ ;��r. YY11 i� �i. � �� `�� -k%k � :i � .. ;. .r'-,'. .! �. a � C'l�'• ram` r '�'Ft.7.• '=,yi....�.��,, �z�^r
w�. .i.. _ �a ?��� ,-^-t ^� � _ •- ..3, '$�t•.: !.p��• 1>�� - 4 rs����F 7 i...�FA' _+, 't y::� F 4 � •r: :..:':�.. �:i � �' -��.t.�'Ff •S'F��=. -
'"ei
7 iy_ �(j ,r - �• �. •i a `
'-LV.'.� _.e _ � - 1 ��L?,.w '.J��N.�.•- r ii. �rl r if�..i `,9. __ '7.i .��i;L-, _ �.s•J�_ � ��T
15.•Y" �4+ w` r. z,. ?.'v s r 1 +".ikl_ ot f{.'.. 3 .y. .ir 1F •.x,y i;
{.y: �r*. •�- .* .��' •-�' i' =lc ,. .-� 7r -Y' rr- wCJ�• lip _ '{ 1! , :j. +t a• .,r -v� 4
1�-�
{ ' .. , � - ,.r,: f. - - . �.:."-�i.'" ' � ' "y�.•.' "' 1 : �;,, _ �n j x�r,.... '�i".v�? �,
f:� J x.r' tr w, r�L]"r siF t Ry n Jrr?"..
' ��i' r-4' -r�.:• _r..S.ex.t-a .� f' ■.'^ '. Y _ tt'►:' ]
t 5� } }yf, +}!YR..:Ij1tiF• �•�r _ '�Tw'.�r %it}� r 'y1 r.Nf, �7,�N., . •� F�'f? Yv...�. 4`xiti'
y r i- 'Y. _ '.� ��' "1'fr•�,, Lr�w.,X � r.' .r� �. .� r yL7•�Z. �j�j. �� • ! �-r 'L-�' _ F� f-�r R� �"�. i
_...r�-......�.+^S./�4.�..::-rw+,-��..�#T 1�i�.r '•i.. �•. - �,.�. _ .� Yr,� -�',i•,.� !•.r •�.1J .lii' Y; 1i• _ �•.. -J- _t i•.4 f']� ; ��LLh�AL
�. "` - „�;�. � , L��.GrY!T •w 4:it' ].,{. _ :.,rV. � r- ,... ....,,',,,_i r � . ,,:. ti w�•';i_. •-r' � ' ���� '
. i'�l'� .cr.y , y�,w■t.• � � ���. •�'+ !�. _ � ��� ` .4v�;r v.`��/�.�I•r E��. � i�frk +�.1
yy` •� - `.Y.••'-J{. - -G ,■1 �y .:7!.`' 1.f�.-� ;'•f '.�• �'..4 fih%'. ice. fG r ,}:•'T'. ':T:' ''�N 4 i'•,,,y7�H M•.: t:+Pt�,r��p
[ n Z'.. ,•y' .,L rC,• .;�.F.' .1�. �• Yk�� •„�r ryP - .'Oe►rR,�.,Y , . , ' J ? ti _ ',�. J'i•v ," i .>R k, :;'Y i:y,�. .. f..¢a•{ }yy.',•:yk!.
- i� :�: .X. ;1r''t .,yam ,.i a.I ��k^", (` � ''Jr "- - .r. '-.��F•. �.4'.:W :.��' '.'1"�f ay��y•y'
'-s - ~nY wri - t . s' .�,r' `4 �i3'f -r •�' ■ ,�.. - _ - `, iR''R-.
l�:. t'�.r �Yr {„..*'�• "s,r� - .�. �• ..>,.r •:!.�`'�r�n. �Y r� i• ..f; F 1' �� [ 'n ;.•r - .'7. J •,�a'a,��
n �`� �Z .xy y �y.. � •'
F _ � ,�.. , y � ,��;. �, .r. • .rA _ _ r. ��, ter►.' � ~ w,,••--.a� N ': :'1 � 1 • f •.: �]Fii'�i�a:f'. - ,_,.tt�•�a{• +r;'�"R:: wt�,,,,n ��
.. 'I • �..: N .: �1..�'�' � - �£':� N,L'}�,- .. . �. .. ... _ 1 r � .. r ' �` ....r _,:■t".,...:-.' _ •LYE:,. � ' ' .: n:,. _.... �.?'_•..��'..'ic=tiLaC71'�+�'��'?'t'-, .- r:-..: �.. ':=t`,� ria,
_ _ice:, s .
ram; r ,. . y„- `r �s^, .
�;, .- ";; V ,.--,, ='i �"•&' f 11" 1'' ''""rr1� --�((."..e" F �... •, - •.in. _= ?. �°f _ . T � s.-°•` `° ;t;•.&%-4^ .'fir• ; „�• - § - ti ,'`,
1.
'r'' •s.:; "• .ro2: .s:-G' `r"+` e ,$� ezi, �'h' ..�' r�4..SS�+` 'i'r." ,.a. �•-= " - =,... :+i:'x; -
.,
.,^� 'iW.' 3:W "!'s�•?. .'S:.. .;..+e �^3. •y 'Se•-.d.° :?a'' R° n•Y'.
.• a�" .� ....• _ r
. -t" _ •��
el
gS3.S,,.r --i•>4:: _ H.''i''' R :. .b ��f:: Via-. '•b _fi^` - •`••' •::.A -'_H . k.•_...
.. '
_ ,
°':sae ,e�- v ^ay°,"�e� s`,=`• �• s r-. '... �'�:�. eP- '•e 'bL= -Y,. r,`C. ,.R „} %.. °�' -`°" < `�,. _ y...�,,x»., ''r '., ,. ,�, °`' `^.a!e°"%..:•a
s .,T. {��.r` - =s-sr •^�. °,z "+ : .;"a'. .s.�'• •-.:,d,.%•^ . w.'. i .'.,I"Y:�-''•,^...ni,, w....�.�w,.•d•...,,
lil
q, - .tee.. • ' Ns .
non x,. _ rF • - s ' . • _.. � a°w s - •.yp ` y ' w .
R s = a1. - 3-<' - rz Lz 55. ,4. , 4"" �+ qrr.. !e«Frspgp .:
" j _ , _ Y: s; o" Za xs °; b ' �^ �1 • g.-" a ,. ' S'FEi A. •.r.->. 4t 1y 7,,,. t4
K c `�,, "'. '-"i tag: _ �^'�a ar, -.i; a<w'-'s .11 'q�: .a•...,`..'7.,..^+ ,F_
d �,.y ; r: ""• 4' i aye-: - �` f:" i s s r i..
F.x f •W •�t `.V:�`4. -°--i Y" p�'-.,,•-y}y�e�aL `'Y, [� a>
S .1- a .
rA ' ✓, 4 °� -_f .�.. '•d ^+t P^-+ '[on.' o i-'r iiN-a``p' , eC_ F.: ;, "ems, p�k _
qLl
V.' � .�, ,r% M t: 4'i. VTR[
'`'."� tip'. d AF= ` a. H.y
M.
.,s-�.:. i ..,a
;.
.'r- k +-�'s '" r" „may �_g'�" ;:•�i,-�i r" `' � °'!Y` ` :�.?�?:� �. :.3" :£"8u: `-�i° t^y �g ;=?, ",•� MSG �`�y`;•�A� _ @'."-r-4 .'p,. ..aii 88?;<s _ S - - .
