The URL can be used to link to this page

05. Resolution - Belmar AnnexationRESOLUTION 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 BELMAR ADDITION N0. 261; 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 Somers Land Company and Lindlief Enterprises, the 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 Belmar Addition No. 261, City Zone Request, KA-94-5, dated June 27, 1994, and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission recommended that the territory be annexed into the City of Kalispell and be zoned Two Family Residential, R-4, 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 "Urban Residential", with a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. R-4 is considered in compliance 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 in this case 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 will be subdivided in a manner which precludes any further subdivisions and the density of this development is expected for this area. No additional traffic would be generated by this zoning designation. 1 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. A portion of the property is currently in the 100 year floodplain. Structural development within the floodplain is not permitted; the portion of the property within the floodplain would need to be brought out of the floodplain prior to any structural development on that portion of the property. No significant negative impact is expected. Will the Requested Change 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 would support the requested zone change. Designation of this area as R-4 would serve the Flathead region with additional residential development. Any traffic generation that the proposed change allows would be mitigated at the time of development. In addition, this area has direct access to an existing major arterial which would have access to the Alternate Highway 93 route. 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. No significant negative impact is expected. Will the Requested Zone Provide for Adequate Light and Air? The development standards of the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations (i.e.: parking, landscaping, 2 clear vision setback, roadway improvements) would ensure that light and air are adequately provided. Will the Requested Zone Change 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 is in place or can be provided at the time of development to accommodate the land uses allowed in the requested zone. No significant negative impact is expected. 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 change would increase residential density in the area. Infrastructure exists or can be provided which supports the proposed change. 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 which would not happen. The proposed zoning will insure that the site is properly developed. No significant negative impact is expected. 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. Because of the types of uses permitted in the zone, schools and parks should not be significantly impacted. However, schools are considered to be at capacity and additional development in Flathead County puts additional strain on the school system. 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 is well suited for uses permitted within the R-4 zone. The property is of adequate size 3 and has adequate access to facilities for the type of uses permitted in the proposed zone. No significant negative impact is expected. Does the Requested Zoning Give Reasonable Consideration to the Character of this District? The properties in question are well suited for the type development anticipated under the requested zone because of the topography, access, regional location, and size of the proposal. No significant negative impact is expected. 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. No significant negative impact is expected. Will the Requested Zone Change Encourage the Most Appropriate Use of the Land Throughout the Jurisdiction? The requested zoning classification would be consistent with 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. No significant negative impact is expected. WHEREAS, on the 3rd day of April, 1989 the City Council of the City of Kalispell adopted, pursuant to Section 7-2-4610, Montana Code Annotated, an Extension of Services Plan which anticipates development of City services for approximately five years in the future, and WHEREAS, the City has caused to be developed a "mini -extension of services plan", attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and thereby made a part hereof, for the territory by this Resolution annexed to the City of Kalispell, and WHEREAS, said "mini -extension of services plan" provides for the extension of municipal services or maintenance of existing services within the area of Belmar Addition No. 261, subject to annexation, including water, sewer, storm drainage, streets, garbage collection, police protection and fire protection, and 2 WHEREAS, said "mini -extension of services plan" provides for financing the extension of municipal services or maintenance of existing services by utilizing funds allocated and expended, pursuant to the annual City budget without incurring additional bonded indebtedness, and WHEREAS, Belmar Addition No. 261 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. 5 1 A tract of land located in the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 West; thence South 88016'25" West along the South boundary of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 19 a distance of 204.94 feet to a point; thence North 00009'15" West and leaving said South boundary a distance of 500.62 feet to a point on the approximate thread of Ashley Creek; thence the following three (3) courses along the said approximate thread: North 76°58'16" East a distance of 40.41 feet; North 53001'22" East a distance of 55.83 feet; North 33°33'22" East a distance of 15.02 feet; thence leaving said thread North 89052'45" East a distance of 112.38 feet to a point on the West boundary of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 19; thence North 89052'45" East a distance of 362.33 feet to a point; thence South 00009'00" East a distance of 540.10 feet to a point on the South boundary of the said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South 88019'53" West and along said South boundary a distance of 362.35 feet to the place of beginning. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL THIS DAY OF , 1995. ATTEST: Debbie Gifford, CMC Clerk of Council 2 Douglas D. Rauthe, Mayor EXHIBIT "B" BELMAR ADDITION ANNEXATION EXTENSION OF SERVICES PLAN ADDENDUM TO CITY RESOLUTION 13838 PREPARED BY THE FRDO FEBRUARY 6, 1995 The subject property is within the Service Area Boundary of the City of Kalispell as described by the Extension of Services Plan adopted by the City of Kalispell on April 3, 1989 (Resolution 13838). This broad -based extension of services plan, together with this "mini -plan" comprise the Extension of Services Plan for Dennis Carver's, Belmar Addition, annexation. EXISTING SERVICES: Water: A municipal water line will need to be extended to serve this property. The City has sufficient capacity to serve this site when the extension is made. Sewer: A lift station and sanitary sewer will need to be extended to service this property. The City has sufficient capacity to service this property when extensions are made. Storm Drainage: Storm drainage Is proposed to outlet Into Ashley Creels north of the property. Streets: Airport Road Is a two lane paved collector with sufficient capacity to serve South Meadows and this site. Garbage Collection: Available by contract from private companies. Police Protection: Currently the Flathead County Sheriff's Department. Fire Protection: West Valley Volunteer Fire Department. ANTICIPATED SERVICE NEEDS: Water: Water supply would be able to be extended to the property from the water line north in Airport Road through the South Meadows Subdivision. If not, a water main must be extended to connect with a main of sufficient capacity to serve this property. Capacity and any extensions would be evaluated at the review stage of any development permit. Sewer: Sewer would be collected in a conventional gravity flow system which would feed into a lift station which would feed into the City's sewerage disposal 0 plant east of the site. This disposal system would be evaluated during the review phase of any development permit. Storm Drainage: on -site retention and/or disposal of storm water will be evaluated during the review phase of any proposed development It is anticipated to drain Into Ashley Creek. streets: Airport Road is a two lane paved collector with sufficient capacity to serve this site through South Meadows. In addition, street tree planting and sidewalks would be necessary. Garbage Collection: The City has the capacity and equipment to handle the needs of this site at the time it becomes eligible for municipal service. Police/Fire: City of Kalispell Police Department and Fire Department will be available to serve the tract upon annexation. They will be able to provide "service" to this property on the substantially same basis and in the same manner in which this service is currently provided to the rest of the municipality. EXTENSION AND FINANCE STRATEGIES: The cost of extending such public services as police and fire protection are expected to be negligible until such time as the property is developed. The general source of money to extend these type of services is from the general tax revenues received from this property and other properties inside the City limits. Individual improvements to the property, including the paving of streets, the extension of the water line, sewer line, and stormwater management Improvements will be the responsibility of the developer/landowner. Any area - wide Improvements relative to a comprehensive storm drainage system will be financed in part by the residents of the entire municipality and in part by special assessments for that purpose. F:\...\KA95-1 ES.CVR 7 1'�..... i;,�'�,; ��t i tt�` 1-06 �'�,.. ��,r.� .I , l�!i•ar �i•�t •� •i ti• rf.•�: •Ca j • -, \•i1 I96 �i •�f• .� a K•i•(t'� , . •.+ t .+' rrw ('✓r •• ` •ate � � 1 ..�^ ] • ry ` �i„� '; )+1�0 e ,• �,�+„� raw •� _ •• "•�'.. w •• - • .• • �. /r "'-� .r•�••-•••r t wa N'•r_-. t-w,. .r -. 1 4 �t.�:.« a -W. e�� r.." :w t.M•� ,r.'.r -'• • ♦. r.�� T -� j .r.-. �•� •• "'•i . r•a 1p '�� • `�• ava •,• �i t�}�. ��W 6.00 r• , 28-22 _ �Nil Ka-t� �':t a 4•'►,•r4 ,.. ■ �r .i I - A. • . •� s i ,. j [• • T a 1zip REF.: ,. \ a • • i * 11 r* •a V [*• w fit/^\��I�L►'�"r�% as SAG ,— ,- •r '.I.- ^ a i PARK COUNTY `1 \ •' ^ :.i' �./� ..NI _I• 1 .•tT72"7 fw • ' •.. � �•• f i 1'. •+�-s• , �.•: •;,� REF.: R:ZC 95-1 i \ COUNTYP H L. EY \ PARK . R--4 ,.. ' -10 •• . a \. - — - - - - • � i firms{ a•ea�+-� t -- - ......: .. _ p 5--1 Flathead regional Development Office 723 5th Avenue East - Room 414 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 758-5780 February 23, 1995 Fax: (406) 758-5781 Bruce Williams, City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Drawer 1997 Kalispell, MT 59901 Re: Recommendation of Zoning for Belmar Addition No. 261 Dear Bruce: The Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission met on February 14, 1995, and held a public hearing on the following agenda item: A request by Dennis Carver for annexation to the City of Kalispell with an initial zoning classification of R-4 (Two Family Residential). The parcel contains approximately 7 acres located north of South Meadows Subdivision, and is currently zoned County R-1 Residential. The site will access Bluestone Drive through Lot 57 of South Meadows. It will be known as Belmar Addition. It is further described as Assessor's Tract 14CA and part_ of Tract 1K, in the NE4 of Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. During the public hearing, no one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to the requested zoning classification. The Board questioned whether the property owner on the corner had been contacted to voluntarily annex. Staff replied that it was essentially an island and the City could initiate annexation. By unanimous vote, the Commission adopted FRDO Report #KA-95-1 as findings of fact, and recommend to the City Council that the subject property be zoned R-4 upon annexation into the City of Kalispell. 