The URL can be used to link to this page

05. Presentation - Annexation & Zoning - Ashley Heights LLCCity of Kalispell Planning Department 17 - 2"dStreet East, Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Telephone: (406) 751-1 S50 Fax: (406) 751- 1 S 5 S Website: kalispellplannm' g.corn REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council FROM: Thomas R. Jentz, Director James H. Patrick, City Manager SUBJECT Ashley Heights, LLC -- Annexation. and Initial Zoning of RW-2 Single - Family Residential MEETING DATE: May 7, 2007 BACKGROUND: The Kalispell City Planning Board met on March 13, 2007 and held a public hearing to consider a request for annexation and an initial zoning designation of R-4 Two Family Residential, on approximately S. 5 acres. The property requesting the annexation and initial zoning is located on the south side of Sunnyside Drive extending between Sunnyside Drive and Bismarck Street with the proposed Highway 93 Bypass serving as the western boundary. The property can be described as a portion of 'Tract 10 lying within government Lot 1 in the NW4 of the NW4 of Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M. , Flathead County. Tom Jentz of the Kalispell Planning Department, presented staff report #KA--07-02 and evaluated the proposal. He noted that the applicant proposed a subdivision along with the request for annexation and initial zoning. Because the staff did not support the requested R-4 zoning, suggesting instead an R-3 zoning, the subdivision application was postponed until the initial zoning recommendation could be determined. Staff based the recommendation for R-3 Single Family based on nearness of the site to the 93 Bypass (noise impacts) the rural scale of abutting development to the north and east, the rural design standard for Sunnyside Drive and significant public comment expressed by both the neighborhood and the council relative to previous projects in the immediate area. At the public hearing, Wayne Freeman, CTA presented the applicants request stating it was a proper location for R-4 Two Family Residential zoning. Six letters of opposition were presented and seven people spoke in opposition to the proposed R --4 zoning. The board discussed the proposal and generally concurred that R-4 was too dense and would be out of character. The board felt that even the R-3 zoning recommended by staff was too dense and would be out of character. On a vote of 4-1 the board recommended R-2 Single Family zoning. The board also amended the staff report KA- 07-02 to reflect the appropriateness of the R-2 zoning. Ashley Heights LLC - Annexation and Initial zoning of R--2 April 13, 2007 Page 2 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 Singe Family Residential would be in order FISCAL EFFECTS: ALTERNATI14W. Respectfully submitted, Thomas R. Jentz Director Minor positive impacts once fully developed. As suggested by the city council. Deport compiled: April 19, 2007 Attachments: c: Theresa white, Kalispell City Clerk James H. Patrick City Manager Ashley Heights Annexation Cost 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 nits proposed to be annexed I existing residence on 3.5 acres Estimated Increase in Population: (based on US Census Figure of 22 per household) 3 1. Cost of services �Per capita costs • Fire: $68.84 per person per year. Additional costs to the fire department • Police: $11 o per resident per year. Additional costs to the police department Administration: $39.48. Additional cost to administration • Solid waste: Additional cost to solid waste • Roads: $193.56 per dwelling unit Additional cost in road maintenance (none for five years) _ • Water: $221.21 per ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit) Additional cost in water line maintenance • Sewer: $329.64 per ERU Additional cost in sewer maintenance • Storm water: $72.68 per ERU Additional cost in storm maintenance Total Anticipated Cost of Services: x 110.00 = $ 110 x 39.48 = $ 39 1 x 193.56 =$ 194 1x221.21=$221 1 x 329.64 = $ 330 1 x 72.68 = 73 $1.9036 2. Assessment revenue based on s are footage: Average- square foot per lot: 8.5 acres • Storm sewer assessment $0.004480 per square foot (capped at 1/2 acre for residential) Revenue -storm sewer assessments: 1 x 21,780 sq. ft. x $0.004480 = $98 • Street maintenance assessment $0. 0 10 1 per square foot (capped at 1/2 acre for residential) Revenue -street maintenance assessments 1 x 21,780 sq. ft. x $0.0101 = $ 220 • Urban forestry assessment $0.00135 per square foot (capped at $150 for residential) Revenue -urban forestry assessments 1 x 8.5 acres x $0.00135 cap Special Assessments: There are no special assessments. Light maintenance assessment $0.003 per square foot (no cap) Revenue - light maintenance assessment 1 x 8.5 acres x $0.003 Total Anticipated Revenue From, Assessments: 3. Tax revenue: ■ Assessed value per property: $ 250,000 /house _ $ 150 o = 1 111 $1.9579 Total assessed value: 1 x 300,000 = $ 3007000 Total. taxable: 300,000 x 0.03543 = $ 2,657 Total revenue based on 170 miu levy: $2,657 x 0.170 - 452 Total anticipated Revenue from Property tes. ar$452 4. Impact fees revenue. • Water system impact. fee $2,155 per residence Revenue -water system impact fee upon hook up 1 x $2,155 = $ 2,155 (Note that they may not initially hook up to city) • Wastewater impact fee $2,433 per ERU (A single family home is (1) ERU) Revenue -wastewater impact fee upon connection 1 Y $2,433 2,433 (Note that they may not initially hook up to