,a•a, a''s.. ' -c,::e Wt $-" I .' °air 'x,. . � ws.="'�'= 4.-scy: rd�e:,�b . •`�sr `:., " vas. xr° _ + A, .m, � A'••. `
-a -t,.. .;• ` "+.- 3'...,�, w- y.. `"Yxi°.:i'I 5.y _ T'.'+s•r4iI - ' "° v:Spb
`° - �# '� -F -"- '' s..+'»i'; .-i �.: �... . _"^ - 'Br q ws' ;" ^"!i"• E' _'`' ,, -, ,. •��. +-" ''..ix.�= r,;eS",.�a ;, ^, ,ri ". a' "� • _z -,y" ' z, • ~ . r . - , _..
-q Via:..,. ,.', _ _ ,3'S3 z r`r '`�., .'" , �+-..i. ��` • �!,: 3 `: e �N x. �e�y £x`.
a'Y- -� ` . "' -�+c .`"'"v y„•-, _ .,fir+'' Pd'�?+4.,a rs "..''. ' r,t'.'%'.!p'G• 4�. .x r;�wti»�'°,,,. -' .:ate - c . t�...;w ,p•,.. __� y. y'.. •�
' ?.v.�..: "' 't-r• '..�Ja _"S'".¢ .'._`"�5�. .[ i d:. 6a`. .wY.�IA. ° i YYl';••.�° `? 5• 3... adw.. -V �, - w5 _ _ x •W l a� ,S ^� (..
4 •. Rt �$ 5". = "5.�� - �x .ae 4A''�- �„? r.:q„�.z.°_ _ '`Y`i��,',,,,�,-s'� •�'...3��-i b: n _i % 4' `'° w .a:,•�s ,.,. z�x w , .
° m '• '°9•�" ss�p �.: -c,rE yak' `"..'3� ~`,3,'.` y-.�. t. %. 'w.es :tea=- s .qs. _ a"s. "I r' ; - a,. z' _ ., .-� a_ .
i'z ''ar'}'' �',+. r ,€`h �' , wr•. ". > s-• ,�, ?a.a� ti __e`:"'Cs.. -' ' 4 `•" p- _ i _
r y 'r •F-- - -': -' �, ,- '4 i .. T„ a wpe w> �, "-r;. F , J r g x, , a a u .
�€'�.`t., yea' i9. a•.,8.^.F' ..,«��..a 'i ' ` ''.':� %-:-^tea%t • _ .' .s4"": a
_.. •s Pa v ` .q �, .. r: 4•C.sp,,,!eP";✓:w r � * i, ' -d.., �� n
e ..° T, e �� ri.; :. i'' $,,, •0y L' 8 F H+ w a"� , �F• j - - d
J ;.• " } ix Via...+ _' „'.Sra" �:�� ''^� ..i' A
F.. r .r.•.y' L S.. ... /'^'�`j,.w44tY°Y^ '..k "•'^' id i" a.'y..e ..
L- i_. 'ice k ." r '. _ - .
i. a ( - ie T':: 4 ( F .,,,• a ' • aye. :. _
nP ` - -' .. • w�+m"Sa�"V-•rq-.`rif.tF.,.�^'ff . e S * . ;.
. " ��i; *7�t!_� t;=5;Y_zAw _A_A 1� I t I . \ -1 . - . . r ; . I.,
'4 ttc +c�i.
+". s•.sf". ;;_F x .. i. N x •^ _ ....ief.".- - - - .i,�,,��5'�•• " e tr•„� t.> =y .w yi r e._ - ., .. .
F i ^ V V.r • i �'. rr,- _!'� 'q <._y �•'�e,r �� Alt.;"' K . �i •'1 - `f ..
1�7
r „ f ° x•:¢ "ri > ir--
,'a nap ° u,:f.:
._:i••.. a." •W'.+.4^ `+.'sY•L`�-`"j y.. �'�5..-.iry •7'r. :.•ie'• ,..;'r'L �'"w d� ,•,,,ate ,.'�,; �.^z ''?ti .: �`y `7- " .. _..
.� q q .i'•":L - �' .-'i:•. r'"` •... ,..t : , :' .`'oR�' `*�„w-``-`�,-°b•..i,_.e -' i s a w'4i•n.e.: _ . _
;s.� «� :� . .ram .. r ':,Fs r; :. _ ' l..
gz_"�'�__k__`�
-'�yrEn--' :l.a _ _-;;.. ,.,`-: i.• ,:.'.• `eI «ir-.''.f••Y"� rF: �-Vb j�j�r i' `1m:. .cM...Y,;-tr.:.......,;w <R6.^ .5 - Tri--°d-=4. 1 _:ice a;.��jj -dAF-�:!<.= = .i. - .',}.� - _-.«..f. -?i. tt••. "^,k.. y,.g�.E'py,.....'.'�;,: ..'- rS:: -°` [` `'x" ,yn,� .enas¢,^•:Fy,:.. -.. ... .r
- _ ✓ ..
Y -' -9'� }��._s•7 "�.•. �, yr ,', � R�'�-w.u�_ _ ,- %l. '"i^. _.,��wi w--llw�e,..�„". •eP_•�'�^�... •-i: � -'L Y r� _..e .r . r
:`� `' ?+�?" "` ` T v - a". - a� � r •"--•- • •,.:eK. S•lopm *'•a rr.rs pp,P�°'K!F .,:„ .:.., i . �.,, I, •.a,>_. °�'�k µ� � ,,, v
cim
yew. ��.,.+-`i:.9'°',.:,."s3v'° 5••`."s '»i( `s„i.ww,�+-.' _' �w1ap.•-e.•",�'w"3p' - ...-, n_- "1'.q�` - 3^ CI
•+. - °�.. : �...ne .31s•....•.:.•ed= , i�s►,•s'.,,a 1#� p, r^^. = iAYa°€I+>.. �s`sa'� w p y , y-` .� ''-t a L__
r.,..,a-.• a _ .,ei(� •J; a�;,r ,.,ecs.a'•.":'�a�..�:._Ei>R'i'* �-w,,:L�" , -:, -•Y. �` '"' sar a .aF _ g`.
. vf9e� t •, ir, $# it - •� ...ats r. • a y E a.x+r, °•`-mod . ' i ,".. ��' 3 t.
" _V . . -, 9 . -1 I . . I - - , �"'L, 4, . - , . -'. - '. ".; , "'. - %� --, �_ __ � , � . . . - 1,
; - , I , - , - � 1-4 " ' .,-,-. . . Pk '
i .^. i .a �.< .a s , . ,e.ei'; a t �; ..,
`fie•.. " , ., .. , '_ .may' t', d • , k %:
s. '4'''°``Y ; . _ -..a• . a i s9^is ``.k' a�.�$'S=.x."' _ >2 L • '>.^ t i.;' -
Ai '
,' a . ,,,x_ik' > ...11 I� d - `i-. "fit.tob,''` ;,sue-g - :ajsa'� e 'i.-r"..qq - Ar :e
` -"q"", q `t• �.� } ■' = Yam.; ` ."t'
«.sip ''^"" - b'TE` r [�:.:�'`,,5,'iYamsc'�„`=^"-�?``�P�`.�.d`s'i-�. .`�,,<#-@.+r"�. ,is :'7'
.a:. W }. ...,.,u».� �.'1,a.F4 - `r'ai fir'.. s.x'%�.a,;" ••',,j .i• say-!-,fr'..•.'Sh '� $'< r;s3 '$ ^°
� '' • a; � - �:,�:. sa+eg �.ua s°°" - - � � . e:e�.�s� =; _ + E4 .:; - ' ch' =�''i '- .s .'F•' ... -• '.:,� Y'r :: 5v ;-'. �-g :';•Z rw-Y' - - ,�•.