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, KA ISPELL C TY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION Therese Fox Hash President TFH/JPP/eo Attachments: FRDO Report #KA-95-1 8t Packet c: Mayor Doug Rauthe c w/o Att: Dennis Carver F:\...\TRANS MIT\KALI S PEL\KA-95-1.261 Providing Community Planning Assistance To: * Flathead County * City of Columbia Falls * City of Kalispell * City of Whitefish " JA . ADDITION :. CITY ZONE REQUEST i TO ') i CITY ZONEu Dennis Carver has petitioned the" City of Kalispell for annexation of a tract of land into the city limits of Kalispell. This report evaluates the annexation relative to the assignment of a City zoning classification in accordance with Section 27.03.010(4) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. ..•-s i 11 Still The applicant has petitioned for a zoning classification of R-4 (Two Family Residential). 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 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. PETITIONER: Dennis Carver 1995 - 3rd Ave East Kalispell, MT 59901 SIZE AND LOCATION: The property is approximately 7 acres located south of Kalispell, 1300 feet west of Airport Road and north of South Meadows Subdivision. This site is described as Assessors Tract 14CA and part of Tract 1K, in the NE 1/4, of Section 19, T28N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County. GENERAL LAND USE CHARACTER: The property consists of a single parcel of land and a portion of another; both are currently used for pasture. South (zoned City R-4) is being• developed as South Meadows Subdivision; east (zoned County R-1) is pasture; to the north (zoned County R-1) is pasture; and to the west (zoned County R-1) is pasture. Airport Road is a paved two lane road which provides access to South Meadows, which in turn supplies access to the site. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES: City water and sewer services are available in the area. A separately prepared "Extension of Services Plan" discusses the provision of public services to this property. EVALUATION BASED 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 change 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 "Urban Residential", with a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre. R-4 is considered in compliance 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 in this case 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 will be subdivided in a manner which precludes any further subdivisions and the density of this development is expected for this area. No additional traffic would be generated by this zoning designation. 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. A portion of the property Is currently In the 100 year floodplain. Structural development within the floodplain is not permitted; the portion of the property within the floodplain would need to be brought out of the floodplain prior to any structural development on that portion of the property. No significant negative impact is expected. Will The Requested Change 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 would support the requested zone change. Designation of this area as R-4 would serve the Flathead region with additional residential 2 development. Any traffic generation that the proposed change allows would be mitigated at the time of development. In addition, this area has direct access to an existing major arterial which would have access to the Alternate Highway 93 route. 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. No significant negative impact is expected. 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 Change 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 is in place or can be provided at the time of development to accommodate the land uses allowed in the requested zone. No significant negative impact is expected. 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 change would increase residential density in the area. Infra- structure exists or can be provided which supports the proposed change. 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 which would not happen. The proposed zoning will insure that the site is properly developed. No significant negative impact is expected. 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. Because of the types of uses permitted in the zone, schools and parks should not be significantly impacted. However, schools are considered to be at capacity and 3 additional development in Flathead County puts additional strain on the school system. 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 is well suited for uses permitted within the R-4 zone. The property is of adequate size and has adequate access to facilities for the type of uses permitted in the proposed zone. No significant negative impact is expected. Does The Requested Zoning Give Reasonable Consideration To The Character Of This District? The properties in question are well suited for the type development anticipated under the requested zone because of the topography, access, regional location, and size of the proposal. No significant negative impact is expected. 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. No significant negative impact is expected. Will The Requested Zone Change Encourage The Most Appropriate Use Of The Land Throughout The Jurisdiction? The requested zoning classification would be consistent with 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. No significant negative impact is expected. The property is located in an area that is in a stage of transition; existing and proposed residential development are planned for the area. This zone change would facilitate an orderly development of related uses. It is staffs' opinion that the proposed R-4 zone would serve the needs of the community by allowing residential development to occur in a manner that is commensurate with the services available to the area. it is recommended that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt this FRDO staff report as findings of fact and forward a favorable recommendation to City Council for the requested zone change upon annexation. FA ... 1KA95-1 ES.CVR N A tract of land located in the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 West; thence South 88016'25" West along the South boundary of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 19 a distance of 204.94 feet to a point; thence North 00009'15" West and leaving said South boundary a distance of 500.62 feet to a point on the approximate thread of Ashley Creek; thence the following three (3) courses along the said approximate thread: North 76058'16" East a distance of 40.41 feet; North 53001'22" East a distance of 55.83 feet; North 33)33'22" East a distance of 15.02 feet; thence leaving said thread North 8905245" East a distance of 112.38 feet to a point on the West boundary of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 19; thence North 8905245" East a distance of 362.33 feet to a point; thence South 00009'00" East a distance of 540.10 feet to a point on the South boundary of the said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South 88019'53" West and along said South boundary a distance of 362.35 feet to the place of beginning. A BELMAR ADDITION ANNEXATION EXTENSION OF SERVICES PLAN ADDENDUM TO CITY RESOLUTION 13838 PREPARED BY THE FRDO FEBRUARY 6, 1995 The subject property is within the Service Area Boundary of the City of Kalispell as described by the Extension of Services Plan adopted by the City of Kalispell on April 3, 1989 (Resolution #3838). This broad -based extension of services plan, together with this "mini -plan" comprise the Extension of Services Plan for Dennis Carver's, Belmar Addition, annexation. EXISTING SERVICES: Water: A municipal water line will need to be extended to serve this property. The City has sufficient capacity to serve this site when the extension is made. Sewer: A lift station and sanitary sewer will need to be extended to service this property. The City has sufficient capacity to service this property when extensions are made. Storm Drainage: Storm drainage is proposed to outlet into Ashley Creek north of the property. Streets: Airport Road is a two lane paved collector with sufficient capacity to serve South Meadows and this site. Garbage Collection: Available by contract from private companies. Police Protection: Currently the Flathead County Sheriff's Department. Fire Protection: West Valley Volunteer Fire Department. ANTICIPATED SERVICE DEEDS: Water: Water supply would be able to be extended to the property from the water line north in Airport Road through the South Meadows Subdivision. if not, a water main must be extended to connect with a main of sufficient capacity to serve this property. Capacity and any extensions would be evaluated at the review stage of any development. permit. Sewer: Sewer would be collected in a conventional gravity flow system which would feed into a lift station which would feed into the City's sewerage disposal 1.1 plant east of the site. This disposal system would be evaluated during the review phase of any development permit. Storm Drainage: On -site retention and/or disposal of storm water will be evaluated during the review phase of any proposed development. It is anticipated to drain into Ashley Creek. Streets: Airport Road is a two lane paved collector with sufficient capacity to serve this site through South Meadows. In addition, street tree planting and sidewalks would be necessary. Garbage Collection: The City has the capacity and equipment to handle the needs of this site at the time it becomes eligible for municipal service. Police/Fire: City of Kalispell Police Department and Fire Department will be available to serve the tract upon annexation. They will be able to provide "service" to this property on the substantially same basis and in the same manner in which this service is currently provided to the rest of the municipality. EXTENSION AND FINANCE STRATEGIES: The cost of extending such public services as police and fire protection are expected to be negligible until such time as the property is developed. The general source of money to extend these type of services is from the general tax revenues received from this property and other properties inside the City limits. Individual improvements to the property, including the paving of streets, the extension of the water line, sewer line, and stormwater management improvements will be the responsibility of the developer/Ian down er. Any area - wide improvements relative to a comprehensive storm drainage system will be financed in part by the residents of the entire municipality and in part by special assessments for that purpose. FA ... 1KA95-1 ES.CVR 6 — .�-"'tl ,1� _.•�� to a '1 � ,.. �j � . . �... tvI (I t �• r , �^-"'� 'ems t ..e 1 1 t� ♦ 4t• Olt r, • 0 . rk .ram i "" ii = •^•• T� L • • t+e PA i1} F .t• r r •' 1� i ... "—Y; � • .•• 1 rv•••• . �°vim} i rrrrrrrr . s Pte ..}...., ,. 20• 21 f •• s r .,t ` 1, �. .. T RTY PR +. !! .w rr 95-1 -:--. 01 rf -I ' x PA P. � ml, _ � 1 � .T. , •' T� —'' � � ( � Off'.. j .. ��''` a• � .. -- _ ASHLEY SOMERS LAND COMPANY, INC. 1995 3rd Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 257-6202 Fax: (406) 756-1093 January 11, 1995 Bruce Williams City Manager Drawer 1997 City of Kalispell Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: Annexation of Belmar Addition Dear Bruce: Please accept this letter as the petition to annex the tract of land described in the attached legal description to the City of Kalispell. This tract is the parcel north of, and adjacent to, the South Meadows Subdivision which we have recently discussed. Also enclosed for your reference is the preliminary plat of the Subdivision for your reference. We ask that the initial zoning be R-4. Current county zoning is R-1, however the Master Plan designates the property as Urban Residential. The property has not been purchased by Somers Land Co. (Dennis Carver and Lum Owens, but is subject to a Buy -sell Agreement with Undlief Enterprises. Because the property has not closed as of this date, Mr. Lindlief is also a signatory to this letter as well as the Consent to Annex and Notice of Withdrawal from Rural Fire District, and the Petition for Zone Amendment. SOMER_S LAND COMPANY Dennis F. Carver, President LINDIEF ENTERPRISES KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING FEBRUARY 14, 1995 CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City -County AND ROLL CALL Planning Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by President Therese Hash. Board members present were Mike DeGrosky, Walter Bahr, Robert Lapp, Pam Kennedy, Mike Fraser, Robert Sanders, Fred Hodgeboom, Milt Carlson, and Therese Hash. John Parsons, Senior Planner represented the Flathead Regional Development Office. The City of Kalispell was represented by Brian Wood, Zoning Administrator. There were approximately 25 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF The minutes of the January 10, 1995 meeting were approved as MINUTES submitted on a motion by Kennedy, second by Bahr. All members voted aye. ANNEXATION & The first public hearing was on a request by Dennis Carver for ZONE CHANGE / annexation to the City of Kalispell with an initial zoning R-1 TO R-4 classification of R-4, Two Family Residential. The parcel contains BELMAR approximately 7 acres located north of South Meadows Subdivision ADDITION and is zoned County R-1. The site will access Bluestone Drive through Lot 57 of South Meadows. The site will be known as Belmar Addition, and is described as Assessors Tract 14CA and part of Tract 1K, in the NE4 of Section 19, T28N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County. Staff Report Parsons presented an overview of report #KA-95-1. The request for an R-4 zoning classification upon annexation into the City of Kalispell was evaluated in accordance with the statutory criteria relative to the request, with a favorable recommendation. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the R-4 zone classification upon annexation. No one spoke either in favor or in opposition. The public hearing was closed, and it was opened to Board discussion. Discussion The difference in the density between County R-1, which is 1 unit per acre, and City R-4, which is a single family/duplex zone ., requiring 6000 square foot lots was explained. Lapp expressed concern with the urban density in the riparian protection zone of Ashley Creek. He did recognize, however, that the property was adjacent to other City R-4 zoning. Motion DeGrosky moved to approve FRDO report #KA-95-1 as findings of fact and forward it with a positive recommendation for an R-4 zone designation upon annexation into the City of Kalispell. Fraser seconded. On a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 1 abstain. BELMAR The next public hearing was on a request by Dennis Carver for ADDITION / preliminary plat approval to subdivide 7 acres of proposed R-4 PRELIMINARY zoned land into 27 single family/duplex lots, to be known as Belmar PLAT Addition. The site will be developed with City services and have cal-de-sac/loop access through Lot 57 of South Meadows Subdivision from Bluestone Drive. The site is further described as Assessors Tract 14CA and part of Tract 1K in the NE4 of Section 19, T28N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County. Staff Report Parsons presented report #KPP-95-1. Based on evaluation of the submitted preliminary plat, staff recommended approval of the subdivision, with 14 conditions. Public Hearing The meeting was opened to those in favor of the proposed subdivision. In Favor Dennis Carver, the developer of the subdivision, made a few comments about the 100 year floodplain that exists on the site. Most of the lots are approximately 150 feet from the creek, except Lot 6 which actually abuts Ashley Creek. The bank drops off at that site, and is about 26 feet above the floodplain. He said that there have been many changes since the start of this project. He intended to have this as an extension of South Meadows Subdivision, and before he made an offer to purchase the property, he had conferred with the planners and the city manager, to see if the city could support an extension of the rural streets. That was fine with the city manag4•r. AfU. r he bought the property, he was told by Parsons that much more would be required. He planned to put in 28 feet paved rim (I-,, with curb and gutters, but this 36 feet with 4 inches of paving instead of 3 inches of paving for residential areas, sidewalks, street lights, city trees, so that soon the price goes up about $3000-4000 per lot. 'He said he really doesn't have too much of a problem with that, but he thinks that as a Planning Board, you need to ask yourselves if that is what you really want. He is disappointed that he can't sell these lots for the same price as he sold South Meadows lots for. He went on to address the issue of the floodplain. You don't have to go back very far to put houses, only about 40-50 feet. The excavation from the roadway will be adequate fill for that. He doesn't think he needs a map amendment for that. According to the Kalispell Ordinance, to obtain a building permit, you need to floodproof the structure which is a fairly simple matter for three lots. He extended those lots a little, but it was varied, because he really doesn't have any use for the rest of the property. The total area is 18 1/2 acres, and only 7 acres are useable. The rest of it is probably useable for pastureland. Opposition There were no further speakers either in favor or in opposition to the proposed subdivision. The public hearing was closed. President Hash noted for the record that Board members received letters from two adjacent property owners who were in opposition to the proposed subdivision, as follows: Dolores Aadsen, 1975 Bluestone Drive, wrote that she was opposed to the development of Belmar Addition. She purchased Lot #62 on Bluestone Drive because there was a buffer zone with some wildlife and nice view of the mountains. With the development of 9 Belmar Addition, the quality of life will be destroyed, besides the devaluation of her property. She had concern about the height of the proposed structures, as the existing homes are one -level residences. Accessing Airport Road from South Meadows can be a problem, and definitely feels another access is needed. Another concern is the existing fence between Bluestone Drive and the proposed development. The fence has served to keep out people and dogs. John E. Cusick and Linda M. Cusick, 1405 4th Ave West, wrote of their concerns regarding the proposed Belmar Addition. Their property on the north and west would border this addition. They have horses and are concerned with the possibility and probability of having children and dogs coming into the horse pasture and becoming injured. Also, children getting into Ashley Creek which is on the west side of their property, and having an accident. There is wildlife that frequents the area, and they would miss seeing that. If the development is approvr:rl, they requested the Planning Board include the builidng of a chain link fence to help deter children from entering their horse pasture and Ashley Creek. The meeting was opened to Board discussion. Discussion Fraser asked how many lots in Ashley Park? Parsons said there was a total of 240 lots in all phases. Lopp addressed the issue of the riparian protection zone, which has been a firm recommendation of this Board that wherever a subdivision is immediately adjacent to a stream, that `liar a be a 50 foot riparian setback maintained with undisturbed native vegetation, and wanted this added as condition #15. Carver asked if this was a county or city regulation? This requirew --tit will make those lots real tight. Parsons replied that it was part of the stream protection policy of the Flathead Coonservation District. DeGrosky said it came out of the Best Forest Management Act for stream protection. Carver argued that this was Ashley Creek and he would like to see this lot be made an exception to Board policy of protecting all waterways. DeGrosky stated that this standard has been applied to every development since his term on the Board and he was unwilling to change now. DeGrosky also stated he had misgivings about developing in the floodplain. History has shown that building in the floo(11)1;,in is not a good idea, even though fill can be hauled in to raise the level. Wood pointed out that it is common practice to allow construction in the floodplain, which is differentiated from the floodway. There are different standards that nr ed to be met for different structures. For a single family residence, the floor elevation has to be two feet above the floodplain. Carlson expressed concern about someone else getting flooded, because the floodplain had been plugged up and we are just waiting for the next event to happen to see who is going to get flooded by someone else clogging up the floodplain. Wood said that the amount of fill is regulated as well, so that there is a Kl certain amount of fill allowed in any given segment of the floodplain. DeGrosky had a problem with the public policy set here, where he questioned the sensibility of constructing in the floodplain and then bailing people out when they get flooded. Fraser assured the Board that the standards for building in the floodplain are rigorous, and the developer is aware of what permits are needed. Carlson was concerned about a purchaser who may get flooded out and will look back to why we approved it. Parsons said that purchasers will know that the builditt- is constructed on the floodplain and that fill was brought in. The map will not be changed. Constructing the roads to City standards was discussed, and the requirement for street lights was included in condition #4, in accordance with the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations. Motion Kennedy made the motion to adopt the findings of fact in report #KPP-95-01 of Belmar Addition, and forward a favorable recommendation for preliminary plat with the recommendations as amended: #4 to include street lights; #8 indicating that all road in the subdivision shall be paved to Kalispell standards; and the addition of #15. "That a 50 foot setback from the high water mark of Ashley Creek be established, protected and maintained with native vegetation in accordance with the Flathead Conservation District regulations for riparian zones." Lapp seconded. On a roll call vote DeGrosky, Hodgeboo►n, Kc�n iedy, Lopp, Sanders, Fraser, Bahr, anel li:►sh voted aye. Carlson voted nay. The motion carried 8-1. LONEPINE VIEW Next, Hash introduced a request by Kathryn Stevenson on behalf ESTATES of Mike Spring for preliminary plat approval of Lonepine View PHASE 2 / Fst;ites Subdivision Phase 2. Phase 2 includes 11 lots for single PRELIMINARY family/duplex residential development zonal County R-4. The PLAT proposal would be connected to City water and sewer services, have paved streets, and access Sunnyside Drive. The property is located on the southwest side of Ashley Creek approximately 600 feet south of Sunnyside Drive and is more particularly described as part of Assessor's Tract 7 in the NW4 of Section 19, T28N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County. Staff Report Parsons presented an overview of report #FPP-95-04. Phase 1 of Lonepine View Estates Subdivision was approved a year ago, and staff displayed a plat to illustrate how the phases integrate. Based on evaluation the requested plat meets all the necessary criteria for approval of a subdivision, and staff recommended approval with 15 conditions attached. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to all those in favor of the project. Its Favor Thor Jackola, engineer repro-st=rit.afive for the project, said the primary purpose of Phase 2, is to improve the economics of the subdivision and make the lots more affordable. The conditimas of approval for the first phase will be carried through on this phase for roads, etc. to meet city standards, and there will be city services to the site. 4 Opposition Mr. Lautaret, 824 Sunnyside Drive, whose property is between this proposal and Ashley Creek, said he was corrcerrred with the drainage. He wanted provisions to be made so that the water does not fill his basement. This year t.hery leas been a lot of water, and the way his house is situated, he doesn't want the run off from this subdivision ending up in his basermr.nt. President Hash noted that two letters in opposition were received and distributed to Board members, which were read into the record. Deborah Moon, 808 Sunnyside Drive, "I have many concerns about the proposed addition of 11 more single family units on this site, some of which include increased traffic, impact on the schools, increased noise level, and impact on Ashley Creek. All the traffic from, this project will feed directly onto Sunnyside Drive i,liir:la is at that point out of city limits and a haven for pedestrian, cycler, joggers, etc. Everyone from families with small r liddreu on bikes, to seniors looking for a safe stretch of road for walking in quiet, to the high school cross-country team, to the many people exercising their dogs. Hikers are afforded access to Lone Pine Park from the entrance at the end of Sunnyside/Valley View. People come from all over the west side of town for a walking experience devoid of the quantity of traffic anal noise in their neighborhoods. If Phase 2 is approved with 11 more sites along with the 22 already approved there could realistically be 60+ extra cars traversing onto Sunnyside; with R-4 zoning these could be duplexes, doubling that figure. It is likely that young families would make up a large portion of the residents and the elementary school for the area is Peterson, which according to District 5 is "a very full school". As a substitute teacher, I soe the impact of over large classrooms and the decrease of quality services to student when that happens. The existing access road must be widened to the proposed me a.,;uremeuals and I'm concerned about the proximity of Ashley Creek and the possible impact on the creek environment. According to the Flathead Conservation District the road needs to be a minimum of 50 feet from the creek, with a wide vegetation barrier to deal with runoff from th:• impervious surface. This along with other conditions that need to be met with the required permit from the Conservation District concern me as to whether the integrity of the fragile creek environment will be preserved. The creek runs from that point along my property and is home to ducks, fish, herons, muskrats, geese, osprey and other native irthabilan!.-i vital to this area. I am opposed to approval of this project as I feel the ir.:,,act.s are not in the best interests of the neighborhood and extended err virokiraent." James Battee, Sunnyside Drive, " I reside on Sunnyside Drive and am writbig ire rc;ard to the Lone Pine View subdivision proposed south and west of where Ashley Creek crosses Sunnyside:. I have a number of concerns about the impact this concentrated development will have on this area. Sunnyside and Valley View Drive loop into Foys Lake Road. This route is used by walkers, joggers, bicyclists, cross country runnr!rs from teh high school and people from all over west of town because of its rural 5 atmosphere and relatively low traffic use. Both phases of the proposed development could increase the number of households by a minimum of 33. That would increase traffic at least 130 trips per day. I use Sunnyside to walk my dogs, jog and bicycle and the exhaust from one can can be semlled several minutes after it went by. Multiply that by 130 or more per day and Sunnyside Drive becomes not such a pleasant rural atmosphere to enjoy - it becomes a major thoroughfare and I strongly object. I realize this development looks good as far as tax revenue, but please consider the rural atmosphere and usage it now has and how it would change. There are currently several other development which are better serviced by roads and accesses. I am certainly not in favor of stopping all development, but this one seems out of place considering it servicability and impact on the neighborhood, Ashley Creek, and schools. Only time will tell, but I cast my vote against further approval for more housing." There being no further public input, the public hearing was closed and it was turned over to Board discussion. Discussion Fraser thought this proposal looked consistent with the previous phases brought before this Board. He sympathized with the concerns regarding traffic and school DeGrosky addressed. the letter received from the County Weed Department. He questioned the consistency between the Cite :grid County Subdivision Regulations. A fairness issue was raised when Lopp noted that the conditions of approval for Dennis Carver's project was specifically stated for streets, etc., but are not for this proposal. Parsons responded that Carver's subdivision was reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee as a city suhdivi:=ion. This one is a county subdivision, under the county jurisdiction, and thus have different standards. Lopp pointed out that eventually this will be part of the city and the residents will he. required to bring it up to city standards. Fraser pointed out that the quality of this application in terms of conformance to city standards is significantly different than the Belmar Addition, and he thinks the wording of the conditions reflect the quality of the proposal. If a development proposes sidewalks, the conditions are going to be different than for a proposal that does not. Motion Kennedy moved to adopt FRDO report #FPP-94-04 as findings of fact and forward a recommendation for approval of the plat for Lonepine View Estates subject to the 15 conditions attached, with the following amendments: Condition #13 F:hall conform to City standards, instead of County, and add condition #16: "All areas disturbed durinL, development of the subdivision shall be revegetated in accordance with a plan, approved by the Flathead County Weed Control Board. Any disturbances within_ the floodplain area of Ashley Creek shall be revegetated immediately." Fraser seconded. On a roll call vote Sanders, Kennedy, Bahr, Hodgeboom, Fraser and Hash voted aye. DeGrosky, Carlson and Lapp voted no. The motion carried on a 9-3 vote. DeGrosky explained is negative vote for the record. He felt it was a well designed project, but he had concern over the inconstinency in the requirement for street liLrhts for Belmar Addition and not for this one. GLACIER The next item was a request by George Schulze and Duane Bitney VILLAGE for preliminary plat approval of Glacier Village Greens Phases VII GREENS - and VIII. Phase VII includes 17 lots for single family detached PHASES VII & residential development along both sides of Ritzman Lane west of VIII / Palmer Drive; Phase VIII includes 11 single family lots for detached PRELIMINARY development and one lot .for duplex development (attached single PLAT family) for a total of 30 units on 29 lots located on both sides of Ritzman Lane on the west side of Nicklaus Drive. Glacier Village Greens is located on the north side of West Evergreen Drive approximately 1/2 mile east of Whitefish Stage Road and is further described as part of Tract 2A in tltr.- ;12" of Section 32, T29N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County. Staff Report Parsons presented report #FP11-95-01. Rased on the evaluation in accordance with the necessary criteria for review of a preliminary plat, staff recommended approval subject to 17 conditions. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to proponents of the subdivision. In Favor Tom Sands, surveyor/technical assitant representing tltn applicants, stated that this is a continuation of a development that has been ongoing for the past 6-7 years. He said that Duane Ritney was not able to attend this meeting, and he was available for questions. He had questions regarding a couple of conditions of approval. On condition #2, the road runs north -south and not east -west and he will supply staff with a copy of the COS. He asked if Condition #5 for the cul-de-sac radius was a city or county standard? He argued condition #9 for cash -in -lieu of parkland because the Glacier Village Greens Subdivision has already dedicated parkland in three different phases, amctt.irdiitg to a total of 30 acres of parkland to be improved in conjunction with the entire project. This condition is unacceptable. There being no further testimony either in favor or in opposition to the proposed subdivision, the public hearin; u:as closed and it was opened up for Board discussion. Discussion The conditions of approval are essenli;-illy the same as for the other phases of this development, except for the parkland dedication. That is an issue, because the Commissioners and staff has concern over what is being developed and what has not yc:t been developed, and when it is supposed to be developed. There has been concern at many levels. Fraser said that since #2 is a moot issue, it can remain. With regards to condition #9, if left as stated., they will take it up with the Commissioners. Lopp complimented the developer on putt ink; the standards in the proposal, so that it does not have to be argued again. Motion Fraser moved to accept staff report #FPP-95-01 as findings of fact, and forward a favorable recommendation to the Commissioners for Glacier Village Greens Phases VII and VIII subject to the 17 conditions as set forth. Carlson seconded. On a roll call vote the motion carried on a unanimous vote of 9-0 in favor. Parsons gave some rough figures based on the previous 6 phases; there are approximately 40 acres of lots, and 28 acres of useable homeowners park available, so there is a substantial area set aside for parkland. The question that arises is when are we going to see some of those parks developed? They are working on the lake, however. Mike Fraser stepped down from the Board for the next agenda item due to a conflict of interest. EVERGREEN Next, Hash introduced a request by Flathead Electric Co-op for RAIL AND preliminary plat approval on approximately 36 acres of I-1 and B-2 INDUSTRIAL zoned property to be known as Evergreen Rail Industrial Center. CENTER f Three (3) commercial lots would front US Highway 2 and 12 PRELIMINARY industrial lots would front on the interior road s,�•stem. This PLAT subdivision would utilize West Reserve Drive, US Highway 2 and Terry Road to access this development. The property is located between Burlington Northern Railroad and US Highway 2, and between West Reserve Drive and Terry Road. The site is further described as Tracts SAB, SBA, SBAA, and Teigen's Addition Rl(-)ck 1, Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, Lots 1 and 2 in the NW4 of Section 33, T29N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County. Staff Report Parsons gave a detailed overview of report ##FPP-95-03. Based on evaluation of the proposal in accordance with the neccessary criteria for review of a subdivision, staff recommended approval subject to 16 conditions. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to proponents of the project. In Favor Warren McConkey, General Manager for Flathead Electric Co-op, spolkr- as the representative for the project. He outlined a bit of the history of the property, which has been in FEC ownership for many years. They have been approached to divide the property for industrial development. They purchased the two residential lots in the area, because in the long run a harmonious development should have residential uses intermingled with commercial and industrial. This development plan is in response to some of the requests for sale or lease of their property. He feels they have put together a responsible and well -planned development for the Evergreen area. They have established from the numerous inquiries that there is a need for a rail industrial use. The property is zoned for that type of use, and is one of the few industrial zoned areas in the Valley with rail frontioe. We feel we are offering a first class development to enhance the community. We will be encouraging all tenants and purchasers to develop facilities similar to the Bonneville Power Administration building or our own facility. We are definitely trying to set standards. This will be a first class industrial park. It will be a very substantial tax base, especially when you consider that the taxes will be very high in relation to the burden placed on the community, because it does not greatly impact the schools sn0h as a high traffic residential type. development would. Rail access is IV considered to be a very efficient and effective mode of transportation. We feel we are offering an access to the railroad for smaller volume users that will not be a major rail industrial center, but one that the small businessperson and industrial uses in the valley can access. Overall, it will be a positive impact to roads in the valley, because there should be an increase in rail shipments instead of truck shipments. They propose to collect traffic within the development and it will not be a strip development. The internal road system will access Reserve Drive to the north and limited access from Highway 2. He was pleased with the staff recommendation, however had three concerns to address. (1) Regarding Condition #3, they intend to delete any