The URL can be used to link to this page

04. Resolution - Birk/Greenhaven AnnexationApril 10, 1995 Tim and Bret Birk 880 Farm Road Kalispell, Montana 59901 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Kalispell, Montana My brother and I request that the application for annexation and subdivision of Greenhaven Subdivision be continued until the June 5th council meeting. eT You r l ZI: Tim Birk �e� MORT AND NORMA DANIEL-33 HATHAWAY LANE-KALISPELL, MT 59901 4/10/95 Kalispell City Council C/O Bruce Williams Kalispell City Hall 312 1st Ave. East Mr. Williams, This letter is to request that the Council postpones tonights' review of the Greenhaven Subdivision. We are in negotiations with a party other than Tim Burke on the sale of this property. Any actions that the Council may decide to take may affect these negotiations. Should we desire to pursue the Subdivision and Annexation we will notify you in writing. Thankyou for your efforts and considerations. Sincerely, A&I __ aq L Mort and Norma Daniel Dennis J. Hester 100 Hathaway Lane Kalispell, Montana 59901 (406) 755-4964 April 6, 1995 Glen M. Neier Kalispell City Attorney Box 1997 Kalispell, Montana 59901 RE: Proposed Greenhaven Subdivision Proposed Annexation, Zone Change and Subdivision Dear Glen, The purpose of this letter is to address some of the planning and legal problems that I believe exist with the above proposal. Before I proceed, I wish to express my recognition of the efforts of the .City Council, staff and the members of the planning board who must deal with the many planning issues facing our community. I appreciate the complexity and difficulty of their task. The March 14., 1995 planning board hearing on Greenhaven lasted well over 2 hours. The planning board and in particular vice president Ken- nedy were most courteous and attentive to over forty of my neighbors who were in attendance. I trust that the individual members of the City Council will reveiw the individual comments made as reflected in the minutes and also review the fifty plus written comments submitted so that the public hearing has actual meaning and significance. I believe this public input had a significant impact on the planning board and also believe that it will be meaningful to Council members once they fairly and critically review it. ZONING A critical element and basis for denying the entire Greenhaven proposal, which I wish to address, is legal in nature. As you know, the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan (KATP) has been incorporated into the Kalispell City -County Master Plan by the Kalispell City Coun- cil in Resolution 4131 and by the Board of Commissioners of Flathead County in Resolution 958A. The KATP is essentially the "by-pass" plan and it is now an intregal part of the Kalispell City -County Master Plan, even though the Master Plan map has not been updated to reflect it. Attached to the FRDO report is a portion of a section map showing the by-pass intersecting the proposed development. 2. We have discussed that zoning and zoning changes must be in compliance with the Master Plan. The Montana Supreme Court stated this rule of law in the case of Little v. Flathead County and has reaffirmed it in subsequent cases, the most recent of which is Bridger Canyon Prop. Owners' v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 52 St. Rep. 125 (1995). To change the preexisting R-1 zoning classification to the higher density R-4 classification in the area designated for the by-pass by the KATP and Master Plan is to ignore the Master Plan. This proposed zone change is not in compliance with the Master Plan and I suggest to you that if it is approved it will be fataly flawed. Additionally, the public has made a substantial investment in the cost of the study and plan as well as a personal investment of time and energy in the by-pass plan adoption process. The City Council and ad- ministration have a responsibility to uphold the integrity of this process. ANNEXATION The developer stated at the planning board hearing that he needed the density provided in an R-4 zone inorder to make a profit. Since a change in zoning classification, as proposed, is of questionable legality, Ihope that you and the City Council will agree that it makes little practical sense to proceed with annexation. SUBDIVISION The decision whether to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the Greenhaven subdivision is governed in part by the Subdivision Regulations of the City of Kalispell. There are a number of standards and criteria that must be meet and complied with before a subdivision proposal can be approved and, I would submit, before it should even be considered by the City Council. As an example, Article VI of the Sub- division Regulations sets forth the required information that must be provided in the form of an Environmental Assessment. Section 24A-56(d) provides that omissions of information required ". . . shall con- stitute grounds for rejection of the plat." The errors and omissions contained in the developer's Environmental Assessment were discussed at great length and detail with the planning board. I do not intend to repeat all the points made at that hearing as the Council is able, and I hope willing, to review this information from the record. As only one example of what I believe are serious and fatal omissions in this document, the developer failed to address the significant issues under 'Section 24A-57(d)-Roads: 3. a) He failed to address the substantial and necessary improve- ments to existing public roads - in particular Hathaway Lane and the U. S. Highway 2 interesction with Hathaway Lane; b) The estimated daily traffic volume was incorrectly stated; c) There was no discussion of the capability of either Hathaway Lane or the U.S. Highway 2 intersection to safely accomodate the in- creased traffic; d) There was no discussion of increased maintenence problems and costs, and who will pay the costs necessary to mitigate the problems that will be created if Greenhaven is developed. I direct your and the Councils' attention to the March 9, 1995 letter of Stephan L. Herzog, Chief, Field Maintenance Bureau of the Montana Department of Highways, highlighting the many major roadway problems not considered in the Environmental Assessment. Also please refer to the April 4, 1995 letter of Bernie Windauer, Construction Engineer of the Flathead County Road Department, addressing the necessary reconstruction of Hathaway Lane that will be required before an enchroachment permit is issued to the developer to access the roadway both during .and after construction. If these public safety issues are ignored in the approval process, the potential civil liability for resulting injury and/or death could well be significant. Lastly, the question of access over that portion of Hathaway Lane that is on private property was never addressed by the developer and remains unresolved. These particular issues, along with many others, were addressed at the planning board level, not by the developer but by the many speakers against this proposal. The deficiencies in the proposal served as a basis for the detailed Findings of Fact upon which a recommendation of denial of the subdivision was unanimously approved. My point in illustrating the omissions on only this particular issue of the Environmental Assessment (Section 57A-57(d) - Roads) is to point out the serious deficiencies in the proposal and to suggest that not only must the subdivision proposal ultimately be denied but also that it is premature to approve annexation and a zone change when the City Council does not know with any degree of certainty and detail, the specifics of the development that would qualify for approval on the property. Finally, I am concerned that the developer, realizing the omissions and incompleteness of the proposal, will now substantially change the proposal. If this occurs it will be necessary for the new proposal to be submitted to the planning board for public hearing thereby comply 4. ing with Montana's constitutional and statutory mandates affording the public the right of participation in decisions of its governmental bodies. Approval of this proposal will have a profound negative impact on the people who live in the surrounding neighborhood. Many of these people have lived here for decades and have contributed to the well-being, stability and vitality of the Kalispell community. These are the .real people who are the foundation upon which our community has been built and upon which it is sustained. I have only touched on a few issues. There are other serious deficiencies that I'm sure you, the City Coun- cil and administration can and will recognize. In sum, the proposed annexation and zone change should be turned down. This will make moot the question of subdivision denial. I trust you will advise the City Council and administration of the legal con- siderations that support and, I believe, require denial. I appreciate your review and cc. Bruce Williams City Council Members Dan Johns cons 'deration of this matter. �vfi'l Dennis J. He er Flathead Regional Development Office 723 5th Avenue East - Room 414 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 758-5780 April. 