city) ■ Storm grater impact fee $1,092 per ERU (A single family home is (1) ERU) Revenue -- existing development 1 x 81,092 = $11092 • Police impact fee $43 per single family residential unit Revenue -existing development • Fire impact fee $533 per unit (single family residential) Revenue -existing development Total Anticipated Revenue From Impact Fees: NUESUbUYLARY Total assessment and taxable revenue to the City (Items 2 8v 3) Less costs of services to the city (item-J) Net annual revenue to the city One Time Impact Fee Payment to the City (Item 4) 1 x $43 = $43 1 x $533 = 533 $6,1256 $2,031 1 036 $ 995 $61,256 NOTE: This information is based upon assumptions regarding building valuations and does not take 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 sewer 'impact fees will be paid at the one of hook up for the existing house and that stoma water, police and fire impact fees are payable at the time of annexation of an existing residence. Ij City of Kalispell Planning Department 17 - 2"d Street East, Suite 211, Kalispell, Montana 59901 Telephone: (406) 751-1850 Fax: (406) 751-1858 website: kalispellplanning.com April 24, 2007 James H. Patrick, City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Ashley Heights LLC - Annexation and Initial zoning of R-2 Single Family Residential, South side of Sunnyside Drive between Sunnyside Drive and Bismark Street and East of the Proposed Highway 93 Bypass Dear Jim: The Kalispell City Planning Board met on March 13, 2007 and held a public hearing to consider a request for annexation and an initial zoning designation of R-4 Two Family Residential, on approximately 8.5 acres. The property requesting the annexation and initial zoning is located on the south side of Sunny Side Drive extending between Sunny Side Drive and. Bismarck Street with the proposed Highway 93 Bypass serving as the western boundary. The property can be described as a portion of Tract 10 lying within government Lot 1 in the NW4 of the NW4 of Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M. , Flathead County. Tom Jentz of the Kalispell Planning Department, presented staff report #KA-07-02 and evaluated the proposal. He noted that the applicant proposed a subdivision along with the request for annexation and initial zoning. Because the staff did not support the requested R-4 zoning, suggesting instead an R-3 zoning, the subdivision application was postponed until the initial zoning recommendation could be determined. Staff based the recommendation for R-3 Single Family based on nearness of the site to the 93 Bypass (noise impacts) the rural scale of abutting development to the north and east, the rural design standard for Sunnyside Drive and significant public comment expressed by both the neighborhood and the council relative to previous projects in the immediate area. At the public hearing, Wayne Freeman, CTA presented the applicant's request stating it was a proper location for R-4 Two Family Residential zoning. Six letters of opposition were presented and seven people spoke in opposition to the proposed R-4 zoning. Ashley Heights Annexation April 24, 2007 Page 2 The board discussed the proposal and generally concurred that R-4 was too dense and would be out of character. The board felt that even the R-3 zoning recommended by staff was too dense and would be out of character. On a vote of 4-1 the board recommended R-2 Single Family zoning. The board also amended the staff report KA- 07-02 to reflect the appropriateness of the RW-2 zoning. Please schedule this matter for the May 7, 2007 regular city council meeting. You may contact this board. or Tani Jentz at the Kalispell Planning Department if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Kalispell City Planning Board Timothy No tr� President TN/TJ/ma Attachments: Staff report #KA-07-02 and application materials Minutes of the 4/ 10/07 planning board meeting c w/ Att: Theresa white, Kalispell City Clerk c w/o Att: Ashley Heights, LLC, 3300 Highway 2 West, Kalispell, MT 59901 Sands Surveying, Inc., 2 Village Loop, Kalispell, MT 59901 ASHLE"Y' HEIGrHTS, LLC REQUEST FOR INITIAL ZONING OF R-4 UPON ANNEXATION KALISPELL PLANWING DEPARTBIENT AMENDED STAFF REPORT #KA- 07- 2 APRIL 10, 2007 A report to the Kalispell City Council regarding a request for initial zoning of R-4 upon annexation to the City on property in southwest Kalispell. A public hearing was held before the planning board on April 10, 2007. The planning board is forwarding this set of findings and recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION This report evaluates the appropriate assignment of a City zoning classification in accordance with Section 27.03.010(4) of the Kalispell Zoning ordinance. The property owner has petitioned for annexation and initial zoning classification of R.