provision for a future interior road from Lasalle and will remove it from the plat. (2) Condition #8 pertaining to the Lot 1 encroachment, he explained that they have made arrangements with the owners of the property who are quite elderly. The owners did not want to sell their property and move to an unfamiliar home at their age. it was arranged that as long as they desire to live in the house, they will have tenancy rights. When they no longer live in the house, it will be removed. (3) They are not in total agreement with condition #5, relative to Terry Road. They acknowledge that Terry Road is in poor condition, but think that since it is a county road, that in all fairness, thinre should be some responsibility to the existing uses by Flathead County. We do accept that we have a very major obligation to rebuilding and accomodating our fair share of the impact we will have on Terry Road. We ask that you be realistic, that there are other developments that are or will be occurring in the Terry Road area, or just south on Judith Roarl. We know that there is at 1. ,,st one 3-lot development currently under consideration that will generate a lot of trim-l< traffic that will end up on Terry Road. We think there should be an allocation of responsibility for upgrading Terry Road that would include Flathead County and other developers on the road. There are existing semi truck units that use Terry Road other than our own. We also question the appropriateness of curb and gutter deli n on this road. We especially feel this is true prior to development of several parcels on the south side of Terry Road. The vast majority of the traffic will access north on West Reserve, which will be the natural traffic flow. He referred to Dave Meredith to further address these concerns. Dave Meredith, of Clarke & Meredith Architects, said that. Warren had covered everything very well. He proceeded to suggest some language for the conditions which were questioned. Condition #3 can be deleted as it is taken care of. Condition #5 regarding Terry Road was the serious one and he would like to be more specific. Terry Road runs off of Highway 2 and dead ends at the railroad track. The way the recommendation reads now, it says the entire length of the road, from the highway to the track should be improved to handle semi -trailer truck traffic. Basically, the development of the road from Cooperative Way, which is the road that will dump the semi's onto it, to the tracks will not he used because it is a dead end. They would like to see I -bat. portion taken out of the recommendation. The south is currently zoned R-3. if that zone should change to industrial, then that 9 property owner should. pay for the development of that chunk of road. He would like to see the language changed to say that Terry Road be improved to the standards as defined from the highway to Cooperative Way. Lots 8 and 9 are being held specifically for Flathead Electric Co-op's future improvement. It will be developed as one piece. Right now, the plan is to develop and connect onto Cooperative Way with the development of tivil road, and not use Terry Road for access. Meredith said that if there is access from Lots 8 and 9 to Terry Road, then they will improve the road. Mr. McConkey asked if that would affect the ballfield access? At this time `_hey expect to continue their relationship with the Evergreen Lions to provide those two ballfields. Mr. Meredith went on to address curbs and gutters. Curbs and gutters aren't generally required in an industrial area, because of the type of development for turning radius for trucks, etc. Basically, what happens in industrial areas, is as each of these lots are improved, this will be paved. Any major traffic area on these lots will have to be paved for dust control under the new EPA standards. Since this is being developed for industrial uses, he questioned whether there should be curbs or gutters, at all. He doesn't think there should be. The only residential piece they own is to the south, with two houses on it. Parsons said that the curb and gutter were intended for Terry Road, but on the interior road it would not he necessary. Meredith argued that since it is industrial for the entire 700 fi,, et of Flathead Electric's land, should Flathead Electric Coop p u 1 curbs and gutters across the street for their neighbors to the south. If there is a RSID or a curb, guilf at,-1 sidewalk system that should go tVrouuh this development in the future, then the Flathead Co-op could waive the right to protest and do it at that time. There is alot of undeveloped land here. The entire lot from Judith Road to the railroad tracks is vacant at this time. It is hard to predict what. will happen. He asked the Board to reconsider the language in condition #5. He has no problem with item #8. Those encroachments can be defined in the covenants. There were no further speakers in favor of the proposal. No one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed and it was turned over to Board discussion. Discussion The curbs and g,itters issue was addressed. Parsons su ,-bested that if Lots 8 and 9 were conditioned to be combined and access only off of Cooperative Way, there would be no need to improve that portion of Terry Road. Lopp referred to the letter from Marc Pii.mgvi, regarding AASHTO standards, noting that the curb and gutters are not necessarily the AASHTO standard, but would be preferable for an urban design. A waiver of protest to an RSID was deemed unnecessary and was not included as part. of the condition. Condition #5 was amended to insert "...from Highway 2 to Cooperative_ Way" and to 10 delete the reference to By consensus, Condition #5 was amended to read: 5. Terry Road be reconstructed or brought up to AASHTO WB-60 standards for semi-trailer/full trailer combination traffic loads from Hitchway 2 to Cooperative Wav, for a rate increase of 200 vehicle trips per day, with eetbs;--gttttes-,--mod appropriate drainage, as approved by the Flathead County Road Department, and as certified by a licensed engineer registered in the State of Montana as having been done. Parsons suggested language for an additional condition to read: Combine Lots 8 and 9 into a single lot. Access to the new lot will be from Cooperative Way only, upon development or redevelopment of the new lot. The "no access" easement shall be shown on the final Rlat and indicated in the covenants. The applicants' request to continue using Lots 8 and 9 for ballfields was discussed. Parsons responded that the current use would not be affected. Motion DeGrosky moved to adopt subdivision report #FPP-95-03 as findings of fact and forward it with a favorable recommendation for Evergreen Rail and Industrial Center subject to the conditions as amended with the addition of #17 as stated. Lopp seconded. On a roll call vote Bahr, Lopp, Sanders, Carlson, Hodgeboom, DeGrosky, Kennedy and Hash voted aye. Fraser abstained. The motion carried 8-0-1. CITY OF The next public hearing was on requests by the City of Kalispeel KALISPELL for changes in zone from P-1 to B-2 (Change "A"); from P-1 to I-1 AIRPORT (Change "B"); and from B-2 to P-1 (Change "C"). The P-1 to B-2 ZONE CHANGES / (Change "A") property is 12.5 acres located on Ili,- .pest side of "A" P-1 TO B-2 US Highway 93 south of the National Guard Armory and is known "B" P-1 TO I-1 as Parcel 6 of COS 11395 in the NW4 of Section 20, T28N, R21W. "C" B-2 TO P-1 Access would be from US Highway 93. The P-1 to I-1 (Change "B") is approximately 40 acres, located on the east side of Airport Road from approximately 300 south of 18th Street West to Treatment Plant Road, and is known as parts of Parcel 1 and Parcel 4 of COS 11395, and COS 5041, and Assessor Tracts 3AB and 3AA in the NW4 of Section 20, T28N, R21W. Access woi.ild be from Airport Road and Treatment Plant Road. The B-2 to P-1 properties are located on the northeast and northwest corners of Airport Road and 18th Street West and are known as Assessor Tracts 5, 5-25, 5-25C and 5-31 in Section 17, T28N, R21W, and Parcel C of COS 11395 in Section 18, T28, R21W. Development of the properties would utilize City services. Staff Report Parsons presented report #KZC-95-01. Based on the Kalispell City - County Masten Fla: to be amended to adopt the Kalispell Airport Neighborhood Plan, the requested zone changes are in compliance with the designation in the Master Plan. Based on evaluation of the statutory criteria for zone changes, staff recommended approval of the requests. No letters were received regarding this matter. 11 Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of any one of the requested zone changes, either "A", t Att tt , B" tr , or Ctt . No one spoke in favor of the City requested zone changes. Opposition Jack Beaver, 1820 Airport Road, said that .his family owns Lots 5 and 5-25 on the northeast corner of Airport Road. He has many objections to zone change request "C" (B-2 to P-1). The City wishes to rezone the property from B-2 (Commercial) to P-1 (Public). This is not a rezoning in the cl:+Gsic sense, but an attempt to gain ownership of the property through the zoning process. This constitutes an act of condemnation of the property and should be subject to Montana Code 70 Chapter 30, under Eminent Domain. Under MCA 70-30-111 facts necessary to be found before condemnation, he read item 4 "That an effort to obtain the interests sought to be condemned was made by a submission of a written offer and such offer was rejected." The City has not submitted such an offer. Essentially, what the City wants to do is zone this property P-1 without a change of ownership. If you look under the intent of the P-1 zoning, you will find that it is a public district, and he has a problem with that. He added that this same argument applies to Mrs. Tieimreck's property, as well. No one else spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed, and the met -ling opened to Board discussion. Discussion Hash asked Parsons regarding Mr. Beaver's concerns and the fact that P-1 district is a public zone, Kennedy interrupted that this property is mandated to be used as a runway protectiot-, gone. Parsons said that the issue brought up is not an issue that can be resolved by the Planning Board. Hash asked if this had been brought up to the City ,Attorirey? Parsons said that it has been discussed among staff. Kennedy said that it has been discussed at City Council meetings and Council is going ahead. The P-1 zone makes the property unbuildable, so the City knows it has a responsibility to purchase the property. Fraser asked if the City intended to purchase the entire properties, or just airspace rights? Kennedy explained there was a buy -sell on the Timmreck property, and the problem is that the City cannot issue a building permit on the property. DeGrosky felt that this is jumping the gun, assuming that it is all said and done that the property is rezoned. This gentleman raises an excellent point. The City is attempting to acquire property through zoning. That doesn't sound good. Kennedy argued that she does not believe the city is trying to acquire property. It is zoning it appropriate to the adoption of the Airport Neighborhood Plan. DeGrosky replied that in the meantime the city is nuikiii-o the landowners' property economically useless. I typically have an automatic negative reaction whenever anyone says "taking", 12 because so many people have thrown that word ar•niirid without having a clue as to what they are talking about, but I think in this case, we are seriously talking about a legitimate taking of property value. My feeling is that the City should buy it, and then they can zone it anyway they want after they own it. Hash said that this zoning is being done to facilitate the neighborhood plan, and she would agree that when you render an owner's land useless, it is a_ taking. It seems that this issue is not for this Board to determine, and it is already being acted upon. If there is dissatisfaction, there are avenues for those property owners. Kennedy stated that an additional reason for putting proper zoning on it, in reference to the buy -sell on the Timmreck property, the potential purchasers dirt t,nt know that it was in the runway protection area, because of the current zoning. If it is zoned P-1, then they will know that they carinot bi.61d on the property. DeGrosky said that it all makes good sense, but his concern is what if the City and Mr. Beaver are not able to agree on a sale price on the property, and it doesn't sell, then he is sitting on a piece of property that he can't use. Kennedy said that he can continue to use his land as he is currently using it, and would be grandfathered in. Thal h: (-li ld not change the use now under the existing B-2 zone. because of the runway protection zone. Fraser pointed out that Mr. Beaver could u..se Isis property as allowed under the current B-2 zone, which allows uses other than residential. He just signed a certificate of appointment that says he will uphold the laws of the State of Montana. In this situation, we have the cart before the horse. He thinks it is appropriate to zone it P-1, but it is important that the city acquire the property prior to zonincr it P-1. Mr. Beaver requested and was granted an audience. He asked that if you were to retain the current B-2 zoning on this property, and yet be disallowed the permitted uses on that piece of property, whether it is use, height restrictions, or whatever, that is essentially defacto rezoning, also. DeGrosky said he shared Fraser's concern, tha# hi- has a hard time regardless of the good intentions and the good public benefits of the runway protection zone, which I support fully. I J;tst have a hard time signing on to something which I know is potentially illegal. Kennedy did not agree that this was illegal. Parsons suggested that the staff recommendations be :sfp.:trated out as "A", "B", and "C". The Board does not necessarily have to act on this as a package. 