6, 1995 Fax: (406) 758-5781 Bruce Williams, City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Drawer 1997 Kalispell, MT 59901 Re: Recommendation of Zoning for Greenhaven Addition No. 262 Dear Bruce: The Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission met on March 14, 1995, and held a public hearing on the following agenda item: A request by Tim Birk for annexation to the City of Kalispell with an initial zoning classification of R-4 (Two Family Residential). The parcel contains approximately 12.5 acres located southwest of Greenbriar Subdivision, west of Kalispell on the east side of Hathaway Lane and is currently zoned County R-1 Residential. It is further described as Assessor's Tracts 6A, 6D9 6E and 6CB in the SW 1/4 of Section 12, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. John Parsons explained the reversal of his staff recommendation for denial of the requested zone change, which was based on a particular development proposal. Based on new information he received, staff changed the recommendation in report #KA-95-2 by deleting the first paragraph under Discussion and Recommendation referring to the bypass, recommended approval of the zoning if the property is annexed. During the public hearing, the two developers spoke in favor of the zone change upon annexation citing that it was justified because it was adjacent to similar zoning, it was a logical extension of the city, services are available, and it could serve as a buffer zone between high density and rural density. They also protested recommended denial based on the bypass alignment through the property. One other person spoke in favor of the requested zoning classification, as she felt she could get more money for her land, since it is no longer a farming area. Twenty-five persons spoke in opposition, generally citing impacts to the schools, the lack of parklands, dangerous roads, high groundwater in the area and threat to the water quality, traffic safety, and character of the neighborhood. Testimony included reliance on the existing zoning as a contract between the property owners and the county, that the R-1 zone is already a buffer zone between high density and rural, the taxpayer investment in the bypass study, and the dubious reliability of the developer as experienced with Greenbriar Subdivision. Many property owners were concerned with the liability issue of trespass onto their land where horses and livestock were kept. A petition protesting the zone change with 54 signatures was submitted, as well as two letters received from adjacent property owners, also in opposition to the zone change and annexation. Providing Community Planning Assistance To: * Flathead County * City of Columbia Falls * City of Kalispell * City of Whitefish Bruce Williams, City Manager April 6, 1995 Re: Greenhaven Addition No. 262 Page 2 The public testimony and staff recommendation was discussed at length. The Board determined that staff's reversal of his recommendation was based on legal evaluation of the zone change separate from the subdivision proposal, and not due to pressure from the developer's legal counsel. The Board referred to the transportation bypass alignment through the site and were disappointed with the timing of this request. Members agreed that the density was out of character with the areas and as a Board must respect how the people have said they want their neighborhood to develop. A comparable zone to the existing County R-1 would be more appropriate. The motion was made to adopt the original staff report as findings of fact and deny the zone change as requested. The motion carried on a 5-1-1 vote in favor of denial. This recommendation for zoning is forwarded to the City Council for a subsequent public hearing and final action. Council needs to wait for the minutes of the Planning Board meeting prior to taking final action on this matter. However, this does not preclude discussion at Council workshop. Please contact the Commission or the FRDO if you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, ELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION Pamela J.B. Kenn Vice -Chairperson PJBK/JPP/eo Attachments: FRDO Report #KA-95-2 & Packet Minutes of 3/14/95 meeting forwarded separately c: Mayor Doug Rauthe c w/o Att: Tim & Bret Birk F:\...\TRANS MIT\KALI SPEL\KA-95-2.262 GREENHAVEN ADDITION NO. 262 - CITY ZONE REQUEST R-1 (COUNTY) TO R-4 (CITY) FRDO CITY ZONE REPORT #KA-95-2 REVISED - MARCH 14, 1995 Tim Birk has petitioned the City of Kalispell for annexation of a tract of land into the city limits of Kalispell. This is a report to the Kalispell City -County Zoning Commission and Kalispell City Council. This report evaluates the annexation and the assignment of a City zoning classification in accordance with Section 27.03.010(4) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATION The applicant has petitioned for a zoning classification of R-4 (Two Family Residential) upon annexation. Presently, the property is zoned County R-1 Residential under the Flathead County Zoning Regulations. The Kalispell Zoning Ordinance defines the intent of the R-4 Classification as follows: Aresidential district with minimum lot areas. Development within this district will require all public utilities and all community facilities. Two family dwellings are permitted in this district. BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: Tim and Bret Birk 880 Farm Road Kalispell, MT 59901 SIZE AND LOCATION: The property is approximately 12 acres located west of Kalispell on the east side of Hathaway Lane, 1300 feet north of Idaho Street (US Highway 2) southwest of the Greenbriar subdivision. This site is described as Assessors Tracts 6A, 6D, 6E, and 6CB in the SW 1/4, of Section 12, T28N, R22W, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. GENERAL LAND USE CHARACTER: The property consists of 4 parcels of land currently vacant. South (zoned County R-1) has a residence on it; east (zoned City R-4) is Greenbriar Subdivision and RA-1 and is vacant; to the north (zoned County R-1) are residences; and to the west (zoned County R-1) is vacant. Hathaway Lane is a paved two lane road which provides the only access to the site. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES: City water and sewer services are available In the area. EVALUATION BASTED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA The statutory procedure for evaluating zone changes is set forth by 76.2-303, M.C.A. Findings of Fact for the zone request are discussed relative to the criteria described by 76-2-304, M.C.A. Does The Requested Zone Comply With The Master Plan? The subject property Is within the jurisdiction of the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. According to the map of the master plan, the property is currently designated "High Density Residential", with a maximum density of 40 dwelling units per acre. R-4 Is generally considered to be in compliance with the land use aspect of the Master Plan. However, the most significant impacts to development of this area will be the construction of the US Highway 93 Bypass which has been adopted by City Council and the County Commissioners as part of the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. As can be seen on the attached Vicinity Map the bypass alignment Is proposed to bisect this project. This will become most significant at the time of development. A development proposal has been received and is being processed concurrently with this annexation. Does The Requested Zone Lessen Congestion In the Streets? Congestion in the streets Is caused by an overburden of traffic on the street system. The zone by itself would not cause undue congestion because traffic generation is a function of the number of dwelling units that are allowed within a given area. The property currently exists as 4 parcels of land, as such it could be developed with one (1) dwelling unit each under the current County R-1 designation. The property is proposed to be subdivided into 50 lots and in a manner which allows further subdivisions in this area. Access to the project is currently proposed via Hathaway Lane to US Highway 2. The northerly portion of Hathaway Lane appears to be private, and as such it may not be available to be used by the developer for access. Will The Requested Zone Secure Safety From Fire, Panic And Other Danqers? Development within this zone is subject to development standards Including: lot coverage, maximum building height, and the provision of off-street parking. Further, any development of the property is subject to review by the City's Site Plan Review Committee, and requires the issuance of building, plumbing, and mechanical permits. These requirements and review processes help ensure that development of the property subsequent to the zone change is done in a safe manner. None of the property appears to be in the 100 year floodplain or in a high fire hazard area. Single access to the site is of concern. Will The Requested Zone Promote The Health And General Welfare? The general purpose of the City's zoning ordinance is to promote the general health and welfare and does so by implementing the City -County Master Plan. The City -County Master Plan land use element supports the requested zone. Designation of this area as R-4 would serve the Flathead region with additional residential development. This area is proposed to have access to US Highway 2 via Hawthorne Lane. However, the US Highway 93 Bypass runs through the eastern portion of the property which would impact development of this site. Any impact to stormwater runoff, sewers, and water would be addressed at the time of development proposals. The zoning ordinance provides a mechanism for public input and review for all zone change requests. This process offers an opportunity to ensure that any changes to the Official Zoning Map are done in the general public interest. Additionally, other review mechanisms are in place to ensure that development is in compliance with all applicable safety codes. Will The Requested Zone Provide For Adequate Light And Air? The development standards of the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations fi.e.: parking, landscaping, clear vision setback, roadway improvements) would ensure that light and air are adequately provided. Will The Requested Zone Prevent The Overcrowding of Land? Overcrowding of land occurs when development out -paces or exceeds the environmental or service limitations of the property. The Subdivision and Zoning Regulations control the intensity requirements that a property can be developed with. Adequate infrastructure can be provided at the time of development to accommodate the land uses allowed in the requested zone. The cost of infrastructure installation would be born by the developer at the time of development. Will The Requested Zone Avoid Undue Concentration Of People? Concentration of people relates to the land use permitted by a particular zone. The proposed zone would increase residential density in the area. Infra -structure exists or can be provided, at the city's discretion unless annexed, which supports the proposed zone. The zoning ordinance covers the intensity of use that would be permitted in this zone. An undue concentration of people would result if the property is developed at a level which exceeds the environmental or service 0 carrying capacity of the land. The proposed zoning and any subsequent subdivision should insure that the site Is properly developed. Will The Requested Zone Facilitate The Adeauate Provision Of Transportation Water, Sewer, Schools, Parks And Other Public Reaulrements? The additional demands for transportation, water, and sewer will be evaluated pursuant to individual development proposals; existing infrastructure exists in the vicinity which should be able to serve development of this property if the property is annexed. Currently only a single access to the site exists, a second access would be necessary for adequate protection of the population that would live there. Schools are considered to be at capacity and additional development in Flathead County puts additional strain on the school system. Any development that would