-4, Two Family Residential. A. petitioner and Owners: Ashley Heights, LLC 3300 Highway 2 west Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 257-1682 Technical Assistance: Sands Surveying, Inc. 2 Village Loop Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 755-6481 B. Location and Legal Description of Property: The property proposed for annexation is located at the western end of Bismarck Street and is bordered on the north by Sunnyside Drive and on the west by the future Highway 93 Bypass. The site is generally triangular in shape and contains 8.5 acres of developable land. Note that the westerly 2.6 acres of this site is not included in the annexation request and would be part of the future Highway 93 Bypass upon acquisition by MDT. The property can be described as a portion of Tract 10 lying within Government Lot 1 in. the Nw4 of the Nw4 of Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 west, P.M.M. , Flathead County, Montana. C. Existing zoning: The property is currently in the County zoning jurisdiction and is zoned County R-1. The County. R--1, Suburban Residential zoning distract, is primarily a single-family district with a rnu* mum lot size requirement of one acre. Areas with an R-1 zoning designation ,would typically be located in rural areas away from concentrated urban development, typically not be served by water or sewer services or in areas where it is desirable to permit only low -density development (e.g. extreme topography, airport runway extensions, floodplain., etc.) . D. Proposed Zoning: City R-4, Two -Family Residential, has been requested for the property. The R-4 zoning district allows both single-family residences and duplexes as permitted uses. The minimum lot size for the district is 6,000 square feet and a rrLx� ' um lot width of 50 feet with setbacks of 15 feet in the front, 10 feet in the rear and five feet on the sides. The Planning board has recommended an. R-2 Single Family residential zone. The um lot size of are. R-2 is 9,600 square feet and a ` � um width. of 70 feet with 20 foot front and rear setbacks and 10 foot side yard setbacks. E. Size: The area proposed for annexation and zoning contains approximately 3.5 acres. F, E risting Land Use: The property contains an existing single family residence. G. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning: The property is located on the urban fringe of the city. The entire western boundary of the property abuts the proposed Highway 93 Bypass R/ W. The north and northeast portions of the property abut large single faro- ily residential lots in the 1 -- 2 '/2 acre range. The southeastern portion of the site abuts City R-4 zoning and a mixture of single family and two unit townhouse lots. North: Large lot rural residential; County R--1 zoning East: Large lot rural single-family homes on north half -- county R-1 urban scale si.nee family and 2--unit townhouses — city R.--4 South. Future Highway 93 Bypass; County R 1 zoning West: Future Highway 93 Bypass; County R--1 zoning H. General Land. Use Character: This is a tran.si.tioning residential neighborhood with the proposed property sandwiched between a federal highway bypass to the merest, large size rural residential lots to the north and east and urban scale residential density to the southeast. Just 6 months ago, a 4 acre site at 60 Denver owned by the Violence Free Crisis Line just 300 feet to the east was annexed into the city and granted an R-3 Single Family residential zoning classification. In 2002 the city annexed and zoned the R-4 land immediately southeast of the applicant's property. This annexation and zoning to Rw4 was the subject of a lawsuit brought on by neighbors indicating among other things that the density of the R-4 zone was out of character with the existing neighborhood. The city did ultimately prevail in the suite but it does indicate a neighborhood sentiment against higher density development. I. Availability of Public Services and Extension of Services: Public services are all generally available to the site. Specifically water and sewer are currently available to the site via Bismarck Street on the southeast corder of the property. EVALUATION BASED ON STA_ TIJTORY CRITERIA 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 76-2-304, M.C.A. 1. Does the reguested zone complycoMply with the Groff Polk The property is designated by the Kalispell growth Policy 2020 as "Urban Residential" which is defined as anticipating three to twelve dwellings per acre. Because of the plans for the provision of public surer and water to the site, the proposed R-4 zoning designation could be considered to be in compliance with the growth policy designation. The R-4 zoning has a 1111 um lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet for both a. single fancily residence and a duplex or 2--unit townhouse. This zone typically would provide an anticipated density range of 5 single-family residential units or up to 10--12 duplex or townhouse units per gross acre. While this density falls within the general map density of the growth policy, thestaff would point out that all neighborhoods are not equal. This neighborhood is a transitional area. The traffic generated noise of the bypass will impact this neighborhood making density less desirable and distance from the bypass more desirable. The large lot rural residential neighborhoods to the north and east deserve some type of buffer between their pattern of development and the urban scale development of a potential R--4 zone. This is not an optimal location to intensify the density of the community. The planning ng board supports an R-2 single family residential zone. This zone has a 9,600 square foot minimum lot size, is limited to single family residential development and has a typical maximum gross density of 3 -- 3.5 units J gross acre. The R--2 zone does comply with the 3--12 units per acre called out by the growth policy and would serve as a better zone to mitigate the competing established interests on the boundaries of the property. 