13 Lopp stated that he agreed completely with the issue that Mr. Beaver's property is in essence be taken from him in the process of rezoning. The City has clearly made him aware that they intend to buy the property in order to put it into public domain. If he were in this situation, he would get a good lawyer to negotiate not the value of the property as it is being rezoned, but the value of the property prior to this action. Any Court in the country will recognize that value. Whether the city wants to pay that or not, he has legal recourse to get it. Let the city: settle with these people and then come back before this Board. He has no problem with that course of action, at all. One of the things that comes up in any kind of condemnation, which this probably will get to, is that they can't stay on their property. He commended Flathead Electric Cooperative method of handling the issue with the elderly couple who live on the north end of their property of giving them a lifetime use of it. This is a similar kind of issue. He %01 support st:= :trat.ing "C" out. Fraser felt it was important to recognize that we voted in support of the airport plan. We need to reaffirm to city council our support of the adopted neighborhood plan for the airport. He thinks that regardless of what our recommendation will be, it is going to be settled in 000rt. DeGrosky asked but in good conscience, can you recommend something that don't think is right or legal? Kennedy argued that it is not illegal. It may not be right, but that's different. Hodgeboom said that it seems like a logical sequence for long- range planning to acquire the property first, and then request the rezone. Motion Bahr made the motion to adopt the findings of fact in FRDO staff report #KZC-95-01, with the elimination of Change "C", and forward a favorable recommendation to City Council for the requested Changes "A" and "B". DeGrosky seconded. On a roll call vote Hodgeboom, Fraser, Bahr, Carlson, Sanders, DeGrosky, Kennedy, Lopp and Hash voted in favor. The motion carried 9-0 to recommend approval of zone change requests "A" (P-1 to B-2) and "B" (P-1 to I-1). Discussion resumed relative to change "C" (B-2 to P-1). Parsons outlined the options. The Board must act on the request, 1;ecause it is an active application and the applicant is not willing to withdraw it at this thee. Motion DeGrosky moved to recommend denial of change Motion Kennedy wanted to zone the property appropriately so that future potential buyers of these properties would know that it is in the runway protection zone. Kennedy moved to forward a favorable recommendation to city council to grant the zone change from B-2 to P-1. 14 It was pointed out that there was already a motion on the floor. Kennedy said there was no second. DeGrosky said she didn't alto a time for anyone to second. Sanders seconded DeGrosky's motion. Discussion The Board proceeded to make findings to support the recommendation for denial. Lopp said we should include language that we are in favor of the P-1, but not at this time because of the question of ownership. Bahr agreed that it was totally inappropriate to zone this P-1 when it is not in public ownership. The Board made findings on the following: Would the Proposed_Zoninx Conserve the Value of the Buildings? Although the existing buildings located on the property are permitted to continue as to their existing use, the value of the buildings and the property would be seriously impacted by the adoption of the P-1 zone, therefore we recommend that until it is in public ownership it not be zoned as public property. Kennedy argued that the Timmreck property has no buildings on it, and therefore would not fall under the finding as stated. Carlson stated that he had a problem with the motion, as it is too negative. We have supported the Master Plan, we have supported the neighborhood plan, and zone chap "A" and "B" all the way through. We are in favor of the runway protection zone as part of the package. We have been submitted something which t, t� cannot deal with, but the city can. He would like to send it on to council with a recommendation that they deal with it. Lopp wanted it stressed for city council that the Board would like a resolution of the issue of zoning non public land prior to public ownership. As a Board we support and have supported the airport plan, including the runway protection zone and would encourage resolution of this conflict. Hash asked that the motion be restated. Restate Motion Zone change "C" was recommended for denial based on the following finding! Would the Proposed Zonina Conserve the Value of the Buildin-s? Although the existing buildings located on the property are permitted to continue as to their existing use, the value of the buildings and the property would be seriously impacted by the adoption of the P-1 zone, therefore we recomw-nd that until it is in public ownership it not be zoned as public pr.,pi:rty. DeGrosky stated that based on that finding of fact, his motion stands. On a roll call vote Lopp, Hodgeboom, Sanders, Bahr, DeGrosky and Fraser voted aye. Carlson, Kennedy and Hash voted no. The motion carried on a 6-3 vote to recommend denial of the I requested zone change "C" from B-2 to P-1 based on the findings as discussed. KALISPELL The next public hearing was oi) a request by the City of Kalispell ZONING TEXT to amend the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Text, Chapter 27.25, AMENDMENT / Nonconforming Lots, Uses, and Structures. This amendment will NONCONFORMING consider allowing, under certain circumstances, structural USES alterations and additions to existing nonconforming residential structures. Staff Report Parsons presented staff review of the request to amend the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Text Chapter 27.25 - Nonconforming Lots, Uses and Structures. [FRDO report #KZTA-94-07] Based on the analysis, staff recommended that the text be amended as follow s: CHAPTER_ 27.25 - Non_-conformine Lots. Uses. and Structures: The amended first paragraph of the Intent (Section 27.25.010): It is the intent of this chapter to permit nonconformities which were lawful before the adoption of this code to continue until they are removed. It is further the intent of this chapter that nonconformities shall not, unless otherwise permitted by this chapter, be enlarged upon or expanded, or be used as grounds for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district. Second paragraph to remain unchanged. Add new Section 27.25.045, Changes to Nonconforming Residential Structures: A residential structure conforming with respect to use but non -conforming with respect to height, setback, or lot coverage may be enlarged or altered provided that the enlargement or alteration does not further deviate from these regulations. Further the repair or replacement of bearing walls is permitted on any non- conforming residential structure. Amend index to reflect Section 27.25.045 Public Hearing The public hearing was opened. No one spoke either in favor or in opposition to the requested zoning text amendment. The public hearing was closed and it was turned over to Board discussion. Discussion Hash expressed concern about building a nonconforming structure. Brian Wood explained that the intent of the text amendment i+as to permit existing nonconforming structures to repair, maintain and replace their residential structures. The number of variance requests per month indicates a need for the modification in the ordinance. 16 Motion Carlson moved to adopt report #KZTA-95-01 (correct report number #KZTA94-071 as findings of fact to propose to City Couttril tr; amend the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Chapter 27.25, Section 27.25.010 and 27.25.045. Bahr seconded. On a roll call vote all members voted aye. The motion carried on a 9-0 vote in favor of the zoning text amendment relative to nonconforming lots, uses and structures. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS Parsons reviewed the agenda for the next meeting. The hospital PUB will be before the Bo;iud iri March. The Board discussed the internal checklist. There was an expressed desire to be consistent in applying certain conditions to subdivisions, such as, the riparian protection zone, street lights, sidewalks, weed control, etc. Kennedy interjected that she personally did not believe that it was the Board's place to tell John how to do his job. That in essence is what we are doing by developing a checklist and telling him to always have the same conditions in each report. He has a set of guidelines to follow in his review process of any subdivision, zone change, etc. If we are looking for consistency between the city and county regulations, then approach the governing bodies. Lopp suggested that a study session be scheduled for Board members to discuss their concerns. Carlson agreed that there should be consistency, as the City will expand and annex. Parsons said he will prepare an outline for the March meeting and potential dates for a study session. DeGrosky announced that he will be resigning from the Board as he is moving out of state. He anticipates his last meeting will be in June. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. 1, )771 Therese Fox Hash, President zab Ontko, Recording Secretary APPROVED: !1UVQ 1 '7 Flathead Regional Development Office 723 5th Avenue East - Room 414 Kalispell, Montana 59901 February 23, 1995 Phone: (406) 758-5780 Fax: (406) 758-5781 Bruce Williams, City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Drawer 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Belmar Addition Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Dear Bruce: The Kalispell City -County Planning Board met in regular session on February 14, 1995, and held public hearing on the following: A request by Dennis Carver for preliminary plat approval to subdivide 7 acres of proposed R-4 zoned land into 27 single family/duplex lots. The subdivision will be known as Belmar Addition. The site is described as Assessors Tract 14CA and part of Tract 1K, in the NE4 of Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County. John Parsons, of the FRDO presented report #KPP-95-01, recommending conditional approval. The applicant spoke in favor of the proposal, but protested that the requirements to build streets to City standards would drive up the cost of development. He also protested the recommended 50 foot riparian zone adjacent to Ashley Creek, and testified that the lots in the 100 year floodplain can be made buildable. No one else spoke in favor of the subdivision. No one spoke in opposition. Two letters were received in opposition to the Belmar Addition, stating concerns about the access through South Meadows Subdivision, the density, the increased traffic and potential trespass onto existing residential lots. The Board discussed the public testimony, and stated the necessity for consistency in requiring a protected riparian zone for all waterways, as well as building streets to City standards. The conditions of approval were amended to reflect Board concerns. Following the adoption of the findings of fact in report #FPP-95-01, the motion was made to recommend preliminary plat approval for Belmar Addition subject to the seventeen (17) amended conditions in Attachment A. The motion carried on a vote of 8-1. This recommendation is being forwarded to the Board of Commissioners for final action. Council needs to wait for the minutes of the Planning Board meeting prior to taking final action. However, this does not preclude discussion at Council workshop. Providing Community Planning Assistance To: * Flathead County * City of Columbia Falls * City of Kalispell * City of Whitefish Bruce Williams, City Manager Re: Belmar Addition - Preliminary Plat February 23, 1995 Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Board or FRDO. Respectfully submitted, KALISPELL C Y-COU TY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION T erese Fox Hash President Attachments: FRDO Report #FPP-95-01 Attachment A Application Materials Letters: John & Linda Cusick (2/9/95) Dolores Aadsen (2/13/95) c w/Att A: Dennis Carver Somers Land Company 1995 3rd Ave East Kalispell, MT 59901 Lindlief Enterprises 245 Lakeshore Dr Kalispell, MT 59901 F:\...