require a subdivision would also require either a park or an In -lieu fee be paid as a result of subdividing. No significant negative impact is expected. Does The Requested Zone Give Consideration To The Particular Suitability Of The Property -For Particular Uses? The subject property appear to be well suited for uses permitted within the R-4 zone. The property Is of adequate size for the type of uses permitted in the proposed zone. A second access would be necessary for safety reasons. No significant negative impact is expected with a second access. Does The Reauested Zoning Give Reasonable Consideration To The Character Of This District? The properties in question appear to be well suited for the type development anticipated under the requested zone because of the topography, regional location, and size of the proposal. Would The Proposed Zoning Conserve The Value Of The Buildings? The subject request would not significantly impact buildings. There are no known uses that would be affected by this zone. A change from County R-1 to the City R-4 zone will not significantly impact, erode, or devalue the neighborhood beyond the type of uses that are currently allowed or that exist in the area. Will The Requested Zone Encourage The Most Appropriate Use Of The Land Throuqhout The Jurisdiction? The requested zoning classification would be consistent with the land use category contained in the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. The Plan and the existing permitted uses under the zoning ordinance generally Identify this area for residential uses. The change would encourage the most appropriate use of the land if the bypass is designed -into any land use development proposal. No significant negative impact would be expected with the Bypass taken Into account. 4 i l + It is recommended that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt this staff report as findings of fact and forward a recommendation for approval, if annexed, to City Council for the requested zone. However, staff recommends denial of the annexation until such time as a development proposal that takes into account the Bypass is submitted. FA ... \KA95-2ES.BRK 5 Flathead Regional Development Office 723 5th Avenue East - Room 414 Kalispell, Montana 59901 April 6, 1995 Bruce Williams, City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Drawer 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Greenhaven Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Dear Bruce: Phone: (406) 758-5780 Fax: (406) 758-5781 The Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission met in regular session on March 16, 1995 to consider the following: A request by Tim Birk for preliminary plat approval of Greenhaven Subdivision, a 50-lot single family/duplex subdivision on approximately 12.5 acres. ' The property has been requested to be annexed with an initial zone of R-4 (Two Family Residential). The site is located west of Kalispell north of Idaho Street (US Hwy 2) on the east side of Hathaway Lane and southwest of Greenbriar Subdivision and is more specifically described as Assessors Tracts 6A, 6D, 6E, and 6CB in the SW4 of Section 12, T28N, R22W, P.M.M., Flathead County. John Parsons read a letter received from the Montana Department of Transportation pertaining to the Kalispell Bypass through the proposed Greenhaven Subdivision. Staff report #KPP-95-03 was presented recommending denial of the preliminary plat. The two applicants spoke in favor of the project, emphasizing that growth is inevitable and the area is suited for the density due to the close proximity of city services. In their discussions with the Highway Department, they couldn't be told within 120 feet of where the bypass alignment would be. No one else spoke in favor of the proposed subdivision. Eighteen persons spoke in opposition to the high density proposal, citing general concerns regarding the traffic impacts, safety hazards at the dangerous intersection onto Highway 2, impacts on the drainage and high groundwater, the liklihood of trespass on small acreages with livestock, and the integrity of the neighborhood. Several opponents felt that the design was sloppy, noting the lack of parklands, an inadequate environmental assessment that does not accurately reflect the proposed density for duplex units, the questionable secondary access, and lack of concern for adjacent property owners. One person noted that the only proponents for the development had vested interests, and neither the property owner nor the attorney for the applicant testified in favor. The neighborhood has strongly opposed the development. A letter in opposition was sent to Board members, and a petition signed by 44 property owners was submitted opposing the proposed Greenhaven Subdivision. Testimony was submitted by Dennis Hester making additional findings of fact, which he suggested be added to the FRDO report, as basis for the recommendation for denial. After discussing public testimony, the Board incorporated the findings of fact submitted by Mr. Hester as follows under section II. Evaluation: Under II.B. insert (1) the proposed density is far greater than surrounding properties and is not in keeping with the general character or integrity of the area. Under II.C. insert (1) the application materials are not adequte to review 50 lots with 100 or 50 dwellings on each lot. Providing Community Planning Assistance To: * Flathead County * City of Columbia Falls * City of Kalispell * City of Whitefish Under II.E. insert (1) approval would be premature as the area is not ripe for development since the proposal depends on infrastructure to the east and outside of the property, which is not in existence, namely a city street connecting to Corporate Way. Under section II.F. insert (1) The road access and right of way available from the subdivision onto Hathaway Lane is unclear and unresolved; (2) The intersection of Hathaway Lane and Highway 2 can not safely accomodate the increased traffic without major improvements, which have not been addressed by the developer; (3) the intersection of Corporate Way and Highway 2 has not been addressed by the developer. Under section II.H. insert (1) there are environmental concerns regarding drainage and adjoining wetlands to the west and south that have not been adequatley addressed by the developer. Under II.I. insert (1) a perimeter buffer between the proposed subdivision and adjoining agricultural lands has not been addressed. These adjoining lands are utilized for livestock, including horses, which pose a danger to new residents and the animals. Negative impacts on adjoining propoerties have not been adequately addressed. The motion was made to adopt the findings of fact as amended in report #KPP-95- 03 and forward a recommendation for denial of preliminary plat for Greenhaven Subdivision. This recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for final action. Council needs to wait for the minutes of the Planning Board meeting prior to taking final action on this matter. However, this does not preclude discussion at Council workshop. Please contact the Commission or FRDO if you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, G, SPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION 16 Pamela J. B. nedy Vice -Chairperson PJBK/JJP/eo Attachments: FRDO Report KPP-95-03 & Attachments Minutes 3/14/95 to be forwarded separately c: Tim and Bret Birk 880 Farm Road Kalispell, MT 59901 Herbert Daniel 33 Hathaway Lane Kalispell, MT 59901 F:\...\TRANS MIT\KPP95-03.REC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE ALTERATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL BY INCLUDING THEREIN, AS AN ANNEXATION, A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", TO BE KNOWN AS GREENHAVEN ADDITION NO. 262; TO ZONE SAID PROPERTY TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, R- 4, TO AMEND THE CITY ZONING MAP ACCORDINGLY AND TO DECLARE AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell has received a petition from Tim and Bret Birk and Herbert and Norma Daniel, the applicant/owners of the property described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and thereby made a part hereof, requesting that the City of Kalispell annex the territory into the City, and WHEREAS, the Flathead Regional Development Office has made a report on Greenhaven Addition No. 262, City Zone Request, KA-95-2, dated March 6, 1995, and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission recommended ?, and WHEREAS, based upon the report of the Flathead Regional Development Office and the recommendation of the Kalispell City - County Planning Board and Zoning Commission, the City Council of the City of Kalispell finds that the recommended zoning classification for the territory is appropriate based upon the following criterion: Does the Requested Zone Comply With the Master Plan? The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. According to the map of the master plan, the property is currently designated "High Density Residential", with a maximum density of 40 dwelling units per acre. R-4 is generally considered to be in compliance with the land use aspect of the Master Plan. However, the most significant impacts to development of this area will be the construction of the US Highway 93 Bypass which has been adopted by City Council and the County Commissioners as part of the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. As can be seen on the attached Vicinity Map the bypass alignment is proposed to bisect this project. This will become most significant at the time of development. A development proposal has been received and is being processed concurrently with this annexation. This proposed subdivision does not take into account the proposed US Highway 93 Bypass. As such it brings into question whether or not this Annexation and Zoning should be granted. 