6. s,. #a y,� r x w ids' .:, µ'; a s #z.•„Y'• a'r 5�? ry x- k
�An • :''' a `tea •. .' :('.•.. . '.. :.�
8 b.. "a -
'^ _ _-Y� ''..,B1w 4 r5F '�' °ar. s•aB^'SNs• 4 ./6 'ram°' �'9 .` • s
s • °rT.-' ,.`' -t^� b ra'. ° ,gam-c„f y8 : y• yg"t la i e N . -
� •'SF"^� , .w •g.7,`-,rs �, :3` .ems - b:.F': '"3,r.,', y•?. ,a°'rat�w" "j.. .:a�a'tc Yi -eb,.• F
`g �,. • q `max; "�rP;' " .. r.sx v .,[. ;.>•0. _ '&' ems. '° .0 `` •-<". r•.T,;, t',. � :i?9e,._ o-� . _ v ° `z�_
P:. .. ::t •, y'�e`,`ts?c-,jy tA`�S`' ,�.�•g� r d .�,�'- Va-,-'S�e:p„:r„�..:. xtrs ';..•, .�� _
"°GIs''ll iy"z °k. ° �,, ,r� Y a C 5 r.,•_3•..� ,`'� �4 �I tw F _ f.„�'a;, r
.r ml $' ✓t.> ,• •!!_u_' ^r ,y °s •_.°,�u,$"�8'%"< �"r-.''4"_,r:, y "...-.r: .xa 'L- N �;-
i 'Y:� a „i . ,` - f n " i;'°`° a=? cgs.. s ye i
... _ . ' Yr '..r ".*,^: •s r •; ' "r F c;•. ,W,'� -w� .-r� s.��.,..Q R•_�; _" fiMe.�.,.. rr.F ,., :r= s ` �. ..:4
...,..w., s,�e� R'yr�°.,:�� xar - ,fey`" q ' _•.:..'� ��-�,.X* :&.."�', "��rc.{�'...w i i�:.nt '°r„d. b .3 e yrt•... ai
d>..a _ . "• r "�- ^-gt ' , `x, .s4 a . _' }, y y S` •� '$es c �: ' " s�s.srg - ": s :"», ° ; �. •+ rys •,r ` : f
�' Ax!'.-.=t° `t �, :,54 s i� . � •s i $.- ;'S:;€'+ •#xT '°; .' '' 't°Y. :. �'c� `�' x �s• .�°:^'i??z^ -,s `.� �f : „�° .. 5
;:9 .,�:. >c. �fe.. 111Z �- , s.. g;, #s• L ',+'':,a;�i�' 4 f.. �. Y+„ � ''- .: '. s<.x ..a.. -'.ern 'i`.��;E ; •�i ;;, e.s�'%`i•fn' :3s�; `-.;:
It-_-, `��•+Y�:.- x'I.;Ilk^ �. wj- ^,-,,i."+. r^'�°� >� -".. _7 `s. ro-'L°rrntna "�,.,:�9e•-y' �q r..,. -r .3 ": �;`y., `,:�;.� •,i',,:�;u.
Is'ys�>`.`¢s., ...' "..�3�- -� i'�•�' •.s
; s •� M , {%�. .s �• ':a". :s'••`.}f,rk:hc'°�Ya ",...8 s",yr;p�...R.w r• �".:..:V,";
k �'g,;.";'�� : °'i. K ajW .,a•,� �. ..2 > };�E�tl 'a 's,,,�,. xY�`:-'t.' i oK'�.�r.�.ro.:r• rs s �� '� a
4 -xe8P��; m - ✓A d •LAB, 9_€'.4"^d^}•y:••C S ;'L, v '^s:.S-L.• °v A s f
- a ..r° `.- -4 *„!. q orf^` A� .t..z" A F•.:i L"``a,.,�•�. b-i "fir 'hv h •�3'F
,� . '�r - _. .. .. ..•��~. wig R° r erp.� }Ej ..4:w„i. i ee .` t•..,$x_s Y:' .
kj
C _
—vt r-5 C 'r-LT S I P.'s C- ;�� � ��: �.� P� � tt/` -- 7 — `TH [ S
C)E�C A -Pt ; I-,�s G --(R S 5 t 5 {
1 c: cE iZ-ice'71--LE G H p,
'CH AT
\ u`
FT
C, cv-- f-S -%Z U10 A-T�� CLUPt��T-I-f A- N3
0 \j G IE A S LL4E
AV t� k-� ?V, \j PE
CC7'--�' r ~-� �c._h� `� t 1't r' �; Pr '-�-�� ACT `}�{ �--r,
PLA
w
S + :��` u- �- - ��:•..��► #~�'� �`� ►h-''u"t `tom
L- —t<z,:.;
r r
April 10, 2007
To: The Kalispell City Planning Board
Please accept the following detailed comments on the proposed Valley Ranch Planned
Unit Development being developed by Gateway Properties. In brief our concerns include
the following:
1. Failure of the applicant to comply with Section 27.21.030 (5) page 66: Standards
for Planned Unit Development District (PUD), that requires specific information be
submitted as part of a PUD application including subdivision documents and other
essential information that has not been provided as required. Details comments on this are
provided in the comments that are attached_
2. Failure to comply with state law 76-2 -303 MCA on annexation hearings which
allows that a municipality may only conduct a hearing on the annexation in conjunction
with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation when the proposed new zoning
is comparable with the existing county zoning. The proposed zoning of R-Z with a PUD
is not comparable with the current zoning of SAG 10.
3. Failure to demonstrate that the proposed density and relaxed R--2 standards
proposed under the PUD provide, as is required, that there will be an improved
overall site design or comparable public benefits in additional open space. In fact the
relaxed PUD standards provide for an equivalent R-4# zoning with little to no public
benefit. R-1 is the classification associated with the Suburban Residential classification
called for in the Kalispell Growth Policy, which the public was led to believe was the
future density for this area unless significant public benefit was to be provided for
increased density under a PUD. A PUD under the R-1 classification would allow for 3
dwelling units/acre not the 4.5 proposed. A PUD for this proposed development should
demonstrate the significant public benefits and improved site design should include
elements that:
• Create an increased buffer (100 ft) between lots for lots 170-1 89 which
back into a steep ponderosa tree covered slope and lots 7-1 8 which are in an area
of historic drainage problems and an area with existing trees that should be
retained for buffering.
0 Consolidate internally (as opposed to highway frontage) public park
facilities in excess of the minimum required of 10.59 to offset density increases
requested;
• Assure that trail systems are scaled compatible with proposed trails in
adjoining subdivision and that they include and provide connectivity to parks and
trail systems in adjoining developments,
0 Provide greater buffers to adjoining development in exchange for
requested higher density internally,
► Do not allow for storm water or lift station facilities to be considered as -
part
of calculations for park facilities or to be sited so as to interfere with the
optimal function of park areas,
' See attached Exhibit A chart that compares zone classifications
Detain existing trees,
Address areas of high ground water and seasonal flooding.