2. Is the requested zone designed to lessen congestion in the streets? It can be anticipated that the proposed development of the property that will be associated with the zoning will increase traffic impacts in the area due to the relatively low density of the area currently. The proposed zoning carries with it the checks and balances, including the need for review, which will insure that traffic flogs and access are appropriately addressed. The potential densities afforded by the R-4 zone would be from 400 to 1,000 trips per day based on a range of possible development plans. The applicants do have a preEm-iin.ary proposal that would generate approximately 410 trips. This amount of traffic could pose a significant increase for neighborhood streets including Sunnyside which is a County paved road built to County standards. An R-2 zone would establish a theoretical maximum of 25 - 30 housing units or 250 300 vehicle trips per day. This would be more in keeping with the traffic issues that have been identified in this neighborhood. Regardless, the developers will have to mitigate any significant traffic impact. *P 3. Will the requested zone secure safety_from fire, panic. -and other dangers. Adequate access and public facilities would be made available to the site in the case of an emergency. 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 water and severer will be extended to the property. There are no features related to the property which would compromise the safety of the public. 4. will the re uested zone romote the health and general welfare? The requested R-4 zoning classification will not fully promote the health and general welfare of the present neighborhood or future residents of the site. It will allow the introduction of small lot duplex or townhouse development into an area where half the abutting neighbors are large lot rural residents. Secondly, it would encourage greater densities to occur in an area impacted by significant future highway noise. Conversely, the planning board proposes that an R-2 zone will more_ closely promote the health and general welfare of the neighborhood. It will insure that only single family residents are constructed in this area. This would be compatible with the majority of the surrounding properties. Additionally, the slightly larger lots and greater setbacks afforded by the R-2 will help to mitigate the impacts associated with the traffic noise generated by the Highway 93 Bypass as it abuts this site. 5. will the requested zonerovide for adequate uate li ht and sir? 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 requested zone prevent the overcrowding of land? As previously noted, this area has been anticipated for residential development and has, in fact, developed in that manner to the south and southeast. Since public water and sewer are available to the area, an urban land use designation is appropriate. Th e planning board supports the concept of an R-2 over an R-4 zoning classification because of the need to reduce densities where the character of the bordering properties and neighborhood dictate so. The growth policy provides for a range of compliance from 3 units per acre to 12 units per acre indicating that some neighborhoods because of their location, adjoining uses and level of infrastructure could well anticipate greater densities. At the same time, other neighborhoods would need to foster restricted densities, all within the range provided. This neighborhood is characterized by a potential future noise hazard (Highway 93 Bypass on the west), a quiet, large lot rural residential neighborhood to the north and northeast and one of the primary access points being a substandard county road (Sunnyside Drive) . Will the requested zone avoid undue concentration of people? An increase in the number and concentration of people in the area will likely result after this land has been converted from vacant land to a more intensive residential use. The intensity of the uses of the property should be in direct relationship to the availability of public services, utilities, facilities and adjoining property character and use. In this neighborhood, the future presence of noise 4 from the Highway 93 Bypass, the adjoining large lot residential uses and the substandard condition of Sunnyside Drive which provides one of the two primary access roads all point to a less dense development pattern. The applicants request an R-4 zone. The planning board feels that this is too dense and suggests an R--2 single family residential zone as appropriate. 8. will the reguested zone facilitate the ade uate rovision. of transportation, water sewerage, schools arks and other ubhc requirements? Public seMce, facilities and infrastructure would be made available to the developer. 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 to the site prior to development. Fire, police and ambulance 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. Development should be encouraged in areas where these services are available. 