0 As of the writing of this report no written response from the State Highway Department or the Federal Highway Administration has been received. In a telephone conversation with Dave Miller of the Federal Highway Administration he indicated that the subdivision should be required to install setbacks for the future road. It is therefore staff's opinion that this project is not in substantial conformance with the Master Plan. Does the Requested Zone Lessen Congestion in the Streets? Congestion in the streets is caused by an overburden of traffic on the street system. The zone by itself would not cause undue congestion because traffic generation is a function of the number of dwelling units that are allowed within a given area. The property currently exists as 4 parcels of land, as such it could be developed with one (1) dwelling unit each under the current County R-1 designation. The property is proposed to be subdivided into 50 lots and in a manner which allows further subdivisions in this area. Access to the project is currently proposed via Hathaway Lane to US Highway 2. The northerly portion of Hathaway Lane appears to be private, and as such it may not be available to be used by the developer for access. Will the Requested Zone Secure Safety from Fire, Panic and Other Dangers? Development within this zone is subject to development standards including: lot coverage, maximum building height, and the provision of off-street parking. Further, any development of the property is subject to review by the City's Site Plan Review Committee, and requires the issuance of building, plumbing, and mechanical permits. These requirements and review processes help ensure that development of the property subsequent to the zone change is done in a safe manner. None of the property appears to be in the 100 year floodplain or in a high fire hazard area. Single access to the site is of concern. Will the Requested Zone Promote the Health and General Welfare? The general purpose of the City's zoning ordinance is to promote the general health and welfare and does so by implementing the City -County Master Plan. The City- 2 County Master Plan land use element supports the requested zone. Designation of this area as R-4 would serve the Flathead region with additional residential development. This area is proposed to have access to US Highway 2 via Hawthorne Lane. However, the US Highway 93 Bypass runs through the eastern portion of the property which would impact development of this site. Any impact to stormwater runoff, sewers, and water would be addressed at the time of development proposals. The zoning ordinance provides a mechanism for public input and review for all zone change requests. This process offers an opportunity to ensure that any changes to the Official Zoning Map are done in the general public interest. Additionally, other review mechanisms are in place to ensure that development is in compliance with all applicable safety codes. Will the Requested Zone Provide for Adequate Light and Air? The development standards of the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations (i.e.: parking, landscaping, clear vision setback, roadway improvements) would ensure that light and air are adequately provided. Will the Requested Zone Prevent the Overcrowding of Land? Overcrowding of land occurs when development out -paces or exceeds the environmental or service limitations of the property. The Subdivision and Zoning Regulations control the intensity requirements that a property can be developed with. Adequate infrastructure can be provided at the time of development to accommodate the land uses allowed in the requested zone. The cost of infrastructure installation would be borne by the developer at the time of development. Will the Requested Zone Avoid Undue Concentration of People? Concentration of people relates to the land use permitted by a particular zone. The proposed zone would increase residential density in the area. Infra -structure exists or can be provided which supports the proposed zone. The zoning ordinance covers the intensity of use that would be permitted in this zone. An undue concentration of people would result if the property is developed at a level which exceeds the environmental or service carrying capacity of the land. The proposed zoning and any subsequent subdivision should insure that the site is properly developed. C Will the Requested Zone Facilitate the Adequate Provision of Transportation, Water, Sewer, Schools, Parks and Other Public Requirements? The additional demands for transportation, water, and sewer will be evaluated pursuant to individual development proposals; existing infrastructure exists in the vicinity which should be able to serve development of this property. Currently only a single access to the site exists, a second access would be necessary for adequate protection of the population that would live there. Schools are considered to be at capacity and additional development in Flathead County puts additional strain on the school system. Any development that would require a subdivision would also require either a park or an in -lieu fee be paid as a result of subdividing. No significant negative impact is expected. Does the Requested Zone Give Consideration to the Particular Suitability of the Property for Particular Uses? The subject property appear to be well suited for uses permitted within the R-4 zone. The property is of adequate size to facilities for the type of uses permitted in the proposed zone. A second access would be necessary for safety reasons. No significant negative impact is expected with a second access. Does the Requested Zoning Give Reasonable Consideration to the Character of This District? The properties in question appear to be well suited for the type development anticipated under the requested zone because of the topography, regional location, and size of the proposal. Would the Proposed Zoning Conserve the Value of the Buildings? The subject request would not significantly impact buildings. There are no known uses that would be affected by this zone. A change from County R-1 to the City R-4 zone will not significantly impact, erode, or devalue the neighborhood beyond the type of uses that are currently allowed or that exist in the area. Will the Requested Zone Encourage the Most Appropriate Use of the Land Throughout the Jurisdiction? The requested zoning classification would be consistent with the land use category contained in the Kalispell 4 City -County Master Plan. The Plan and the existing permitted uses under the zoning ordinance generally identify this area for residential uses. The change would encourage the most appropriate use of the land if the bypass is designed into any land use development proposal. No significant negative impact would be expected with the bypass taken into account. WHEREAS, Greenhaven Addition No. 262 is included within and conforms to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan, 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 is more particularly described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and thereby made a part hereof, shall be annexed to the City of Kalispell and the boundary of the City is altered to so provide. SECTION II. Upon the effective date of this Resolution, the City Clerk of Council 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. From and after the date of filing of said documents as prepared by the City Clerk of Council, 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 Two Family Residential, R-4. SECTION IV. This Resolution shall be effective 30 days from and after its passage by the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL THIS _______ DAY OF , 1995. P Douglas D. Rauthe, Mayor ATTEST: Debbie Gifford, CMC Clerk of Council EXHIBIT "A" Tracts 6A, 6D, 6E, and 6CB in the SW 1/4 of Section 12, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. Montana Department — of Transportation March 13, 1995 2701 Prospect Avenue PO Box 201001 Helena MT 59620-1001 John Parsons, Senior Planner Flathead Regional Development Office 723 Fifth Avenue East, Room 414 Kalispell, MT 59901 Subject: Kalispell Bypass Greenhaven Subdivision Marc Racicot. clover^or The Department of Transportation (MDT) recently became aware of the planned Greenhaven Subdivision just west of Kalispell. This development lies in the path of the proposed Kalispell Bypass. I'm sure you are aware that MDT, in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration, recently completed an environmental impact statement on this bypass project. We are now in the process of hiring a consultant to do the preliminary design and establish the exact right-of-way needs for this new route. It is likely to be another year before we have right-of-way plans completed. However, it is imperative that local governments and your planning office work with us now to protect this corridor from further development. MDT stands ready to enter negotiations to purchase that portion of the Greenhaven Subdivision that will be needed for the bypass. Attached are sketches that show what those needs are. We have no problem with the developer proceeding with the subdivision of the remaining portion of his property so long as it is planned around the bypass corridor. The bypass will be a limited access facility, so no direct access onto the bypass should be planned. I request that your office, together with the city and county, do all in your power to discourage and prevent any new development on this corridor. Please inform me of any planned developments so we can also help protect the corridor. do Equal Opoortunity Employer Page 2 March 13, 1995 I will be glad to discuss the acquisition of the right-of- way with Mr. Birk or others involved. My phone number is 444-6063. Thank you for your consideration. Thomas E. Martin, P.E. Right -of -Way Bureau Chief TEM:AJB:D:RW:105.dlm Attachments cc: Thomas J. Barnard, P.E. Administrator, Engineering Division Patricia Saindon, Administrator Transportation Planning Division James T. Weaver, P.E. District Administrator -Missoula 4j-Vfayor Doug Rauthe Tim Birk Carter u BUrgeSS Job No: u1sc.: Job Name, Date: Sheet of 14 R - - t1A(FtAWAY 1 A E .-.i.... Y. » . y... •_:�«nrsv „1 � 1 � -- --- a -_. I t ; ii ; a p � •,� 04 in 1 c It w £00/£00m hnH XV.IAHDIH QHd MG 6VV 906 T$ 60:OT S6/TO/£0 r,t-cCZ ebb gnt7 T GREENHAVEN ADDITION NO. 262 - CITY ZONE REQUEST R-1 (COUNTY) TO R-4 (CITY) FRDO CITY ZONE REPORT #KA-95-2 MARCH 6, 1995 Tim Birk has petitioned the City of Kalispell for annexation of a tract of land into the city limits of Kalispell. This is a report to the Kalispell City -County Zoning Commission and Kalispell City Council. This report evaluates the annexation and the assignment of a City zoning classification in accordance with Section 27.03.010(4) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATION The applicant has petitioned for a zoning classification of R-4 (Two Family Residential) upon annexation. Presently, the property is zoned County R-1 Residential under the Flathead County Zoning Regulations. The Kalispell Zoning Ordinance defines the intent of the R-4 Classification as follows: A residential districtwith minimum lotareas. Development within this district will require all public utilities and all community facilities. Two family dwellings are permitted in this district. BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: Tim and Bret Birk 880 Farm Road Kalispell, MT 59901 SIZE AND LOCATION: The property is approximately 12 acres located west of Kalispell on the east side of Hathaway Lane, 1300 feet north of Idaho Street (US Highway 2) southwest of the Greenbriar subdivision. This site is described as Assessors Tracts 6A, 6D, 6E, and 6CB in the SW 1/4, of Section 12, T28N, R22W, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. GENERAL LAND USE CHARACTER: The property consists of 4 parcels of land currently vacant. South (zoned County R-1) has a residence on it; east (zoned City R-4) is Greenbriar Subdivision and RA-1 and is vacant; to the north (zoned County R-1) are residences; and to the west (zoned County R-1) is vacant. Hathaway Lane is a paved two lane road which provides the only access to the site. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES: City water and sewer services are available In the area. The statutory procedure for evaluating zone changes Is set forth by 76-2-303, M.C.A. Findings of Fact for the zone request are discussed relative to the criteria described by 76-2-304, M.C.A. Does The Requested Zone Comoly With The Master Plan? The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Kalispell Clty-County Master Plan. According to the map of the master plan, the property is currently designated "High Density Residential", with a maximum density of 40 dwelling units per acre. R-4 is generally considered to be in compliance with the land use aspect of the Master Plan. However, the most significant impacts to development of this area will be the construction of the US Highway 93 Bypass which has been adopted by City Council and the county Commissioners as part of the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. As can be seen on the attached Vicinity Map the bypass alignment is proposed to bisect this project. This will become most significant at the time of development. A development proposal has been received and is being processed concurrently with this annexation. This proposed subdivision does not take into account the proposed US Highway 93 Bypass. As such it brings into question whether or not this Annexation and Zoning should be granted. As of the writing of this report no written response from the State Highway Department or the Federal Highway Administration has been received. in a telephone conversation with Dave Miller of the Federal Highway Administration he indicated that the subdivision should be required to install setbacks for the future road. it is therefore staff's opinion that this project is not in substantial conformance with the Master Plan. Does The Requested Zone Lessen Congestion in the Streets? Congestion in the streets Is caused by an overburden of traffic on the street system. The zone by itself would not cause undue congestion because traffic generation is a function of the number of dwelling units that are allowed within a given area. The property currently exists as 4 parcels of land, as such It could be developed with one (1) dwelling unit each under the current County R-1 designation. C The property is proposed to be subdivided into 50 lots and in a manner which allows further subdivisions in this area. Access to the project is currently proposed via Hathaway Lane to US Highway 2. The northerly portion of Hathaway Lane appears to be private, and as such it may not be available to be used by the developer for access. Will The Requested Zone Secure Safety From Fire, Panic And Other Dangers? Development within this zone is subject to development standards including: lot coverage, maximum building height, and the provision of off-street parking. Further, any development of the property is subject to review by the City's Site Plan Review Committee, and requires the issuance of building, plumbing, and mechanical permits. These requirements and review processes help ensure that development of the property subsequent to the zone change is done in a safe manner. None of the property appears to be in the 100 year floodplain or in a high fire hazard area. Single access to the site is of concern. Will The Recuested Zone Promote The Health And General Welfare? The general purpose of the City's zoning ordinance is to promote the general health and welfare and does so by implementing the City -County Master Plan. The City -County Master Plan land use element supports the requested zone. Designation of this area as R-4 would serve the Flathead region with additional residential development. This area is proposed to have access to US Highway 2 via Hawthorne Lane. However, the US Highway 93 Bypass runs through the eastern portion of the property which would impact development of this site. Any impact to stormwater runoff, sewers, and water would be addressed at the time of development proposals. The zoning ordinance provides a mechanism for public input and review for all zone change requests. This process offers an opportunity to ensure that any changes to the Official Zoning Map are done in the general public interest. Additionally, other review mechanisms are in place to ensure that development is in compliance with all applicable safety codes. Will The Requested Zone Provide For Adequate Light And Air? The development standards of the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations G.e.: parking, landscaping, clear vision setback, roadway improvements) would ensure that light and air are adequately provided. Will The Requested Zone Prevent The Overcrowding of Land? Overcrowding of land occurs when development out -paces or exceeds the environmental or service limitations of the property. The Subdivision and Zoning Regulations control the intensity requirements that a property can be developed with. Adequate infrastructure can be provided at the time of development to 3 accommodate the land uses allowed in the requested zone. The cost of infrastructure Installation would be born by the developer at the time of development. Will The Requested Zone Avoid Undue Concentration Of People? Concentration of people relates to the land use permitted by a particular zone. The proposed zone would increase residential density in the area. Infra -structure exists or can be provided which supports the proposed zone. The zoning ordinance covers the Intensity of use that would be permitted in this zone. An undue concentration of people would result if the property Is developed at a level which exceeds the environmental or service carrying capacity of the land. The proposed zoning and any subsequent subdivision should Insure that the site is properly developed. Will The Requested Zone Facilitate The Adequate Provision Of Transportation, Water Sewer, Schools, Parks And Other Public Requirements? The additional demands for transportation, water, and sewer will be evaluated pursuant to individual development proposals; existing Infrastructure exists in the vicinity which should be able to serve development of this property. Currently only a single access to the site exists, a second access would be necessary for adequate protection of the population that would live there. Schools are considered to be at capacity and additional development In Flathead County puts additional strain on the school system. Any development that would require a subdivision would also require either a park or an In -lieu fee be paid as a result of subdividing. No significant negative impact is expected. Does The Requested Zone Give Consideration To The Particular Suitability Of The Property For Particular Uses? The subject property appear to be well suited for uses permitted within the R-4 zone. The property is of adequate size to facilities for the type of uses permitted in the proposed zone. A second access would be necessary for safety reasons. No significant negative impact is expected with a second access. Does The Requested Zoning Give Reasonable Consideration To The Character Of This District? The properties in question appear to be well suited for the type development anticipated under the requested zone because of the topography, regional location, and size of the proposal. 4 Would The Proposed Zoning Conserve The Value Of The Buildings? The subject request would not significantly impact buildings. There are no known uses that would be affected by this zone. A change from County R-1 to the City R-4 zone will not significantly impact, erode, or devalue the neighborhood beyond the type of uses that are currently allowed or that exist in the area. Will The Requested Zone Encourage The Most Appropriate Use Of The Land Throughout The Jurisdiction? The requested zoning classification would be consistent with the land use category contained in the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. The Plan and the existing permitted uses under the zoning ordinance generally identify this area for residential uses. The change would encourage the most appropriate use of the land if the bypass is designed into any land use development proposal. No significant negative impact would be expected with the Bypass taken into account. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION While the proposed R-4 zoning is in conformance with the land use element of the Master Plan, the transportation element requires the Bypass to be taken into account in any development proposal. The applicant has not designed the bypass into the site and therefore the annexation and zoning should not be considered in conformance with the Master Plan. It is recommended that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt this staff report as findings of fact and forward a recommendation for denial to City Council for the requested zone. In addition staff recommends denial of the annexation until such time as a development proposal that takes into account the Bypass is submitted. FA ... \KA95-2ES.BRK A / sACA 30 1 ' STATE►LAza i A00.`is to ' LIBERTY f6 iT 16 IS 14 15 l J lips ♦ C B R O K DR1 xt If 2 21 ' 21( 22 ti 2J 2J6 YJA4. (� ; 23 tD �s ! 2JC 2JBA 2JAA 2L 2M 9ml Wry ` -1T LIAIA 2A0 1 I 2 S e / 2E 2AE ( lLC ZMV- A o V 2 20 0 2AC MC B 2EA 2A 2 2L6 ' 2FA 2FA6 A 1 O F2A,,] A wo r 6 6B6 6C D A 6 ` ! tho � A 66 6C 6� 2 �/ 6GAA Y:.A ■tart f GAq A A 5 B C A 3 EST Ai R- 4 19 3 4 20 ?! _ 22 L. 1 6cD89 ` GEA 6E 3 43 23 2CJ AMD.f 6 33 L. 2 of 7 24 AMD.1 36 46 23 AMD- seaBA act) , ! B 37 47 26 9 36 46 of T T F �i 27 r i !J j �d R _ 6 E �tV=1 6[ E p 30 4S 26 6 6 A Hitt; 777 cs 4� 12 s� yF+, 29 RA—i d E I 13 42 82 c 30 43 3314 IL 2oK• 13 44 54 32 1 6 C A 6Ls SE 16 to 33 34 j t � + S �'� • 4 \ PARK -_ 10 cfl sA R \ REP.K7�C94.4 �. TAa R E 6FC 6 Dh 6 IAA-1 B 9 - 'CJ i SAC G G fE f• F 6DHB A 4El tD ns \ A 2G-- I 6 A Ai �i, • 6AAL ` TA 6FA8 6AAMI SOF9 so �6AA2 6AAJ 6L ! 1 A 1 c 6FA 6 6 6 J 4 h //� a 6 6 B A ifl1 5-Lr \v/ IA 4A B A A A s` SFb 6DhEA 60KsnA = i 7 l 6AAh ! 