\TRANS MIT\...\KPP95-1.REC ATTACHMENT A BELMAR ADDITION SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ADOPTED BY KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD FEBRUARY 14, 1995 It is recommended that preliminary plat approval for Belmar Addition Subdivision be granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development of this subdivision comply with the R-4 standards set forth in the City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the subdivision obtain approval from the State Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. 3. All water lines, sanitary sewer, culverts, and storm sewer lines/swales shall be built according to plans and specifications approved by the City of Kalispell Public Works Department. All water, sewer main extensions, and storm sewer lines/swales on private property shall be placed within suitable easements and approved by the City of Kalispell Public Works Department. 4. The construction of the street shall include in a 60 foot right-of-way: 36 foot back of curb to back of curb street improvements, sidewalk on the outside of the loop including both sides of what was Lot 57 South Meadows and the west line of Lot 21; street trees planted in compliance with City of Kalispell standards; and street lights installed in accordance with the City Subdivision Regulations. 5. All utilities shall be installed underground. 6. The owner shall pay a cash -in -lieu of parkland payment equal to 1/9 of the undeveloped market value. 7. Placement of fire hydrants shall be approved by the City of Kalispell Fire Department. 8. All roads within the subdivision shall be paved to City of Kalispell standards. 9. Lot numbers, street addresses, and net acreage for each lot shall be included on the face of the final plat. 10. Documentation from the Chief of the Kalispell Fire Department which indicates that the proposed fire suppression facilities are adequate, shall be submitted with the application for final plat approval. 13 0 11. All streets shall be clearly signed in a manner conforming to City standards. 12. Label the remaining portion of Parcel 1K as "not a part". 13. Indicate the 100 year floodplain on the final plat. 14. That a 50 foot setback from the high water mark of Ashley Creek be be established, protected and maintained with native vegetation in accordance with the Flathead Conservation District regulations for riparian zones. 15. This preliminary plat approval is valid for a period of one year. A one (1) year extension may be granted by Council. F:\...\TRANSMIT\KALISPEL\1995\KPP95-1.REC February 13, 1995 Flathead Regional Development Office 79-3 5th Avenue East - Room 414 r%alispell, MT 59901 Dear I1r. Parsons: %PPLICATIO'''. 5:�qg�-�..� t ri. t• :' 1 F. R. D. 0- This letter is in response to the "Notice of Public Hearing" for the proposed Belmar Addition in South Veadows Subdivision. I am opposed to the development of Belmar Addition, and do have some very grave misgivings about the development. I purchased this lot (Lot #62) on Bluestone Drive because there was a buffer zone with some wildlife ana a nice view of the mountains. With the develoDy ent of Belmar Addition, I feel the quality of life will be destroyed, besides the devaluation of this property. I am concerned about the height of the proposed structures in Belmar Addition, especially in view of the fact that the homes already in existence -on Bluestone Drive are one -level residences. Accessing Airport Poaa from South Yleauows Drive currently can be a uroblern, with the ball fiefs, Gardner Auction, and the South P;eadows traffic; visibility is sometimes nil in both directions when entering Airport load. I definitely feel another access is needed. .nother concern is the existing fence between Bluestone Drive and the proposed development. The fence has served to keep out people, "running" dogs, etc. Thank you. ,sincerely, i}olores K. Aadjen Dolores M. Aadsen 1975 Bluestone Dr Kalispell, MT. 59901-7576 John E. And Linda M. Cusick 1405 4th Avenue, West c� Kalispell, 1W 59901 OV FEB 13 M5 February 9, 1995 FLATHEAD R85raNa, DEVELOPM21NIT OFFICE John J. Parsons Senior Planner Flathead Regional Development Office 723 5th Avenue, East Room 414 Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Sir: We are not going to be able to attend the February 14th meeting of the Kalispell City- County Planning Board and Zoning Commission, but I do have a concern regarding the new proposed Belmar Addition. Our concern is our property, on the north side and some on the west side, would border this addition. We have horses on this property and are concerned with the possibility and the probability of having children and dogs coming into the horse pasture and becoming injured. Also, children getting into Ashley Creek, which is on the west side of our property, and having an accident. We are not one to try and stop progress, although we will miss having the white tail deer frequent the area, and seeing the red fox raise a litter of kits each year. Our hope is that if and when this new addition is approved, the Planning Board and Zoning Commission would include the building of a chain link fence to help deter children from entering our horse pasture and Ashley Creek. John E. Cusick Linda M. Cusick i'`G. SUBDIVISION •. r ADDITIONBELMAR FEBRUARY This is a report on a request by Dennis Carver of Somers Land Company for preliminary plat approval of a 27-lot single family 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 February 14,1995. A recommendation from that body will be forwarded to the Kalispell City Council for a subsequent public hearing and final action. A. APPLICANT/OWNER Dennis Carver Lindlief Enterprises Somers Land Company 245 Lakeshore Dr. 1995-3rd Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Kalispell, MT 59901 B. SIZE AND LOCATION The property is approximately 7 acres located south of Kalispell, west of Airport Road and north of South Meadows Subdivision. This site is described as Assessors Tract 14CA and part of 1K, in the NE 1/4, of Section 19, T28N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County. C. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 27-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 has a single street access through Lot 57 of South Meadows Subdivision. The developer has proposed to develop the road with curb and gutter and 28 foot of paving. The project would have a full range of City services after annexation. D. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING The subject property is technically zoned County R-1; a request for annexation and zone of R-4 has been requested. The property is currently a field. The surrounding zones and land uses are: north, County R-1 pasture, south, City R-4 South Meadows Subdivision, east, County R-1 pasture, west, County R-1 pasture. [i. EVALUATION A. RELATION TO THE MASTER PLAN The Kalispell City -County Master Plan Map designates this area as Urban Residential. The density of the Urban designation is a maximum of 8 dwelling units per acre. The development would conform to the density and use standards of this classification. The density of the proposed development Is 3.9 lots per acre. B. RELATION TO ZONING The subdivision will have to be annexed and granted City of Kalispell zoning. it is expected that the City would zone the property R-4 and, therefore, the subdivision will need to meet the City's R-4 district standards. All lots will meet the City of Kalispell R-4 zoning ordinance requirements. C. RELATION TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The subdivision generally meets the requirements of the City of Kalispell subdivision regulations. However, the street pavement width Is required to be approved by the City Council. The applicant has proposed a pavement width of 28 feet and curb and gutters for 32 foot of improvements with no sidewalks. in Site Review Committee, staff reviewed the City's need for safe passage of vehicles and sidewalks for pedestrians. out of that meeting it was decided that due to the urban nature of local streets they should be constructed to a 36 foot back of curb to back of curb improvement. In this instance sidewalks should be Installed on one side of the street, that side being the outside of the loop and include existing South Meadows Lot 57 on both sides and along the west side of Lot 21. D. COVENANTS No Covenants have been submitted with this request. Land use control would be governed by the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, and any Covenants that might be proposed in the future. E. PUBLIC SERVICES/FACILITIES a. Sewer: The developer is proposing to hook into the City of Kalispell Sewer. Extensions and approval of the hook-up from the sewer district 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. 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 15-25 children would occupy the development at buildout. e. Parks: No parkland dedication has been proposed. An in -lieu fee of 1/9 the marketvalue before improvements would be required. This in -lieu fee would be paid at the time of final plat. 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. i. Roads: The interior road system would be constructed to City standards. As previously discussed the City is recommending that 36 foot of improvement back of curb to back of curb be installed along with sidewalk on the outside of the loop. j. Public Health Services: The project is approximately three 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 floodpiain; areas of seismic activity; unsuitable soils; and steep hillsides. This subdivision would have only one access through South Meadows to Airport Road until development takes place west of South Meadows. At the time Phase 2 of Ashley Park (Carvers subdivision south of South Meadows) is constructed, a second access road to South Meadows Subdivision would be constructed. All these roads would provide year-round access to the subdivision. A portion of the proposed development is in the 100-year" floodpiain. Therefore, the City of Kalispell Floodplain Regulations would apply to that part of the subdivision. A floodpiain development permit will be needed to develop in the fioodplain of Ashley Creek. The area that is in the fioodplain is in the north and east part of the subdivision, in Lots 10 through 16. There does not appear to be a sufficient area to build on Lots 13, 14, and 15 outside the fioodplain on these lots. However, a letter of map amendment or the like could be obtained to remove a sufficient area to build on. The City of Kalispell Board of Adjustment may not approve variances to setbacks on these lots due to the developer creating the lot configuration which included fioodplain (a self-imposed hardship). No significant negative impact is expected. 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. 3 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. 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. 2. Topography: The proposed lot and road layout would have no significant Impact on the topography because the site is basically flat sloping to the northeast and Ashley Creek. 