3. Does the requested zone give consideration to the articular suitable of the roe for articular uses? The property is generally level and developable. Its linear shape does limit creativity in future subdivision design. Adequate crater sewer, police, fire and ambulance services are available. The property is capable of supporting a significant level of development as would be proposed by the R--4 zoning district. R-4 zoning does abut the property to the immediate southeast Can the negative side the lack of improvements to Sunnyside Drive does pose some limitations to the ultimate density proposed. Additionally, the presence of a Highway Bypass and the associated noise generated by future traffic is a significant deterrent to residential development and specifically demise development. l o . Does the requested zone pive reasonable consideration to the character of the district? The proposed R-4 zorxing district appears to present a development pattern that is somewhat out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. It is not advisable to encourage higher densities where noise impacts from a proposed highway would be prevalent such as along the westerly boundary of the site. The property in question sits as an island abutting large lot rural residential development to the north and east. A buffer or transition is important between this less dense pattern and future urban development where the rural development pattern has been put in place. The requested R-4 zoning and the potential for two units per every 6,000 square foot T ini'murn lot is not a suitable transition. The planning board recommends that an R--2 single family residential zone would be far more appropriate for this transitionalarea as it maintains a single family character and significant reductions in potential development densities. . 11. Will the ro osed zone conserve the value of buildin s? City standards will ensure that there is high quality development that will ensure the value of buildings and domes are 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 area. However, the R-4 with its more dense character may well detract from the value of the adjacent large lot residential pattern of development in the area. 12. will the requested zone encoura e the most 2Rpr9ILnate use of the land throw hout the munici alp ? Urban -scale residential development should be encouraged in areas were services and facilities are available such as is being proposed on this property. This area is suitable for urban scale development. The issue at hand is will the neighborhood and the city be better served by a more dense R-4 zoning or a less dense R--2 zoning. The planning g board recommends the R-2 zoning as it will serve to better insure that S - 10 years from now, this neighborhood will be stable and viable. This is not an area for increased densities. RECOMMENDATION: The Kalispell City Planning Board. and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt Amended. staff Report #I -07--2 as findings of fact and that the initial zoning for this property upon annexation be R-2, Single Family Residential, not the R-4 Two Family Residential as requested by the applicants. 31 DID, A;;`% 09 2007 KALISPELL PLAifflI G DErPARTME I .Date. City of Kalispell Planning Department 17-2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, April 10, 2007 — Ashley Heights, LLC. Dear City of Kalispell Planning Comrnissioner(s): We are homeowners in the Sunnyside Subdivision: and would like to comment on your Notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and zoning Commission, April 10, 2007 regarding the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LLC. for annexation and rezoning. We object to the proposed zoning change that would change Fthe zoning of the 8.5-acre tract of land from R-1 to R-4 (Two family Residential). The area directly to the East and to the South of the 8.5 acres in question is already zoned R-4 to accommodate owl Development's request for zoning change some years ago. Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense and we do not believe it is in the best interest of the City. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem because of the small lot sizes, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads to provide safe ingress and egress. we do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of County R-1, as long as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding degradation of services to city residents. It is our position that we do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex into the City of Kalispell with the R-4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current R- I zoning. A change of zoning to R--4 to allow for two family residences is totally unacceptable. Let's learn from our past mistakes from Sunnyside, Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving this zoning change. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Sunnyside Subdivision Homeowner Property Address: �� p �y MF rJ�.� L E_:_� e � j}Ys{ U Ui G 0 9 2007 Ai � LiSPtl:-'.L PL i��11G DT1 &NT Date. City of Kalispell Planning Department 17-2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, April 10, 2007 -- Ashley Heights, LLC. Dear City of Kalispell Planning Comm issioner(s): We are homeowners in the Sunnyside Subdivision and would like to comment on your Notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and zoning Commission, April 10, 2007 regarding the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LLC. for annexation and rezoning. We object to the proposed zoning change that would change the zoning of the S. 5-acre tract of land from R- I to R-4 (Two family Residential). The area directly to the East and to the South of the 8.5 acres in question is already zoned R-4 to accommodate owl Development's request for zoning change some years ago. Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense and we do not believe it is in the best interest of the City. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem because of the small lot sizes, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads to provide safe ingress and egress. We do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of County R-1, as long as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding degradation of services to city residents. It is our position that we do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex into the City of Kalispell with the R-4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current R-1 zoning. A change of zoning to R-4 to allow for two family residences is totally unacceptable. Let's learn from our past mistakes from Sunnyside, Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving this zoning change. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Sunnyside Subdivision Homeowner_ ' Property Address: rr . '-- L L 7) A R 09 2007 � PUI�v` � k DL 1 1Date. �QA.--�- City of Kalispell Planning Department 17-2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, April 10, 2007 -- Ashley Heights, LLC. Dear City of Kalispell Planning Comrnissioner(s): We are homeowners in the Sunnyside Subdivision and would like to comment on your Notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and zom*n.g Commission., April 10, 2007 regarding the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LLC. for annexation and rezoning. We object to the proposed zoning change that would change the zoning of the 8.5 -acre tract of land from R.- I to R-4 (Two family Residential). The area directly to the East and to the South of the 8.5 acres in question is already zoned R-4 to accommodate Owl Development' s request for zoning change some years ago. Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense and we do not believe it is in the best interest of the City. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem because of the small lot sizes, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads to provide safe ingress and egress. we do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of County R-1, as long as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding degradation of services to city residents. It is our position that we do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex into the City of Kalispell with the R-4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current R-1 zoning. A change of zoning to R-4 to allow for two family residences is totally unacceptable. Let's learn from our past mistakes from Sunnyside, Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving this zoning change. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Sunnyside Subdivision Homeowner Property Address: r _=_ AN 0 9 2097 R i �.1 � ,.1�: a 0 l �P?L�� Bate. - �" .- - City of Kalispell Planning Department 17-2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, April 10, 2007 -- Ashley Heights, LLC. Dear City of Kalispell Planning Commissioner(s): We are homeowners in the Sunnyside Subdivision and would "like to comment on your Notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City Planning Board. and Zoning Commission, April 10, 2007 regarding the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LLC. for annexation and rezoning. We object to the proposed zoning change that would change the zoning of the 8.5-acre tract of land from R.- I to R-4 (Two family Residential). The area directly to the East and to the South of the 8.5 acres in question is already zoned R-4 to accommodate owl Development's request for zoning change some years ago. Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense and we do not believe it is in the best interest of the City. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem because of the small lot sizes, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads to provide safe ingress and egress. We do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of County R-1, as long as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding degradation of services to city residents. It is our position that we do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex into the City of Kalispell with. the R-4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current R-1 zoning. A change of zoning to R-4 to allow for two family residences is totally unacceptable. Let's learn from our past mistakes from Sunnyside, Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving this zoning change. Thanl{ you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Sunnyside Subdivision Homeowner Property Address: 7 1 (i AStUT___Y "D Ir- 04/ 01 / 2007 18: 24 17022602092 OASIS RV RESORT PAGE 01 / 01 Donald & Kann Cromwell 340 McGregor Laney Marion, Montana 59925 (406) 858,2498 ,q 04 ) -7$1 - I 95-S City of Kalispell Planning DeWment l 7=2n,, Street East Suite 21,l �'Le�sQ del � vex �o PT S0Yens4e•, A.pri 12, 2007 -. Kal!spell, Montana. 59941 r, ,, ,� r* ;S31 �� Cis P�� fv, Notice of Public Rearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission April 10, 2007 Ashley Heights, LLC- Dear Mr. Sorensen, We are the homeowners of702 Ashley Drive, Kalispell. Our single family home is located on the western end of Bismark Street and Ashley Drive. We are temporarily out of the area and will not be able to attend the hearing. However, we would Uke to respond to your notice of public hearing learn and provide you with our input for the April 14y 2007 hearing on the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LLC. for annexation and rezoning. We object to the proposed zoning change requested from Ashley Heights, LLC that would change the zoning of their 8.5 acre tract of land from R-1 to R-4 (Two fa rail y Residential), As you arc well aware, the area directly to the East and to the South of the 8.5 ass owned by Ashley Heights, LLC. s already zoned R--4 and Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense from approval previously granted to Owl Development and others. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem with Owl Development and other developers because of the small lot sizes, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses* and Inadequate roads to provide safe ingress and egress. As you are wrcll aware, although Owl Development reached an agreement with the City to limit the number of two family lots as a condition to receiving their f#nal plat, there were significant Problems that subsequently developed which resulted in several lawsuits filed against Cowl Development. We do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of County R-1, as long as the City i9 confident that it can provide services without a corresponding degradation of services, We do not reed to create another Empire Mates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley l-leights.1 I.aLC to annex into the City of Kaiispell with the R,.4 Two Family ResidatttialWzonin�; district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current roving. A change of toning to R-4 to at low for two fami I remsidences i s totally unacceptable. Let's learn from our past mistakes from Sunnyside* Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving this zmning change. Respectfully submitted, Donald well Karen L. Cromwell Ill ann�nq �-ppa�rv►�.n.� s � on 2Y-- � r' tum V �.F 2007 Donald & Karen Cromwell t ;� �i 1 Pf 3: t- P€ T 3)40 McGregor Lane, Marion, Montana 59925 (406) 858-2498 April 2, ?007 City of Kalispell Planning Department l 7-?"d Street East, Suite. 11 Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission April 10, 2007 — Ashley Heights, LLC. Dear Mr. Sorensen, We are the homeowners of 702 Ashley Drive, Kalispell. Our single family home is located on the western end of Bismark Street and Ashley Drive. We are temporarily out of the area and will not be able to attend the hearing. However, we would like to respond to your notice of public hearing letter and provide you with our input for the April 10, 2007 hearing on the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LLC. for annexation and rezoning. We object to the proposed zoning change requested from Ashley Heights, LLC that would change the zoning of their 8.5 acre tract of land from R- l to R--4 (Two family Residential). As you are well aware, the area directly to the East and to the South of the 8.5 acres owned by Ashley Heights, LLC. s already zoned R-4 and Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense from approval previously granted to owl Development and others. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem with owl Development and other developers because of the small lot sizes, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads to provide safe ingress and egress. As you are well aware, although Owl Development reached an agreement with the City to limit the number of two family lots as a condition to receiving their final plat, there were significant problems that subsequently developed which resulted in several lawsuits filed against Owl Development. We do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of County R.-1, as long as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding degradation of services. We do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley .Heights, LLC to annex into the City of Kalispell with the R-4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current zoning. A change of zoning to R-4 to allow for two family residences is totally unacceptable. Let's learn from our past mistakes from Sunnyside, Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving this zoning change. Respectfully submitted, Donald L. Cro ell 4 Karen I,. Cromwell € u wl U = f+ Date: ?007 City of Kalispell Planning Department 17-2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, April 10, 2007 — Ashley Heights, LLC. Dear City of Kalispell Planning Commissioner(s): We are homeowners in the Sunnyside Subdivision and would like to comment on your Notice of Public Hearing, Kalispell City Planning Board and zoning Commission, April 10, 2007 regarding the proposed request by Ashley Heights, LLC. for annexation and rezoning. We object to the proposed zoning change that would change the zoning of the 8.5-acre tract of land from R-- I to R.-4 (Two family Residential). The area directly to the East and to the South of the 8.5 acres in question is already zoned R-4 to accommodate Owl Development's request for zoning change some years ago. Sunnyside subdivision is already too dense and we do not believe it is in the best interest of the City. The density of this area has been an ongoing problem because of the small lot sizes, overcrowding of duplexes and townhouses, and inadequate roads to provide safe ingress and egress. We do not object to the annexation of the property with its current zoning of County R- 1, as long as the City is confident that it can provide services without a corresponding degradation of services to city residents. It is our position that we do not need to create another Empire Estates situation with overcrowding by allowing Ashley Heights, LLC to annex into the City of Kalispell with the R-4 Two Family Residential -zoning district. Single-family homes would be acceptable and consistent with its current R- I zoning. A change of zoning to R-4 to allow for two family residences is totally unacceptable. Let's learn from our past mistakes from Sunnyside, Empire Estates and other overly dense communities by not approving this zoning change. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted Sunnyside Subdivision Ho eowner Property Address: City of Kalispell Planning Department 17 - 2ad Street East, Suite ? 11 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Telephone: ('406) 751- 1850 Fax: (406) 751- 1. 858 PETITION FOR ANNEXATION AND IAL ZONING NAME OF APPLICANT: J MAIL ADDRESS : �300 HM. 2 West CITY/STATE/ZIP: Kalil ell PHONE: 257-1E82 INTEREST IN PROPERTY: Owner Other Parties of Interest to he Notified: PARTIES OF INTEREST: Sands Surveyin MAIL ADDRESS : 2 villa e Loa CITY/STATE/ZIP: Ralis ell PRONE: 755-648I INTEREST IN PROPERTY: PLEASE COWLLTE ' FOLLOWING: Address of the property: 1204 Sunn side Drive Legal Description: Government Lot I Assesor Tract 10 Section. 19 Township 28N Ran e 21 W (Lot and Block of Subdivision; Tract#) Land in project (ac) 11.1 Acres The present zoning of the above property is: Westside Coun1y R.I The proposed zoning of the above property is: Ci R�4 State the changed or changing conditions that make the proposed amendment necessary: Annexation. and rezoning,is nessesM for the relimin lat a lication of Ashlev Heights Subdivision. It is our wish to annex the properly and extend city sevices. 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. (App cant) (Date) 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 7-2-4610, M.C.A. since the parties are in agreement as to the provision of municipal services to the property requested to be annexed. The Petitioner(s) further herein express an intent to have the property as herein described withdrawn from the Smith Valley Rural Fire District under the provisions of Section 7-33-2I27, 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 S years from date of annexation. zxz Petitioner/Owner Date Petitioner/Owner Date NOTE.: You must attach an Exhibit A. that provides a bona fide legal description of the property to be annexed. STATE OF MONTANA ) 5S County of Flathead County On this dayoffkk 07, before me, the undersigned, a No Public for rq: gn �'the State of Montana, personally appearedknown to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same. 1%1111i1111 IN WITNESS W14EREOF � v oryq het my and affixed nay Notary Seal the day and year in this certificate fi ' * % tte ota.ry Public, State of Montana WAR -. • esiding at Op 34Y Commission exp es: - �o i STATE OF MONTAN *'• • . .0 0 0 1" f� OF County of Flathead County On this day of , , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public for the State of Montana, personally appeared known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I. have hereunto set nay 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 WITLESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my rotary Seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. �.ne«. � r•w�.rrm lean.�ryi�+win.rrr�rrn�yvsm�r�v..n.tw+�.nr . _ . . Notary Public, State of Montana Residing at My Commission. expires DESCRIPTION: A TRACT OF LAND, SITUATED, LYING- AND BEING 1N GOVERNMENT LOT I OF SECTION 1.9, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 21 WEST, P. M.,M., FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS TO WIT: BEGINNING at the southeast corner of Govemment Lot I of Section 19, Township 28 Noah, Range 21 West, P.M.,M., Flathead County, Montana, which is a found iron pin; Thence along the south boundary of said Gov't Lot I S88'56'57"W 133.35 feet to a found iron pin on the easterly R/W of the Proposed Kalispell By-pass; Thence along said R/W N38° 16'45 "W 119.64 feet; Thence N2295'26"W 852.92 feet; Thence N08°00'03 "E 203.22 feet to the southerly R/W of a deeded county road known as Sunnyside Drive; Thence along said R/W N88"47'34"E 110.59 feet; Thence Sol. ° 12'26"E 137.87 feet; Thence EAST 177.76 feet; Thence SO 1 ° 16'3 8"E 366.27 feet to a found iron pin; Thence N88'44'29"E 167.70 feet to a found iron pin; Thence SO 1 °23'01. "E 59.03 feet to a found iron pin; Thence N88°50'03 "E 142.46 feet to a found iron pin on the east boundary of said Gov't Lot 1; Thence along said boundary Soo°26'09"W 701.99 feet to the point of beginning and containing 8.51.5 ACRES; Subject to and together with a 60 foot private road and utility easement as shown hereon; Subject to and together with all appurtenant easements of record. ss t R"'5 $FAA '3DB 11a COUNTY 8G 1a € x 11DA r 9 ' E ;' $RA $ 'r K f DV . .. = 11A � r liG jj` 9A i 8 Z Gu UNTY f 3 ! i ,� a r $THA T�GA s R l BTHB 3GEA 3DE r _ ' �' _ -� g 14 BTEC t ' 3 i� MC 8T2 A-�-�- 3DD € "" 3 C 5 .._w $T3 F § bjept Prd r ( # ;f j, �i 8T3A _ 3A 3 A ❑ 8T9 $ 7AR _ -- 7 w �. ---------------- .( a 35 € €� i. �t oc t COU e t 1 BB A �NTY 4f 2�B ] R�3 a1l�R 1 IG a� 7A i 3 t. 1 CA 3 1 27 226125 3 i 4 Q 0 r w r 6CA °: 4 8 ... w ; 21 ; .i.,,,C 8 t its 11 112 � � vYb_ 40 F az- rCOUNTY + '8 7 8 9 201 7 1 43 _yam UOUN .�- 27 � 5 4,3 12 ?01 { 147E SAG-5 �6D 6H R-1- �8 3:5 146 ,32 g 363fi 37 6 i -�.- : ,......:..._� S39 (i a33 _ , ` ` 97 `�y i i 8F � gg3.' 73 194 � - 1112, 32 6G 6M v VICINITY MAP SCALE 1= 500' ASHLEY HEIGHTS, LLC/WAYNE & HUBERT TURNER REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND & INITIAL ZONING OF R-4 (TWO FAMILY RESID'ENTIAL) KA-07-02 PIAT DATE 5/13/05 FILE# H:\gis\site\ka07_02.dwg