4. Inadequate transportation infrastructure or solutions are in place to address
transportation issues identified in TAC committee discussions and in the current
new draft Kalispell Transportation Plan. Conditioning this development on the future
development of a full movement intersection is premature and allows for speculative
development not consistent with the predictability and time lines that a PUD is clearly
required to provide as part of the City of Kalispell Zoning Regulations. This application
is premature until comprehensive transportation guidelines are in place for the
development being proposed north of Reserve Street. For example, it is of concern that
the Sliverbrook development at Church Drive was approved with the assumption that an
over -pass would be built and yet now it has apparently been announced that no funding
for this by-pass exists!
5. Staff recommendations for a series of future amendments to the PUD are not
allowed under Kalispell Zoning Regulations 27.21.020 (7) Limitation on Rezoning or
under requirements under 27.21.030 (5) that require certain information to be part of a
PUD application not future amendments to a PUD. Missing information and issues
proposed for future amendments include: phasing of the development under the PUD, a
park improvement plan, location of parks, development of a proposed assisted living
center, future parking anal- signage plans, and a street connection for a future full
movement intersection.. Encouraging and allowing for a series of future amendments also
opens the door for amendments for other uses than say a proposed assisted living center.
Lack of deadlines for future amendments may result in the inability to make adjustment
to lots, parks, buffers, and streets.
6. Potential inappropriate citing of the proposed future assisted living center in an
area where height, noise, and high groundwater may create unacceptable problems
should be addressed now, not by future amendments to the PUD.
Each of these six points is addressed in greater detail below. we request that you deny
the application before you tonight and direct the developers to address the incomplete
information that is required to be provided as well as the issues raised within these
comments. This application is speculative in nature given that road infrastructure is not
in place to serve it and time should be taken to create a better and more complete plan for
this development.
1. Incomplete PUD Api3lication due to failure to submit Subdivision documents
required -by the Kalispell zoning regulations for a PUD application
Section 27.21.030 (5) page 66: Standards for Planned Unit Development District
(PUD), of the Kalispell Zoning Regulations, require that "The property owner applying
for a PUD district classification shall submit three copies of a PUD preliminary plan
which shall contain the following information. If a PUD also involves a subdivision, the
submittal shall also include the information and documents required for application
stated in. the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations." (Emphasis added)
2
The Valley Ranch PUD clearly involves a subdivision and yet the application submittal
file does not include the subdivision documents required for application under Section
27.21.030 (5) page 66. A list of issues that should have been more clearly addressed
as part of required subdivision documents like an environmental assessment
include. identification of historic areas of seasonal high groundwater, groundwater
mapping, clarification of proposed (but vague) "underground"' storm water detention
facilities and issues of high ground water, lot and parkland layout that could be
problematic given areas of high groundwater, and lack of information regarding the
source of city wells that will provide water. The well issue is of concern given the
potential for problems under recent court rulings that may result in the lack of approval
for new appropriations in the basin. New city wells are proposed at the recently approved
Church Drive subdivision but it is not clear if the city has water rights for this
development. Subdivision documents are needed to inform a decision by the planning
board, the city council or to inform the public wishing to comment on this proposal. An
environmental assessment is an important subdivision document needed given significant
ground water issues in this area. This application should be rejected because the PUD
application is incomplete and informedublic comment and decision rnakin can not take
lace without this information provided.
Incom lete PUD Application due to failure to submit other documents re uired
under i of Kalispell PUD Re ulations includ* the followin re uired under
Section 27.21.030 (5)2 page 66: Standards for Planned Unit Development District
(PUD)0o
"(a). Proposed dimensional layout plan super -imposed on a two to five foot interval
t PP
0.g X-map of the area drawn to a scale not less than one inch equals Zoo feet
showing all streets, buildings, open space, lots and other elements basic to the
development;"
Comment. THE SUBMITTED TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IS DIFFICULT TO READ AND,
DOES NOT PROVIDE IMPORTANT SLOPE INFORMATION NEEDED INCLUDING
SL OPE INFOR A TION FOR L OTS 170-189 WHICH BA C'K INTO] A STEEP
PONDER OSA[ TREE CO VERED SL OPE .AND L CATS 7-18 WHCH ARE IN AN AREA OF
HISTORIC DRATNA GE PR OBLEMS. THE B U.IDABLE AREA OF THESE L O TS IN
CONFORMANCE WITH SL OPE R EG UL A TIONS AND NA T URAL DRATNA GE AREA S
2 It is irn ortant to note that such information is not o tional but that the code say this information "shall
be" provided. 27.21.020: General. The following application and review procedures shall apply to
designation and approval of all planned unit developments in the city. (1). Initiation of Application. The
land owner shall submit an application to the zoning commission for a change of zoning from the existing
district to a proposed PUD district or for creation of a PUD district on annexation of the property into the
city. The a lication shall be accom anied b a 12refiImina lan containinLi the information
reguired in Section 27.21.03In cases where the development will be executed in increments, a
schedule showing the time within each part will he filed and completed, shall also be included in the
application.
SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH MISSING S UBDI VISION A NA L YSIS FOR
THESE LOTS. SINCE BOTH AREAS ARE TRANSITION AREAS BETWEEN VALLEY
RANCH AND PONDEROSA ESTATES THE YSHO ULD BE REDESIGNED TO
PROVIDE A LARGER BUFFER FROM THIS EXISTING SUBDIVISION AND OF
THESE SENSITIVE AREAS. THE PROPOSED BUFFER AREA SHOULD BE
INCREASED FROM 20 FEET TO 100 FEET. -(SEE MORE DISCUSSION OF THE
PROPOSED BUFFER AREA BELOW)
(b). Proposed locations, areas, densities and types of residential and nonresidential uses
and structures within the area proposed to be developed and maximum height.of.
buildings or structure;
Comment: WHILE THE APPLICA TION NOTES THA T IT WILL ALL O W FOR A
MAA7MUM OF 35FEET IN .B UIL.DING HEIGHT IT DOES .NOT ADDRESS AREAS
WHERE USE OF THIS FULL HEIGHT WO ULD IMPA CT VIE W SHEDS THE STAFF
REPORT REFERENCES "EXCELLENT VIEWS OF THE VALLEY FLOOR AND
BEYOND " YET THE APPLICATION AND STAFF REPORT .FAIL TO IDENTIFY
.AREAS WHERE HEIGHT LIMITA TIONS MA .Y BE NEEDED TO RETAIN IMPORTANT
VIE W'SHEDS. JUST SD UTH OF THIS PR OJECT FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE INITIAL
PR OP0SAL B Y B UCKY WOLF ORD LIMITS B UIL DINGS AL ONG HIGHWA Y 93 TO
ONE STOR Y .HA TEE BEEN PR OPOSED. A SIMILAR HEIGHT LIMITATION SHO ULD
BE PLA CED ON THE PR DPOSED ASSISTED LI VIING CENTER THAT IS PROPOSED
TO FRO UNT HIGHWA Y 93.
pro osed plans for handling vehicular traffc, p��- ng �ev�rage d�s�€�sal ' a na e _
(c).p
` vel: e t -e-a s
ent"a ert ` e �= - de m n e
v i er su s e` e r t t e #M � � h�
pp p p p
Comment: THE APPLIC.A TION IS LA CK1 NG IN NECESSARY DETAIL FOR .ALL OF
THESE ISSUES
P.A.MNG THE DE VEL OP.MENT STANDARDS REQUIRE .NO ON STREET
0 VERNIGHT PARKING .AND REQ UIRE TWO CAR GARA GES AND TWO G UEST
VEHICLE PAR 17VG SPACES ON EA CH LOT. NO DOCUMENTATION IS PR VIDED
TO SHOW IF THIS IS DOABLE.