6 'KPP 95-3 6FA A.,' - - _ _ i R dtK1' Tim Birk 980 Farm Road Kalispell, NIT -59901 ( 06)257-3141 Bruce Williams Kalispei City Manager Dear Bruce. This letter is to request annexation and rezoning of the following described piece of property: Tracts 6.� 6D, 6E. and 6CB, SWIi4 Sec 12, T 23 N, R 22 W, PVLUL Fathead Counw. Montana. The property is located on Hathaway Lane. The requested zone is city, R-4. The current zone is county, R-1. The property is hounded by the City Limits of Kalispell on its east side. -in appllcatIon for approval oren1111 ::plSi I;r;ni1V th f 15 rC'C1:iest. S1i Cn','r. C Tile Birk February 10,1995 Herbert M. and Norma A. Daniel 33 Hathaway Lane Kalispell, Montana 59901 To Whom it may concern; This is a letter authorizing Tim or Bret Birk to be our representative in matters concerning annexation, re -zoning and subdivision of our property described as follows: Tract numbers 6A, 6CB, 61), and 6E of the SW1 /4 of Section 12 Township 28 North Range 22 West M.P.M. Flathead County Montana. Sincerely, i ere"��Da .ei� Norma A. Daniel FLATHEAD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE SUBDIVISION REPORT #KPP-95-03 GREENHAVEN SUBDIVISION MARCH 6, 1995 This is a report on a request by Tim and Bret Birk for preliminary plat approval of a 50-lot duplex residential subdivision in the proposed City of Kalispell R-4 zone. The subdivision request is subject to a public hearing before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and zoning Commission on March 14, 1995. A recommendation from that body will be forwarded to the Kalispell City Council for a subsequent public hearing and final action. 1. GENERAL INFORMATION A. APPLICANT/OWNER Tim Birk Herbert Daniel 880 Farm Road 33 Hathaway Lane Kalispell, MT 59901 Kalispell Mt 59901 B. SIZE AND LOCATION The property is approximately 12 acres located west of Kalispell,1,300 feet north of Idaho Street (US Highway 2) on the east side of Hathaway Lane and southwest of the Greenbriar Subdivision. This site is described as Assessors Tracts 6A, 6D, 6E, and 6CB in the SW 1/4, of Section 12, T28N, R22W, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. C. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 50-lot residential subdivision in a proposed City of Kalispell, R-4, Two Family Residential zone. Annexation and a zone request have been applied for and need to be approved. The subdivision proposes a loop road to a single street access (Hathaway Lane) with a future access along the south side of Greenbriar Subdivision. The developer has proposed to develop the road with curb and gutter sidewalks and 36 foot of paving. The project would have a full range of City services after annexation. D. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING The property consists of 4 parcels of land currently vacant. South (zoned County R-1) has a residence on it; east (zoned City R-4) is Greenbriar Subdivision and RA-1 which is vacant; to the north (zoned County R-1) are residences; and to the west (zoned County R-1) is vacant. li. EVALUATION A. RELATION TO THE MASTER PLAN The Kalispell City -County Master Plan Map designates this area as High Density Residential. The density of this designation is a maximum of 40 dwelling units per acre. The development is within the density standards of this classification. However, the proposed subdivision is not In conformance with the Transportation element of the Master Plan. This proposal has not taken into account the Highway 93 Bypass. As such this development is not considered in conformance with the Master Plan. B. RELATION TO ZONING The subdivision will have to be annexed and granted City of Kalispell zoning. if the property Is annexed and zoned R-4 the lots would meet the City of Kalispell zoning ordinance requirements. C. RELATION TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The subdivision generally meets the requirements of the City of Kalispell subdivision regulations. However, the street this property uses for access is a dead end and approximately 1300 feet long. Hathaway Lane Is paved and maintained by the County for that distance. Beyond that it appears to be an easement that does not permit general public use although it Is also paved. This appears to be a problem for the northern access of this subdivision and the developer would have to show right of use prior to final plat If this preliminary plat Is approved. in addition, the approximately 1,300 foot of public road is 700 feet further than the City of Kalispell Subdivision Regulations permits for cul-de-sac roads. This situation would require the developer to provide a second access road, which is proposed across the southern part of Greenbriar Subdivision. This road would then have to be extended to connect with Corporate Way to provide the second access. Of significance is that the existing easement across Greenbriar is only 30 feet In width, an additional 30 foot of right-of-way would be required to meet City requirements for road access, and then a full 60 foot of easement would need to be obtained from the end of Greenbriar to Corporate Way. If the easement (approximately 1,000 feet) can be accomplished then this second access would be required to be Improved to City Standards and a second access would exist to the subdivision eliminating the dead end of Hathaway. A possible alternative would be to utilize a lot In Greenbriar for access if the Covenants permit; however, this has been attempted in other subdivisions to no avail. D. COVENANTS Covenants have been submitted with this request. Land use control would be governed by the Covenants, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Regulations. The Covenants Include restrictions on use and development of the lots. E. PUBLIC SERVICESIFACILITIES a. Sewer: The developer is proposing to hook Into the City of Kalispell Sewer. Extensions and approval of the hook-up from the sewer purveyor would be necessary. b. Water: Water will be supplied by the City of Kalispell. Extensions and approval of the hook-up from the purveyor would be necessary. In addition, this proposal would be reviewed by the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences prior to final plat approval. 2 C. Public Facilities: Other public facilities such as telephone and electricity are in the immediate vicinity. d. Schools: No response from the School District has been received. it is estimated that 50 to 75 children would occupy the development at buildout. e. Parks: Adequate parkland has not been proposed. An in -lieu fee of 1/9 the market value before improvements would be required if this subdivision is approved. This in -lieu fee would be paid at the time of final plat. A 0.16 common area has been proposed; this is not sufficient for utilization of any activity and is not considered adequate for parkland dedication. if this project were to be approved it is recommended that this area be included into the lots. f. Police: The City of Kalispell would provide police services for property in the City. g. Fire Protection: The City of Kalispell would provide fire protection for property inside the City. h. Solid Waste: The City of Kalispell would be the refuse hauler. Roads: The interior road system would be constructed to City standards. As previously discussed under subdivision regulations a second fully improved access should be required if the subdivision is approved. j. Public Health Services: The project is approximately two miles from major health services in Kalispell. F. EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Primary concerns of a development's impact on public health and safety include provision of accessibility; emergency services; building in areas such as floodplain; areas of seismic activity; unsuitable soils; and steep hillsides. This subdivision as proposed, would have only one access unless required to provide a second fully improved access. All roads would be required to provide year-round access to the subdivision. None of the proposed development is in the "100-year" flood plain. According to the map within the Flathead County Resource Analysis, there have been no recent earthquakes of significant intensity in the immediate area of this subdivision. Soils do not appear to pose severe limitations to development of the property. G. EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT The area currently offers a limited food source to deer and some game birds. The proposed development will probably disrupt what little wildlife is in the area, as would any construction. However, the construction of this development is within an area designated for development and is on the existing fringe of the City of Kalispell. No threatened or endangered species are known to inhabit the area and therefore no significant impact is expected. 3 H. EFFECTS ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 1. Water: There Is no open surface water on the site. The developer is anticipating use of the streets for drainage. A grading and drainage plan for the entire development would need to be approved by the City of Kalispell Public Works Department if this project is approved. 2. Topography: The proposed lot and road layout would have no significant Impact on the topography because the site is basically flat. 3. Vegetation: The property has been used for agricultural purposes. There are no known threatened or endangered plants on this property. 1. EFFECTS ON AGRICULTURE The development is located in an area adjacent to the City and has been anticipated for development. While it has been used for agricultural purposes in the past, the proposed development would not be a significant negative Impact on the County's agricultural resources. IV. SUMMARY REMARKS The proposed subdivision Is within the Kalispell City -County Planning Jurisdiction and is not in conformance with the City -County Master Plan. The applicant has not taken Into account in his design the US Highway 93 Bypass. V. RECOMMENDATION it is the staff's recommendation that this report be adopted as findings of fact and this preliminary plat be recommended for denial by City Council. ...