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, 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 will be in conformance with the City/County Master Plan and R-4 zoning. The property is adjacent to a subdivision of similar intensity with City services available. The applicant has taken into account in his design the floodplain and is aware of the development constraints of floodplain activity. V. RECOMMENDATION It is the staffs recommendation that this report be adopted as findings of fact and this preliminary plat be recommended for approval by City Council, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development of this subdivision comply with the R-4 standards set forth In the City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the subdivision obtain approval from the State Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. 3. All water lines, sanitary sewer, culverts, and storm sewer lines/swales shall be built according to plans and specifications approved by the City of Kalispell E Public Works Department. All water, sewer main extensions, and storm sewer fines/swales on private property shall be placed within suitable easements and approved by the City of Kalispell Public Works Department. 4. The construction of the street shall include in a 60 foot right-of-way: 36 foot back of curb to back of curb street improvements, sidewalk on the outside of the loop including both sides of what was Lot 57 South Meadows and the west line of Lot 21, and street trees planted in compliance with City of Kalispell standards. 5. All utilities shall be installed underground. 6. The owner shall pay a cash -in -lieu of parkland payment equal to 1/9 of the undeveloped market value. 7. Placement of fire hydrants shall be approved by the City of Kalispell Fire Department. 8. All roads within the subdivision shall be finished (i.e., paved) to City of Kalispell standards. 9. Lot numbers, street addresses, and net acreage for each lot shall be included on the face of the final plat. 10. Documentation from the Chief of the Kalispell Fire Department which indicates that the proposed fire suppression facilities are adequate, shall be submitted with the application for final plat approval. 11. All streets shall be clearly signed in a manner conforming to City standards. 12. Label the remaining portion of Parcel 1 K as "not a part". 13. Indicate the 100 year fioodplain on the final plat. 14. This preliminary plat approval is valid for a period of one year. A one (1) year extension may be granted by Council. \KPP95-01.R-4 5 Sec. 24A-57. Environmental Regulations. (a) Surface Water. (1) No surface water is located on the property to be subdivided. (A) Apart of several of the easterly lots proposed are in the 100-year flood plain of Ashley Creek. (B) There are currently no artificial water systems on the property. (b) Groundwater. Excavation to 8 feet for the adjacent South Meadows sewer mains indicate that the groundwater depth is greater than 8 feet. (c) Geology - Soils - Slopes. (1) Soils type as indicated on the USDA - SCS Upper Flathead Valley Soil Survey indicate that the soils are designated "Kalispell Silt Loam" and are the same as those found in the mid -south area of the South Meadows Subdivision. (2) There no known or anticipated hazards caused by the geology of the area. There are no rock outcroppings on the land to be subdivided. (d) -Vegetation. (1) The land is currently used for agricultural (livestock) grazing and current vegetation consists of pasture grass. (2) One tree exists on the tract. No effort will be made to save the tree. All natural vegetation will succumb to the development. (e) Wildlife. Due to the proximity of the existing South Meadows Subdivision, and livestock activity, wildlife on the site are limited. Occasional fox and pheasants are seen on adjacent property to the east and north. (f) Historical Features. No historical, archaeological, or cultural features are recognized on the site. Page 1 of 6 $ec 24A-58 Community Impact a) Water Supply. (1) Individual water supplies are not proposed for each lot because the City of Kalispell Public system is adjacent to the property. (2) The City of Kalispell Public water system is proposed for the development. (A) The average daily water demand for domestic use is estimated to be 6,750 GPD, based on 250 GPD per dwelling unit. The maximum daily demand would then be about 13,500 GPO with a peak hourly demand of 40,500 GPD or 28 GPM. Assuming each lot has an average of 4,000 square feet of lawn and garden area, that requires irrigating at a rate of 2.0" per week, an additional 19,234 GPD will be needed for irrigation purposes during the summer time. The water system is capable of providing fire flows of 1000 gpm for a period of at least 2 hours. (B) An existing system is to be used: (i) The City of Kalispell will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of their public water system. (ii) There is an existing 8" looped system adjacent in the South Meadows Subdivision. A Hardy -Cross network analysis indicates that the capacity to serve these 27 lots is available. (iii) Permission to connect is anticipated with annexation. (C) A new system is not proposed. Page 2of6 (b) SEWAGE DISPOSAL,: (1) Individual systems are not proposed for this development. (2) A public sewer, system is proposed for the subdivision. (A) Based on 250 GPD per dwelling unit, it is estimated that average daily sewage flow will be 6,750 GPD, with a peak hourly flow of 27000 GPD. The area will be served by a duplex lift station pumping either 100 GPM from submersible pumps or 300 GPM from self - priming pumps. (B) An existing system is to be used: (i) The City of Kalispell will be responsible for operation and maintenance of the sewage collection system. (ii) The system will connect to a 12" main that extends to the City of Kalispell treatment plant. Capacity of the 12" main place at minimum 0.22% grade and using an "n factor of 0.13" is 768 gallons per minute. Based on 250 gallons per day per unit, the capacity of the line would allow it to serve approximately 1000 homes using a peaking factor of 4. (iii) The preliminary layout of the sewer mains is shown on the preliminary plat. Specifications used for construction will be in accordance with the standards adopted by the City of Kalispell. (C) A new system is not proposed. (c) Solid Waste. (1) Solid Waste will be collected by the City of Kalispell. (2) The collection system is owned and operated by the City of Kalispell; the landfill is owned and operated by Flathead County. (3) Use of the collection system will be granted with annexation. Page 3of5 (d) Roads. (1) New public roads are proposed as shown on the preliminary plat, to be named North Belmar. The road section is proposed to be a 32' width, with 28' paved and 2' shoulders on each side of the road. Pavement and construction will be in accordance with the requirements of the City of Kalispell Standards adopted in June of 1994 which include 12" of pit run gravel, 2" of cushion material, and 2 - 2" lifts of asphaltic cement. The roadway section is proposed to conform with the South Meadows subdivision and does not include curbs and gutters. (2) All costs of road construction will be paid for by the developer. (3) Using 8 trips per day, the development will create an additional 216 trips per day on existing roads. (A) Currently only about 23 households use Bluestone (the east. west road that North Belmar will connect to). Bluestone connects with Begg Park Drive, which carries all of the South Meadows Subdivision traffic generated by 119 homes currently constructed. Traffic difficulties have not been observed or heard of. During the last summer, up to 100 construction workers were in the area at any given period of time. Parking on the roadways in the construction areas will continue to cause some difficulty until homes in the area are completed. (B) The increase in volume is so slight that no increase in maintenance can be anticipated. (4) Year-round access by conventional automobile over legal rights -of -way will be available to all lots within the subdivision. (5) Access will not cross over any private property. South Meadows lot number 57 is owned by the developer and was designated as a location for the extension of Belmar when the plat was filed in 1978. It will be dedicated to the public forever. Page 4of5 (e) Utilities. (1) Utility service will all be placed underground by the following utility companies: Electrical Power Pacific Power & Light Telephone PTI Natural gas Montana Power Co. Cable TV TCI (2) Preliminary plat has not been submitted to affected utilities, but will be prior to the planning board hearing date. (f) Emergency Services. (1) Description of emergency services: (A) The area is currently in a rural fire District, but will withdraw from the District and be served by the Kalispell Fire Department upon annexation. (B) Police protection will be provided by the City of Kalispell Police Department, which currently patrols the South Meadows Subdivision. (2) Because of the proximity to the South Meadows subdivision and because service areas of the City exist on the north, east and south of the proposed development, the needs of the proposed subdivision can be met by present personnel and facilities. (g) Schools. (1) Elrod School will serve the area for elementary grade students. Of course the High school and the junior high are common to all Kalispell City students. (2) In 1993, there were only 7 homes in the South Meadows subdivision with school age children. At the time, we believe there were 9 school age children living in approximately 88 homes. Since that time, some of the housing on the southerly part of South Meadows has encouraged purchase by younger families, thus increasing the ratio of school age children living in the development. Our current estimate is 26 school age children residing in 119 homes. if this current ratio continues in the proposed adjacent area, an additional 6-8 school age populous can be anticipated. Page 5 of 5 (h) Land Use. (1) The City -County Master Plan Year 2010 indicates the are proposed for subdivision to be "urban residential". Annexation is proposed. (2) The proposed development is not adjacent to any public lands, and ` does not affect access to public lands. (3) The Subdivision will have limited effect on adjacent properties. The property to the north and east is in the 100-year flood plain of Ashley Creek, and has historically been used for agricultural purposes (livestock). The land to the west is currently used for livestock grazing, and the land to the south is zoned R4 and is within the boundaries of the City of Kalispell. (4) The developer is no aware of any health or safety hazards on the property. (i) Parks and Recreational facilities. (1) No parks or parks dedication are proposed for this subdivision. A payment to the City of "cash -in -lieu" of park land dedication is proposed. Page 6of5 600 CO Ask 04 .00. r 10 4 ILI 4&W AII -Pow Long IWO 4 oc, REF.: :Y,A 95-1 ; va P-1 CO BEGGSAG 10- R. ICOUNTY PA I:sc- REF.: KZC 95 4,4 P-1 ASHLEY COUNTY PARK PH. I R-4 SAG-1 0 ------- T KA 95-1 "p V J 0. N w N N Y O V A V a N M �IJ M O V■ J■ N w Y N H mN H N o000000 oe 0000 o0000000000000 H H H Y H H H H Y H ............. H H Y N ■ N H H N N H 0. 0. 0. M H■ 0. 0. N N N N■ N p 0. Y r H N a N Z. m w t*3 fLnA Oz C I n- ni w �s i ni o w ri i o Yyp M buS eb�jYO0 p*Nn W1p �J0tt1RK aY.ryObMuSOx7 VVNN,,qq rtaw ,+7 P ¢� ��o�-�xpwryW7Ps 0arCy3�, 00, 0 J bp• p a p� W P P b a W ti P OOp M�H Up0 p p A u1S O. y,ryOti ��KF �&6tin p Y7 9.OW 0 NW•Wp yyP aV ,•'{$C1, 1fN�� [ a�a �r��n-•'t1 ,-:GwH4�3 AEI i i�v•wo■ arH�S , „zr,W.Wrz •p •e.pH L�SP�sH+;sr,v��ijronio,e� as. « 0. D■ u n i b j M b A. W RMa �O nM,•uW»H..a G�rl1 (T Y�WW ry �tl W O��a.bp KpaC> D y40b �NsnH pg 7'Op`ab ap qstai roflw :33°$� A..ias hi�rn yw ron <_^ 45W tro� RAN »M 31-4 Z S m z -n m m ro �0, m rn r �a mn Z 2 > 0 co n m ©°n b- z I .�.�� r'Il�• 1; ��`',13:,116t, i' � !�� it ► .,— �; � a, ., . y k ,+C.4o i . A 7 3 ` � Off\ - '{-__a-•-�+1= :'.. 1.11 ',. ,t,..'•"l . • _ Js i t /�`�� It P . No (,� 1'1 b 8 � i i � � �. •/ ' l.�' N Z • I. 3% ( P s�..:��-•'� V.TJj .jjj�� '� •n' '= t. � �3, RIB• � .`, _ f' :_ 'a. �'� fJ:u q �, .'�:_�u'iv, -ja.: ..,,£..' i (.�!_. ra 1::.tErr tip+ . 1 ��' alb/paf aP . � t�: . t. .) �""�. •�" J'l �.. .:17 .'!; "' S�,r jProiecl TitleCD `yam 7� m zm 0 1 N" CARVER ENGINEERING, INC. PRELIMINARY PLAN' �= n 0 m Consulting Engineers 1995 Third Avenue East heel l(le Q Kalispell, Montana 59901 m BELMAR ADDITION ; (406) 267-6202 N