SE WA GE DISPOSAL --,-A LIFT STA TION IS IDENTIFIED AS NEEDED AND SITED
WITHIN A PARK ..AREA. CREDIT FOR PARKLAND SHO ULD NOT BE PRO YIDED
FOR THE AREA USED FOR THE LIFTSTA TION.
DRAINA GE NO INFORMATION IS PR YIDED TO ALL W FOR ETEAL UA TION
THE PROPOSED STORMWA TER SYSTEM OF "UNDERGROUND TANKS". NO
INFURMA TION IS PRO YIDE.D TO DEMONSTRA TE HO W STORMWA TER
GENRA TED B Y STREETS WILL BE HANDELE.D .AND IF C URB AND G UTTER WILL
BE USED TO .DIRECT THIS WATER.
WA TER SUPPL K1STD INFORMA TION IS PR 0 J/7DE.D AS TO HO W A WA TER SUPPL Y
SYSTEM WILL BE DE VEL OPED .AND IF THIS INC'L UDES THE DE VEL OPMENT OF
IVE W WELLS THA T HA V ".E E ISTJNG WA TER RIGHTS A VAILABLE IN THE .AREA
4
AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO EXISTING WELLS IN THE AREA FROM THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A LARGE CAPASITY WELL..
SITE P.ERI BIER TER TREA TMENT AND OTHER PERTINENT SITE
DE VEL OPMENT FEA T URESNO DETAIL PUNS HA VE BEEN PR 0 YIDED. ALL
DE VEL OPIENT .STANDARDS PROPOSED ARE LEFT TO THE JUDGEMENT OF
THE DE VEL OPER AND A DE VEL DPER APPOINTED COMMITTEE. THE P UD
SHOULD SET BASE STANDARDS DS THAT WILL BE FOLL O WED. THE RETENTION
OF E ISTING TREES THA T BORDER, B UFFER, AND PRO VIDE SIGNIFICANT
CHA RA CTER FOR THE P ONDER OSA S UBDI VISION HA TEE NO T BEEN
ADDRESSED.
(d),` Elevation drawings which demonstrate.. visually the gen erat architectural features of
each -prop o sed building or architecturally .distinct groupor type of buildings and -the site
perimeter treatment;
Com m en t. NO DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED.
(e). The plan shall show the boundary lines of adjacent subdivided or unsubdivided land
and the existing zoning of the area proposed to be changed to PUD as well as the land
adjacent thereto;
An'erLumeration of covenants in defiail proposed to be made a part of the PUD and
shall be enforceable by the city council;
Comment: THE STAFF REPORT PR VIDES NO RECIEW OF THESE COVENANTS
AND THEIR ADEQ UA CY OR ENFOR CA BILITY BY THE CITY ANALYSIS IS NEEDED
TO DETERMINE IF THESE CCUVENENANTS COMPLY WITH 27.22.030 Design
Standards for Single Family Dwellings OF THE K4LISPELL ZONING
REGULATIONS' THESE COVENANTS OR DE VEL OP1 ENT STANDARDS A S THEY
ARE CALLED BY THE APPLICANT DO NOT PROVIDE ASSURANCES OR DETAIL
ABOUT THE MAINTAINCE OF COMMON AREAS AS REQUIRED. IT IS NOT CLEAR
WHA T PARK AREAS WILL BE CITY PARKS AND WHO( T WILL BE COMMON Ill ON AREAS
MA17VTAINED B Y A HOMED WNERS ASSOCIA TIDN. IT IS NOT CLEAR IF A
HOMED WNER ASSDCIA TION WILL E VER BE CREA TED AND IF IT CO ULD HA VE
CITY VOTING POWER.
fat � t -
A s� ex ressn he ord-n which tei�eev rrie sh1 occur and :e tirrated`
(g) p g.
tia ;for comb eting the development. In case of a phased development, estimated time
schedule for starting and completing each phase of the development shall be provided
{ernphasis_ added};
Comment: NO PHASING PLAN .IS PROVIDED ASIS REQUIRED. IT IS NOT
COMPLIANT WITH THESE REGULATIONS TO SUGGEST, AS THE APPLICANT
HAS, THA T A T SOME UNIfNO WN FUT URE DA TE AFTER ADEQ U4 TE TRAFFIC"
INFRA STR UCT URE HAS BEEN B UIL T B Y DE VEL 0PMENTS TO THE SD UTH. THA T
THEN THEY WILL PROVIDE A PHASING SCHEDULE. CITY REG ULA TIONS
CLEARL Y REQ UIRE THAT THIS SCHED ULE BE PR O VIDED AND COMMITTED TO
AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION.
(h). Adequate provisions shall be made for a private organization with direct
responsibility to, and control by, the property owners involved to provide for the
operation and maintenance of all common facilities, including private streets jointly
shared by each property owner, if such facilities are a part of the Planned Knit
Development, and in such instance, legal assurances shall be . provided.�vhich . show that.
the'..private organizatio is self-perpetuating and adequatel�r funded to accomplish its
purpss Real property taxes of the private streets and common areas shall be assessed
as levied pro rata to all privately owned parcels within the district;
Comment: 'SEE COMMENT ON (0 ABOVE. THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PROVIDED TO NOT PROVIDE FOR DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY TO OR CONTROL
BY PROPERTY O WNERS. LEGAL ASSURANC'ES ARE NOT CLEAR.
(1). Adequate provisions shall be made for common facilities which are nof`dedicated to
the public to be maintained to standards assuring continuous and adequate maintenance at
a reasonable and nondiscriminatory rate of charge to be beneficiaries thereof. Common
facilities not dedicated to the public shall be operated and maintained by the private
organization and at no expense to any governmental unit;
Comment: SEE COMMENT ON (/) AND (h) above. THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO
IDENTIFY WHICH FACILIES WILL BE COMMON AND WHICH WILL BE
DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC THUS THIS REQUIREMENT HAS NOT BEEN
ADDRESSED.
0). All private streets shall be maintained by the aforesaid private organization in such a
manner that adequate and safe access is provided at all times to vehicular traffic so that
fire, police, health, sanitation and public utility vehicles can serve the properties
contiguous or adjacent thereto and so that said vehicles will have adequate turning area;
Cam m en t: IT IS NOT CLEAR WHA T S'TREE TS ]TILL BE PRI VA TE AND WHA T WILL
BE ASSUMED BY THE CITY.