\KPP95-03.R-4 4 E;iiV'IROINNIENTAL ASSESSIIENT The format herein is in accordance with the outline in Appendix B, Pages 87 through 96 of the Flathead County Subdivision Regulations and contains all information required by the Subdivision Regulations for the City of Kalispell. I. Geology There are no known hazards affecting the site which could result in property damage or personal injury due to falls, slides, or slumps of soil, rock, mud, or snow, nor are there any rock outcroppings. II. Surface Water There are no streams, rivers, intermittent streams, lakes or rivers on the property. There are no areas of the development which are subject to flooding. III. Vegetation The area is treeless and generally covered with grasses. It is undeveloped at the present time. IV. Wildlife There are no known important big game winter range, waterfowl nesting area or habitat for rare and endangered species on the site, nor are there any wetlands. Whitetail deer occasionally cross the property and various species of birds which are typically found in suburban ares may be found in the area. V. Agriculture and Timber Production The soils on this site are classified Ku, Kalispell Silt Loam, Capability Unit IIe-2. The property has produced a hav crop annually with an approximate yield of two tons per acre. The property is bordered by residential property on the east and across the Hathaway Lane on the west. A portion of the adjacent land to the north and the south are used for pasture and hay. These properties are accessed from Two -Mile Drive and Highway 2 and are predominantly zoned R-1. No conflicts with current agricultural uses are anticipated. VL Historical, Archaeological, or Cultural Features There are no known historical, archaeological or cultural features on the site. VII. Sewage Treatment City of Kalispell sewer mains terminate near the east property boundary as depicted on the Preliminary Plat. Annexation to the City of Kalispell is being requested concurrently to this request for Preliminary Plat and permission to extend the main will requested upon Preliminary Plat approval. The designed daily load of the subdivision is 3 -50 galilot (48 lots) = 16,800 gpd. The Kalispell City Engineer's Office has indicated that there is ample capacity to serve the subdivision. The proposed extension of the sewer main is detailed on the preliminary plat. The extension will necessitate the installation of a lift station, the proposed location of which is indicated on the preliminary plat. VIIL Water Supply The peak daily demand, including irrigation, based on 600 gpd1ot (48 lots) = 28,800 gpd. The current water main terminates approximately 300 feet from the edge of the property. Some additional off site improvements may be required to adequately loop the water supply to meet necessary flows. IX. Solid Waste The subdivision will fall within the City of KalispeIrs garbage collection area. X. Drainage Excess runoff created by paving of roads will be retained on -site for a ten year storm. Catch basins will be installed in the curb and will dispose water into a rock filled drain trench within the right of way. These trenches will capture the water from a ten year storm and allow captured water to percolate back into the soil. The runoff from buildings and driveways will be captured on the individual lot. For storm events greater than ten year, a retention pond and overflow will be provided near the southwest comer of the subdivision. Culverts will be installed at the intersections with Hathaway Lane. XL Roads The primary access to this subdivision will be Hathaway Lane. By definition from the s bdivision regulations, this subdivision will generate 48 lots (10 trips lot) = 480 vehicle trips per day on Hathaway Lane. Currently five other households use Hathaway Lane. This will bring the total daily usage to 530 vehicle trips per day at full develpoment of the project. The accepted marrying capacity of a 20' wide road is about 3200 average daily trips (adt) based on a peak hourly flow equal to 12% of adt. XII. Emergency Services 1. Fire Protection The subdivision will be served by the Kalispell Fire Department. The development of the site will include installation of fire hydrants, the location and number of which will be based on accepted design standards and the concurrence of the Kalispell Fire Department. 2. Police Protection The subdivision will fall within the jurisdiction of the Kalispell Police Department, upon annexation. 3. Ambulance Service The subdivision will fall within the jurisdiction of the Kalispell's Ambulance Service, upon annexation. 4. Medical Services The subdhision is Iocated less than two miles from Kalispell Regional Hospital. XII. Schools Based on the county -wide average of 0.4 children of school age per household. development of 48 single family lots is likely to contribute approximately 19 school age children to the Kalispell School District. XIV. Economic Benefits $71.27 were paid in taxes on the property in 1994. Assuming the appraised value of each lot to be $15,000 and development with a $125,000 home, each of the 48 lots will generate approximately S 1,950 in taxes for a total of $93,600. 25% occupancy is anticipated by the middle of 1996 and 90% occupancy is anticipated by the middle of 1997. Water and sewer hook-up fees currently total $1392 per unit. Anticipated annual fees amount approximaately $420 per unit for water, sewer and solid waste collection. XV. Land Use The site is currently vacant. The property borders the Kalispell city limits on its east boundary and is currently zoned county R-I, as is the property to the north, west, and south. The properties within the city limits to the east are zoned R-4 (Greenbriar Subdividion), and R.,k 1(the property zoned RA -I is currently under review for a possible zone change to R-k-2.) Annexation to the City of Kalispell and a change of zone to R-4 is being requested for this property. The subdivision will not have an effect on access to adjoining lands. There are no utility transmission lines or other hazards located on the site. Distibution lines for electricity, telephone and natural gas are located at or near the boundaries of the property. Adjacent agricultural activities were discussed in Section V. Agriculture and Timber Production. No incompatible uses are foreseen. XVI. Parks and Recreation Facilities There are currently 1,64 acre of park land adjacent to the property located in the Greenbriar Subdivision. There will be a limited amount of open space in this development. Cash -in -lieu of park land dedication is proposed for this subdivision. The land is under contract for a purchase price of $3,000 per acre. The total area in lots will be 9.74 acres. XVTI. Utilities Electric _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Pacific Power Telephone _ _ _ _ _ _ PTI Communications Natural Gas _ _ _ _ _ _ Montana Power Cable TV TCI Cablevision All utilities will be placed underground on the subdivision. DECLARATION OF CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR GREENHAVEN 1. The undersigned do hereby certify and declare that the following reservations, conditions, covenants and agreements shall become and are hereby made part of all conveyances of property owned by the undersigned, within the Plat of GREENHAVEN as the same appears in Plat recorded in Volume Page(s) of Plats in Flathead County, Montana, of which conveyances and agreements shall become a part by reference herein and to which it shall thereupon apply as fishy and with the same effect as if set forth at large herein. In the event that it appears to the advantage of this platted subdivision that these restrictions should be modified, then and in that event, any modification desired may be made by affirmative vote of W/o the owners of lots within this subdivision and evidence by suitable instrument tiled for public record: or if such event occurs during the development period such modifications or waiver of nonconformity may be evidenced by special permission granted in writing by the undersigned, or its succesor interest. 2. No lot shaiI be used exceopt for residential purposes. No building shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than the one dwelling not to exceed two stories, plus basement, in height, and a private garage for not less than two cars. However, the foregoing provisions shall not be interpreted to exclude construction of a private greenhouse, garden shed, private swimming pool, or shelter facilities, or port for the protection of such swimming pool, or other recreational facilities, or for the storage of a boat and I or a camping trailer kept for personal use, provided the location of such stnictures are in conformitywith the applicable municipal regulations, and are compatible in desi6m and decoration with the residence constructed on such lot. 3. The main floor area of the dwelling structure, exclusive of basement, open or screened porches and attached garages, shall be no Iess than 1050 square feet for a dwelling of one story or 1500 square feet for a dwelling of two stories. Split level dwelling shall contain a minimum floor area of 1500 square feet, with all levels, exclusive of garage area within the dwelling unit, included in computation of footage for such split level dwellings, for the purpose of interpretation of this paragraph, those dwellings with daylight basements shall be classified as a single story, with the basement area excluded from computation of footage. 4. Each owner of a lot with the subdivision shall construct a concrete driveway from street to garage prior to occupancy of the dwelling. Then after the owner shall maintain and repair their driveway. Structures shall be guttered and the run off water shall be retained on site. 5. No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become an annovance or nuisance to the neighborhood, including big not limited to skateboard ramps, in or adjacent to, any of the streets. 6. No structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage, barn or other outbuuldines shall be used on any lot at any time as a residence, either temporarily or permanently. 7. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any lot except one professional sign, not more than five square feet, advertising the property for sale or rent, or signs used by a builder to ad,.°ertise the property during construction and sale period. ,An appropriate entrance sign is excepted here front Declaration of Conditions and Restrictions for Greenhaven S. No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept on any lot; other usual household pets may be kept, provided that they are not kept, bred, or maintained for any commercial purpose, and provided that then_ are not permitted to cause damage, constitute a nuisance, or run at large in the neighborhood. 9. No house trailer, camper, boat or trailer of any type shall be stored or parked in the front yard or driveway portion of any Iot, or on any street within the subdivision; such storage area must be behind adjacent building line. 10. No building shall be erected, placed, or altered on any lot until the construction plans and specifications, and a plan showing the location of the structure, have been approved by the Architectural Control Committee, as defined below, as to quality of workmanship and materials, harmony of external design with existing structures and as to location with respect to topography and finish grade elevation. No fence or wall shall be erected, placed or altered on any lot nearer to any street than the building setback line, unless similarly approved. 