(k). The off -sheet Barking to be prodded shall meet` the minimum' standards for off -`street
parking;as per Chapter 27.2E of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance;
Comment: THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRE NO ON STREET
OVERNIGHT PARKING AND REQUIRE TWO CAR GARAGES AND TWO GUST
VEHICLE PARKING SPACES ONEACHLOT. NO DOCUMENTATIONIS PROVIDED
TO SHOW IF THIS IS DOABLE OR IF IT COMPLIES WITH KALISPELL ZONING
ORDIANCES. THE STAFF REPORT NOTES POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH
PARKING UNDER ITS REVIEW OF THE PUD EVALUATION CRITERIA #S NOTING
PROBLEMS WITH SETBACKS FOR GARAGES AND PARKING BLOCKING
6
SIDE WALKS DR ALLEY .AREAS. IT IS NOT C'L.EAR THA T THE RECOMMENDED
"FIDE LOADED "GARAGE DESIGN ADDRESSES .ALL THESE ISSUES.
(1). Where a PUD also involves a subdivision of land, it shall also meet the requirements
of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations and the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act;
Comment: AS .NOTED EARLIER REQUIRED SUBDIVISION D0CUMENTATION WAS
NOT PROVIDED.
(m). The city council shall requirre.b6.udi: or any other appropriate collateral to ensure
that all required improvements shall be satisfactorily completed in accordance to the
approved plans, specifications and time schedule; and,
Comment: NO CONDITIONS HA VE BEEN SUGGESTED TO ESTABLISH THE
REQUIRED BONDING.
(n). Any other information, plans and details which the planning board and/or city
council may desire to fully evaluate the development proposal and its impacts.
C o mment: G VEN THE RECENT REP OR T ON THE KA LISPEL-L TRANSPOR TA TION
PLAN THAT INDICATES SIGNIFICANT FUTURE TRAXSPORTA TION ISSUES IN
THISAREA GIVEN THE DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED IN THIS AREA,
THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE TABLED UNTIL FINIAL RECOMMENDATIONS
ARE MADE BY THIS STUD YAND THESE RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE
CONSIDERED AND INCORPORATED TNTO THE CONDIT-IONS OF THE
PROPOSED PUD.
2. Annexation bearing method is not consistent with state law. The proposed
method of annexation for valley. Ranch is not in conformance with state law. 76-2-303
MCA3 which only allows that a municipality may conduct a hearing on the annexation in
3 76-2-303. Procedure to administer certain annexations and zoning laws -- hearing and notice. ( I )
The city or town council or other legislative body of a municipality shall provide for the manner in which
regulations and restrictions and the boundaries of districts are determined, established, enforced, and
changed, subject to the requirements of subsection (2).
(2) A regulation, restriction, or boundary may not become effective until after a public hearing in
relation to the regulation, restriction, or boundary at which parties in interest and citizens have an
opportunity to be heard has been held. At least 15 days' notice of the time and place of the hearing must be
published in an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the municipality.
(3) (a) For municipal annexations, a municipality may conduct a hearing on the annexation in
conjunction with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation, provided that the proposed municipal
zoning regulations for the annexed property:
(i) authorize land uses comparable to the land uses authorized by county zoning;
(ii) authorize land uses that are consistent with land uses approved by the board of county
commissioners or the board of adjustment pursuant to part l or.? of this chapter; or
(iii) are consistent with zoning requirements recommended in a growth policy adopted pursuant to
chapter l of this title or in a master plan, as provided for in 76- 2-3o4(3), for the annexed property.
7
conjunction with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation, provided that the
proposed municipal zoning regulations for the annexed property:
(i) authorize land uses comparable to the land uses authorized by county zoning;"
The proposed land uses (R-2 with a PUD overlay allowing for smaller lot sizes) are not
comparable with the existing county zoning of SAG-10. Under state law a separate
hearing on annexation must beheld prior to consideration of rezoning. This request for
initial zoning and annexation should be rejected and the legally required separate hearing
on annexation should be held first_
3.) Failure to demonstrate that the proposed density and relaxed R-2 standards
proposed under the PUD provide, as is required, that there will be an improved
overall site design or comparable public benefits in additional open space.
The following definitions give guidance on the public benefit that should result from
relaxed standards or increased density.
76-3-103. Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the context or subject matter
clearly requires otherwise, the following definitions apply: (10) "Planned unit
development" means a land development project consisting of residential clusters,
industrial parks, shopping centers, or office building parks that compose a planned
mixture of land uses built in a prearranged relationship to each other and having open
space and community facilities in common ownership or use.
From the Kalispell Zoning Regulations, Definitions'- Page 193, (169). Planned Unit
Development. A tract of land developed as an integrated unit. The development is
unique and is based on a plan which allows for flexibility of design, setting and
density not otherwise possible under the prevailing zoning district regulations.
From the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations 9.45 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD)-. A land development project consisting of residential clusters, industrial parks,
shopping centers, or office building parks that compose a planned mixture of land uses
built in a prearranged relationship to each other and having open space and community
facilities in common ownership or use. A PUD allows for flexibility of design, setting
or density, in exchange for improved overall site design.
Public benefits for increased density should be the cornerstone of developments that
request annexation into the city if Kalispell is to retain a former reputation for having
great neighborhood. Given the significant density and relaxed standards be requested
(b) A joint hearing authorized under this subsection fulfills a municipality's obligation regarding zoning
notice and public hearing for a proposed annexation.
History: En. sec. 4, Ch. 136, L. 1929; re --en. Sec. 5305.4, R.C.M. 1935; R.G.M. 1947, 11-2704; amd.
Sec. IIICh. 217, L. 1997; arnd. sec. 1, Ch. 35�, L. 1999; Scc. 34, Ch. 5¢�, L. 1999; amd. See. 5, Ch. 87, L.
2003.
0 s
here public benefits should be demonstrated and required. we are proposing that the
following public benefits be assured.-
0 Create an increased buffer (100 ft) between lots for lots 170-189 which
back into a steep ponderosa tree covered slope and lots 7-18 which are in an area
of historic drainage problems and an area with existing trees that should be
retained for buffering.
■ Consolidate internally (as opposed to highway frontage) public park
facilities in excess of the minimum required of 10.59 to offset density increases
requested;
■ Assure that trail systems are scaled compatible with proposed trails in
adjoining subdivision and that they include and provide connectivity to parks and
trail systems in adjoining developments,
■ Provide greater buffers to adjoining development in exchange for
requested higher density internally,
■ Do not allow for storm water or lift station facilities to be considered as
part of calculations for park facilities or to be sited so as to interfere with the
optimal function of park areas,
■ Retain existing trees,
• Address areas of high ground. water and seasonal flooding.
4. Inadequate transportation infrastructure or solutions are in place to address
transportation issues identified in TAC committee discussions and in the current
new draft Kalispell Transportation Plan. Conditioning this development on the future
development of a full movement intersection is premature and allows for speculative
development not consistent with the predictability and time lines that a PUD is clearly
required to provide as part of the pity of Kalispell honing Regulations.
The PUD application is remature and should be denied as demonstrated b it failure to
meet the following PUD requirements:
A) 27.21.030: Standards for Planned Unit Development District (PUD).
(1). Location of PUD. A PUD district shall be located in an area where public and
private facilities and services are available or are to become available by the time the
development reaches the stage where they will be required.
There is no know date for the development of a full movement intersection to the south
and thus this PUD is premature and speculative and should be denied until certainty is
available assure adequate public facilities.
B) 27.21.020: General. The following application and review procedures shall apply to
designation and approval of all planned unit developments in the city.
(1). Initiation of Application: The land owner shall submit an application to the zoning
commission for a change of zoning from the existing district to a proposed PUD district
or for creation of a PUD district on annexation of the property into the city. The
application shall be accompanied by a preliminary plan containing the information
required in Section 27.21.030(5). In cases where the development will be executed in
increments a schedule showine the time within each part will be filed and
completed, shall also be included in the application.lemphasis added
Phasing can not be addressed until adequate public facilities are in place and thus_this
PUD is premature and speculative and should be denied until certainty is available assure
adequate public facilities
5. Staff recommendations for a series of future amendments to the PUD are not
allowed under Kalispell Zoning regulations 27.21.020 (7) Limitation on Rezoning or
under requirements under 27.21.030 (5) that require certain information to be part of a
PUD application not future amendments to a PUD. Missing information and issues
proposed for future amendments include: phasing of the development under the PUD, a
park improvement plan, location of parks, development of a proposed assisted living
center, future parking and signage plans, and a street connection for a future full
movement intersection. Encouraging and allowing for a series of future amendments also
opens the door for amendments for other uses than say a proposed assisted living center.
Lacy of deadlines for future amendments may result in the inability to make adjustment
to lots, parks, buffers, and streets. See regulation below.
27.21.020 (7). Limitation on Rezoning. The zoning comm10 to
ission shall not initiate
any amendment to the zoning ordinance or Official Map concerning the property
involved in a Planned Unit Development before the completion of the development
as long as development is in conformity with the approved detailed Planned Unit
Development and proceeding in accordance. with the time requirements imposed therein.
From and after approval of the Planned Unit Development by the city council under
Sections 27.21.020(4) and 27.21.020(5) the building official is authorized to issue
appropriate permits complying with approved plan.
G. Potential inappropriate citing of the proposed future assisted living center in an
area where height, noise, and high groundwater may create unacceptable problems
should be addressed now, not by future amendments- to the PUD.
This issue should not be the subject of a future amendment. In accordance with city PUD
regulations such issues should be resolved as part of the original PUD approval.
10
11erriily 1ik.Lci c==13]60 sq Ft per
ilcrc died.:[ by 0000 �'4 It
11111-11 ilillli lot siz_L - 7.26 units of
!h1cl-Aiz. t cnrrrparable density
27.07.00: Intent. A resicicirtial
dlstrit�r I."I ll 1-111i,irriliiii lot are('Is.
l e.��ta<�1]i�lcii( Within (I)c
rfistr i� i ���ill JcL:quirk. all plildic
111i1Jtr S 1.11)d all coi�-injulllty
111cilrtics. -1 �v?O liawly
d»�elli,lg:� al-C I)GI-1111acd ii) (Ills
27.07A)U: Pj-oper•iy
DeI'Clippill Vill Stakid;rrcls.
(1 . 1'Eliittoiiiitlf l.or ,'area.- 6000
h,liilitriit ill 1_t:,t '��1�itlili (1`T): 5I)
1v1i111alLill i 1'm-ds (1,T).
1ZcAr 10
.��d 15
0), 1t'Llmirililii [3w1dilig 11c:ight
(_:4 1'cl-11-11ficd Lot {_;ot' r4i6c (`iG):
-1 a
(0). O1i�-skr_:Ct Pm Ili el, to
Uhl oci 27.2(1.
(i ). �I�l:�illlclilt I��al�.:c: llcigllts
l I '1'):
,As 1)�:i Scciloii 27_�1 , 090,
t j. Siwll,: pGILCr to (.IiLipter 27.24
R-3
Density per acre=43,560 sq
ft per acre divded by 7000 sq
ft iiiiiiiirrum lot size= 6.2
units of average
comparable density --
27.06.010: Intent. A
residential district to provide
lot areas for tirban
development. This
development insist be served
by all public utilities,
27.06.040: Property
Development Standards.
(1). Nliirinxim Lot Area:
7000 scvai-e feet
12). Minjimun Lot Width
(FT): 60
(3). Minimum Yards (FT):
Front Yard - 20
Side Yard -- 5
Rear Yard - 20
Side Cormier - 20
M. Maxiamin Building
Height (FT): 35
(5). Permitted Lot Coverage
40
{6). Off Streei• Parking: Refer
to Chapter 27.26.
(7). Maxiaiuni Fence heights
(FT);
As per Section 27.22.090.
(8), Sighs: Refer to Chapter
27.24,
R--2 Proposed Valley Ranch
Underlying Zoning for PUD
Density per acre=43,560 sq ft per
acre divded by 9600 sq ft
mininium lot size= 4.5 units of
average comparable density
27.05.010: Intent. A district to
Provide adequate lot areas for
urban residential development;
should have good thoroughfare
access, and be in proximity to
cominunity and neighborhood
facilities, i.e., schools, parks,
shopping areas, etc. This
development will normally
require all public utilities.
27.05.040; Property
Development Standards.
(1). Minimuin Lot Area: 9600
square fee_ t
N
(3). Minimum Yards (FT):
Front Yard - 20
Side Yard -- 10
(4). Maxin)uin Building Height
(FT): 35
(5). Pennitted Lot Coverage (%):
35
(6). Oft -Street Parking. Refer- to
Chapter 27.26.
(7). Maxiniuni Fence Heights
(FT):
As per Section 27.22.090.
(8). Signs. Refer_- to Chapter 27.24.
R-1 Suburan Residential (Growth
Policy Designation for Valley
Ranch)
Density per acre=43,560 sq ft Per
acre divded by 43,560 sq ft
niinin-iuni lot size= 1 unit of
average comparable density
27.04.010: Intent. A transitional
district to provide for estate -type
residential development and for the
performance of line ted agricultural
activities. This district would
normally he located in rural areas
and serve as a buffer between urban
and onliniited agricultural uses.
These areas are generally beyond
the service area of city municipal
sewer and water facilities.
27.04.040: Property Development
Standards.
(l). Miilinium Lot Area: One Acre.
(2). Minirnuin Lot Width (FT): 150
(3). Minimun-i Yards (FT):
Front Yard - 30
Side Yard - 20
Real- Yard --- 20
Side Comer- - 30
(4). Maximum Building Height
(FT): 35
(5), Permitted Lot Coverage (%): 35
(6). Off -Street Parking: Refer- to
Chapter 27,26,
(7). Maxinnini Fence Heights (FT):
As per Section 27.22.090
(8). Signs: Refer to Chapter 27.24,
V"rlley Rallelr (Proposed as a
R-2 with a PUD Overlay with
reduced lot: sizes)
Density per acre�43,560 sq ft
per Pure divded by 7000 sq Et
niininiunl lot size=-= 7.2 6 units
of average comp:trable
(lensityr
PUD intent; 27.21,010: Intent,
It is the intent of this chapter to
provide a zoning cfi�,irlct
classification
which may provide: flexibility
ofarchitectural design and
nixing of land uses
while preserving and enhancing
integrity and environmental
values of' all area.
Proposed "valley Ranch
Development Standards.
M. Minimum Lot Area, 6000
square iect
(2). Minioluizl Lot Width (1-7):
48 S-1' Lots, 251- (H I Lots)
M. Miniiiium Yards (FT):
Front Yard - 20
Sidi; Yard - 5 or 1011 (lots 179-
204)
Rear Yard - 5Av/ril)ey,
IOwo/aIIcy
S ide Corner - 10
(4). MaXimitn1 l3Eiildill6 Height
WO: 35
(5). Permitted Lot Coverage
0'a): 35
(6). Off -Street Parking: Refer to
Chapter 27.26.