11. The Architectural Control Committee shall initially consist of three persons designated by the undersigned ("Initial Committee"). Upon the erection and completion of family dwellings, intended for separate occupancy and ownership, on all of the lots within the subdivision, the Initial Committee shall turn control of the Architectural Control Committee over to the residents of GREEN- T AVEN, whereupon a majority of the residents shall appoint five (5) members from within the subdivision. All appointed members from the subdivision shall serve a tw-o (2) year term. In the event of death or resignation of any member of the committee, the remaining members shall have full authority to designate a successor for the balance of that member's term. The members of the committee shall not be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this covenant. The comrttee's approval or disapproval as required in these covenants shall be in writing. In the event the committee fails to approve or disapprove within 30 days after plans and specifications have been submitted to it, or in any event, if no suit to enjoin the construction has been commenced prior to the completion thereof, approval will not be required and the related covenants shall be deemed to have been fully complied with. The Architectural Control Committee will approve plans and placement of house on each lot at their own discretion and will not be responsible, or liable in any event if, in the course of decisions, a house should block a portion or all of anther's view. or of any other dispute that may arise from the committee's decisions. 12. Approved projects must be completed within six (6) months after issuance of a building permit. Failure to complete work within the prescribed time will cause the approval to be rescinded and resubmittal will be required. The Architectural Control Committee may grant an extension under extenuating circumstances brought to its attention. 13. Regarding the physical structure (i.e. family dwelling and fencing) itself, the follo-,vina will apply: Roof. The roofing shall be of composition material, or better, with a minimum 20 Year warranty. Siding: Double wall construction shall be required. Fencing: All fencing shall conform to county standards regarding height. Painting: All house colors must be approved by the Architectural Control Committee. 14. Trees and shrubs or landscaping of any kind will be kept neat and orderly. The front yard landscaping of each lot must be completed within three (3) months from the date of completion of a family dwelling structure constructed thereon or prior to occupancy, whichever event shall first occur. In the event of undue hardship due to weather conditions, this provision may be extended upon written request to the Architectural Control Committee. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard prior to occupancy. Dcclarativn of Conditions and Rcatricticna for Grccnhavcn I -;. All vacant lots and lots with partially constructed improvements shall be kept clear of any construction debris, and weeds and grass shall be kept mowed and not allowed to grow to a height of more than six (6) inches. 16. No outdoor overhead wire or service drop for this distribution of electric energy. All owners of lots within this subdivision, their heirs, successors, and assigns shall use underground service wires to connect their premises and the structures built thereof to the underground electric or telephone utility facilities provided. An entrance panel of not less than 200 amp capacity and a District approved type meter socket connected to a rigid metallic conduit of not less than two (2) inch diameter extending from the meter to not less than eight (8) inches below the finished ground surface, all to be installed and maintained at the expense of the builder or owner of said dwelling, in confo nuty with applicable codes and regulations; it being the intent herein that the homeowner shall also own, install and be responsible for the maintenance of underground service conductors from the point of the Public Utility District's delivery point on the property line to the service entrance panel on the residence. One television antenna is allowed. 17. No oil drilling, oil development operations, oil refining, quarrying, or mining operation of any kind shall be permitted upon or in any lot, nor shall oil wells, tanks, tunnels, mineral excavations or shafts be permitted upon or in any lot. No derrick or other structures designed for use in boring for natural gas shall be erected, maintained or permitted upon any lot. is. No lot shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground. Rubbish, trash, garbage, or other waste shall not be kept except in sanitary containers, pending weekly collection and removal. All incinerators or other equipment for the temporary storage or material shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. 19. There covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them for a period of thirty (30) years from the date these covenants are recorded; after which time said covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years, unless an instrument signed by a majority of the owners of the lots has been recorded, agreeing to change said covenants in whole or in part. 20. Enforcement shall be by proceeding at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenant, either to retrain violation, or to recover damages. Invalidation of any of these covenants by judgment or court order shall in no way effect any of the other provision which shall remain in full force and effect. DATE: Declaration of Conditions and Restrictions for Greenhaven APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL T Ws application stall be submitted, along with all information required by the applicable Su Ttcgutatiotts q the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, and the appropriate fan Flathead Regional Development Olnoe. 723 Fifth Avenue Bast. 4 �f Kalispell, Monona 5MI - Telephone (406) 759-5780 FE g 41995 P MEEWNVEN SUBDIVISION NAME. OWNBR(S) OF ItECK1RD• F. R Igo Herh^rt M. and Norma Daniel phone 4 7 _1 a 33 H,ddrmathaway Lane cit& ip Coda Kalispell, MT 59901 PERSONS) AUTHORIZED to represent the subdivision and to whom all correspondence Is to be sent. Name Tim Birk /t52CT giv_< Phone (406)257-31.41 Mailing Address 880 Farm Road &tZiP�eKalisrx-ll, Kr 59901 dICAUPROFESBIONAL PARTICIPA2T178 (8u.veyor/Designer/Enaineer. eto.)l Name&Addrees Flathead Land Consultants, Office 11-B Meridiz NAm&Addren Bret Birk, PO Box 10101, Kalispell MT 59904 Name & Address LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: minty Kalispell/Flathead Tract No(s) 6D, 6A, 6E, 6CB Street Lot Address Hathaway Lane N00). 1Section S'41/4, sec12 Township 28 N Range 22W, PM,M GENERAL DESCRIPTION OFPROPOSED SUB DIVIStON A So lot subdivision to be annexed into the City of Kalispell and utilize city services Number of Lots or Rental Spaces 50 Total Acreage in Subdivision 12.49 Total Acreage in Lots 9.74 Minimum Sim of Lots or Spaces _ Total Acreage in Streets or Roads 9-6 Maximum Size of Lob or 8vnoesSF Total Aoreajp in Parks. Open Space and/or Common Aran ib OSED USE(a) AND NUMBER OF ASSOCIATED LOTWWACES: Family Townhouse t50 om— Mobile Home Park Family: Recreational Veldole Park vent Commeraw id Unit Development Industrial gninium Other [CABLB TONING DESIGNATION & DISIRIGT R-4 (Applied For) I EST1JAATE OF MARK M VALUE BEFORE IMPROVEMENTS $100 , 000. 00 IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED: Roads: 0mhvd _X Paved X burb X_ Gutter Y Sidawatks Alleys Other Wader Sygim. IndividualMultiple User Neighborhood X Public Other Bawer System: Individual Multiple User Noigbborbood X Public Other Other Ulililiw: X Cable TV X Telephone X Electric X Gag Other solid Wastes X Home Plti -up Central Storage Contract Hauler Owner Haul Mail Delivery: �X Central I dividuah School Disb iob 05 Fire Protoodom �. Hydrant Tanker Recharge Fire Disb iot Kalispell Drainagesyateras Subsurface Storage and infiltration PROPOSBDE31LOSIONis13DIIABNTATIONCONTRoL. Not critcal due to flat topogr absence of surface water. 1 and VARi Ncm- AJtn ANY YARIANczs REQuwrw? yes di'so. pleuo complete the Information bolos. SBCTION/RWULATION OP PJ30ULATIONB CRBATTNO HAR.DsHigt Unknown, Have been verbal informed that sidewalks are now required on both sides of street 8" AJN THE HARDSHM THAT WOUIM DO CR FATED WITTi STRICT COMPtiANC8 OP fLOGMATIONSa Additional impermeable surface creates additional runoff and inhibits ground- PROPOsEU ALTwtxATTVEM TO STRICT COMPLIANCE WTrH AsovE RHOtRATION& Propose to PLBASS ANSWER THE POLLOWU40 QiJE9'TIONS IN THE SPACES PROYIDBD HELOW: L Wm the granting of the veriaoos be detrimental go the public bedeb, saliety or geosal welhra or tejurtoun to other a4kAnina Properties? 2. Win the variance; cause a substantial increase to public coda? No. This will reduce maintenance costs. It will reduce the amount of runoff i 1. WIn the variance aQbc4 In any meaner. the provisions of any adopted aootng regulations or Manta Plant 4. Am there special draanstance s related to the physical charaWerdstlos of the din (topography. shape. ote.) that create the hardship? No. Site is level and easily accessed on both sides of street. S. What other owAltdoos are unique to this property that create the need for a variance? runoff be OF MATBRLV.s SUHMIT'CLiD VWTM 77CM APPLICAT10NI Is. Preliminary Plat (16) a Petition to . b. Environmental Assessment t Petition for a Adjacent Property Owners Iu d. Covenants b. r ne*eop verury au_ peuauy w P—Jwy ..,.. Sue rows oa Soo amm « Ma mna Saar, ern nmormauon snanuUed bereln, an An other submitted forms, documents, plans or any other information submitted as part of this application. to be trtw4 complete. and accurate to tho bed of my knowlodge. Should any information or representation submitted in connection with this appilostLon be untrue. I understand that Any approval based thereon mAy be rescinded. and other appropriate action taken. Tiho signing of this application danules approval for P.R.D.O. staff to be present on the property for routing mooltoring And Inspection during the Approval and development process. Revised 7/2603 db 2 1 d' ---•-.-.-N•ATt�AWaY•LANE------- - .. lJt7 i "1 l jj +Yf' S� .. .+ c2c • 1 w 1 P � 1 I 1 � I 1 h 1 gipp' 1 x� m all LAJ V000 04 I Uj am co 70 1 h O� Q a :.•Y I �' A O m 1 m 1 N Ia'' 1 •t1'� S r 6f i /I� z +5 I \10 l W sra� *r `` �•i 1. ` -_. � .- � . --- .� � I I sm ..