(7). Maximimt Fence Heights
(1"T):
As per Section 2722,090,
N. Signs: Defer to Chapter
27.24.
April 512007
Kalispell Planning Department
17 2nd Street East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
Attention: Tam Jentz
We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the
current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in-
cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in
Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High-
way 93 approximately 1 + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own
lots within 150 feet.
Please refer to Montana Code Annotated 2005 as follows:
76-2--305. Alteration of zoning regulations - protest.
(1) A regulation, restriction, and boundary may be amended, supplemented, changed, modified, or
repealed. The provisions of 76-2-303 relative to public hearings and official notice apply equally
to all changes or amendments.
(2) An amendment may not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and
voting members of the city or town council or legislative body of the municipality if a protest against a
change pursuant to subsection (1) is signed by the owners of 25% or more of:
(a) the area of the lots included in any proposed change; or
(b) those lots 150 feet from a lot included in a proposed change.
LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE
4L is Ar LC 'rn
7s�-775
�
L A
1<`A4-iSPG_i.t 9q 96 1
75"6 -3`�S�
y
r4 z;xl TSA
L
April 5, 2007
Kalispell Planning Department
17 2nd Street East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
Attention: Tom Jentz
We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the
current zoning density of SA--1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in-
cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in
Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 west. The 50.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High-
way 93 approximately 1 + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own
lots within 150 feet.
Please refer to Montana Code Annotated 2005 as follows:
76-2-305. Alteration of zoning regulations - protest.
(1) A. regulation, restriction, and boundary may be amended, supplemented, changed, modified, or
repealed. The provisions of 75- 2-303 relative to public hearings and official notice apply equally
to all changes or amendments.
(2) An amendment may not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and
voting members of the city or town council or legislative body of the municipality if a protest against a
change pursuant to subsection (1) is signed by the owners of 25% or more of
(a) the area of the lots included in any proposed change; or
(b) those lots 150 feet from a lot included in a proposed change.
LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE
dower cl, lio ,ILL
April 5, 2007
Kalispell Planning Department
17 2nd Street East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
Attention: Tom Jentz
We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the
current zoning density of SA-1 County and R- I in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in-
cluded in the proposed project known as valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in
Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 west. The 50.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High-
way 93 approximately 1 + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and west Reserve Drive. we all own
lots within 150 feet.
Please refer to Montana Code Annotated 2005 as follows:
76-2-305. Alteration of zoning regulations - protest..
(1) A regulation, restriction, and boundary may be amended, supplemented, changed, modified, or
repealed. The provisions of 76-2-303 relative to public hearings and official notice apply equally
to all changes or amendments.
(2) An amendment may not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and
voting members of the city or town council or legislative body of the municipality if a protest against a
change pursuant to subsection (1) is signed by the owners of 25% or more of:
(a) the area of the lots included in any proposed change; or
(b) those lots 150 feet from a lot included in a proposed change.
LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE
-
j
:2
7
.
►i'
�• 1
�
�
y
1
Al
Y
E
i
Cl ,A, '0"� t6
i /111101
April S, 2007
Kalispell Planning Department
17 2nd Street East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
Attention: Tom Jentz
We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, Wish to officially protest any change in the
current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in-
cluded in the proposed project known. as Valley Ranch. It can be ' described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in
Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is .located on the east side of High-
way g
Way 93 approximately 1 + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own
lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development.
NAME
ax-o 1 � �•�
L-f- &f
ADDRESS PHONE
April 5, 2007
Kalispell Planning Department
17 2nd Street East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
Attention: Tom Jentz
We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the
r current zoning density of SA- I County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in-
cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in
Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is .located on the east side of High-
way 93 approximately I + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own
lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development.
LOT # NAME
ADDRESS
r3� moti f Pad._
ell
PHONE
Z,5 2- - sus z.
i�
L10
r r
r
April 5, 2007
Kalispell Planning Department
17 2nd Street East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
Attention: Tom Jentz
We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the
current zoning density of SA- I County and R- I in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in-
cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in
Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 west. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High-
way 93 approximately 1 + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and west Reserve Drive. We all own
lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development.
LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE
2.
r'i,vr641)
J'1A1
7-5Z - 2330.4
el
JQ
t�,%,-� �rF f,t)c
17
-7
01 �F OC J7 Z,v,
Pncf4Cav
7ss- 7�3s
Z)"7
April 5, 2007
Kalispell Planning Department
17 2nd Street East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
Attention; Tom Jentz
We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the
current zoning density of SA_ I County and R-r I in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in-
cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in
Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High-
way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own
lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development.
LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE
ZL
CX0
1 �rk'✓I + �N✓;� UUM�Y �
� I oc�l�t�� so I�v1�
d s 1 y6 i I
oe
75
l7N ; �n�12 �l7nS
�%��r�C(evostiLn_
3��7�552�
dosct�c�Tuui-v6�twoo
J
April 5, 2007
Kalispell Planning Department
17 2nd Street East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
Attention: Tom. Jentz
We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the
current zoning density of SA- 1 County and R- I in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in-
cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in
Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is .located on the east side of High-
way 93 approximately l+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own
lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development.
LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE
3 /
J/So
JTe�61
�-�
37� �snc��er �
7.S -
3dooc
L �qn4 O�SeH
�
378
April 5, 2007
Kalispell Planning Department
17 2nd Street East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
Attention: Tom Bentz
We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the
current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in-
cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in
Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 west. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High-
way 93 approximately 1 + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own
lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this developmente.
LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE
K-a h spe l l Department
I st, Suite 211
lisp �l , 1r ` ')9901
Attention: Tom Jentz
We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the
current zonincy density of SA-1 County and R--1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in-
cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 2BC in
Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 west. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High-
way 93 approximately 1 + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and west Reserve Drive. we all own
lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development.
LOT ## NAME ADDRESS PHONE
t*,J
e07, I
��
Me fi'r5C
�r lq (In.�S�nu1
75�-/?U�
April 5, 2007
Kalispell Planning Department
17 2nd Street East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
Attention: Tom Jentz
We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, Wish to officially protest any chi t g c 411
current zoning density of SA-1 County and RW 1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the r-
cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3. tand
Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is .located on the east siat-, = s w
way 93 approximately I + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. i �, e
lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development.
�� 2s-
April S, 2007
Kalispell Planning Department
17 2nd Street East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
Attention: Tom Jentz
We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any ch-i -i�-r
current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the prof��-�Y� � � -
cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, anO-
Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 west. The 80.7 acre project site is .located on the east si F _a
way 93 approximately 1 + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and west Reserve Drive.
lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development.
LOT # NAME ADDRESS P�-�.�_
Po
I .. . g5 5/�--
14)\GA ff I
--7
1
April S, 2007
Kalispell Planning Department
17 2nd Street East, Suite 211
Kalispell, MT 59901
.Attention: Tom Jentz
We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the
current zoning density of SA- I County and R--1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in-
cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 213C in
Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 west. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High-
way 93 approximately I + miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all oven
lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development.
LOT # s7 NAME ADDRESS PHONE
y AAA
eL4 Ao,)
i
/01j
-7
� A r-A
�-i t 7 Si�4 LCe��e.
7-s(p V YIA�ell?
0
rz /� Tau r N Fry
Je
.�55 u wee /� , .z.x_
75
i7 -76
tot
�� %-G;�'71
9A&
v^a.re� cam_,
yy.SK rkcel� L. s�9oi
j