9. Ordinance 1258 - Appleway/Two Mile Drive Zoning - 2nd ReadingJanuary 21, 1997
AGENDA ITEM 9 - ORDINANCE 1258-APPLEWAY-INITIAL ZONING-2ND READING
BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATION: The second reading will complete the
process for this rezoning.
ORDINANCE NO —1258
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 27.02.010, OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, CITY
OF KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE, (ORDINANCE NO. 1175), BY ZONING
CERTAIN PROPERTIES KNOWN AS A PORTION OF TWO MILE DRIVE AND
APPLEWAY DRIVE, (PRESENTLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL), TO ZONE SAID PROPERTY CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPERTIES
LOCATED NORTH AND SOUTH FROM THE CENTERLINE OF SAID PORTION OF TWO
MILE DRIVE AND SAID APPLEWAY DRIVE, AND TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the Flathead County Board of Commissioners, the
owner of property more particularly described as the portion of
Appleway Drive located west of Meridian Road and south of Highway
2 West and the Two Mile Drive section located west of Meridian Road
for approximately one mile, attached hereto and thereby made a part
hereof, petitioned the City of Kalispell that the zoning
classification attached to the above described tract of land be
zoned consistent with the zoning of the properties which are north
and south of the centerline of the roadways which contain a mix of
residential, business and commercial, and
WHEREAS, the petition of the Board of the Flathead County
Commissioners was the subject of a report compiled by the Flathead
Regional Development Office, #KA-96-07 dated December 2, 1996, in
which the Flathead Regional Development Office evaluated the
petition and recommended that the property as described above be
zoned consistent with the zoning north and south of the roadways,
and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission issued a report recommending said property be zoned
consistent with the zoning north and south of the roadways, and
WHEREAS, after considering all the evidence submitted on the
proposal to zone said property consistent with the zoning north and
south of the roadways, the City Council makes the following based
upon the criterion set forth in Section 76-3-608, M.C.A., and
State, Eta v Board of Co un y Commis _ ones.,, Etc 590 P2d 602
D_oe_s__theR_eguest-ed-Zone_Comply-with-the-Mas-ta r-PI ant
The property is designated by the Kalispell City -County Master Plan
as a roadway and will continue to be used a such. Zoning will be
consistent with the master plan.
Is the_Re_quest_ed_Z_ori D s; gned��n ongestion in the Stse_ets2
No development is likely to occur on this property, thus lessening
congestion in the streets.
No uses on this property other that for public access is
anticipated.
The general health and welfare of the community will be promoted by
providing areas for public access.
dill the Reslue tes3 Zon_�Proyi_de for Adecruate Light and Air?
No development is likely to occur on this property and it will
remain in use as part of the public roadway system, thus providing
adequate light and air.
No private development or other development will likely occur on
this land which will prevent the overcrowding of land.
No development can be anticipated to occur on this property which
would result in the undue concentration of people.
�- ;-.� - -. .•- - �- i.-.11- - • ..00,
This property will further the goals of providing adequate public
roadways for the community.
shall remain in full force and effect.
SZCT'LON =— This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30)
days from and after the date of its final passage and approval
by the Mayor.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL
THIS DAY OF ,1997.
ATTEST:
Debbie Gifford, CMC
Clerk of Council
GI
Douglas D. Rauthe, Mayor
KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
DECEMBER 10, 1996
CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City -County Planning
AND ROLL CAL Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by
President Therese Hash. Board members present were Milt Carlson,
Robert Sanders, Jean Johnson, Joe Brenneman, Walter Bahr, Pam
Kennedy, Michael Conner, and Therese Hash. Fred Hodgeboom had an
excused absence. The Flathead Regional Development Office was
represented by Narda Wilson, Senior Planner, and Steve Kountz, Senior
Planner. There were approximately 15 people in the audience.
APPROVAL OF The minutes of the meeting of November 14, 1996 were approved as
MINUTES written on a motion by Bahr, second by Johnson. All members present
voted aye.
NELSON The next item for Board review was a proposed conservation easement
CONSERVATION from Gregory and Douglas Nelson to the Montana Land Reliance to be
EASEMENT placed on approximately 25 acres of property located between the Old
Steel Bridge Road and the Flathead River.
Staff Report Wilson presented an overview of report #FCE-96-6. The conveyance of
the conservation easement would further the goals and policies of the
Flathead County Master Plan, and staff recommended the Board
authorize the Planning Director to act on their behalf stating their full
support.
Board Discussion The Board was very supportive of the conservation easement.
Motion Carlson made the motion that the Planning Board authorize the Planning
Director to act on their behalf by stating to the Montana Land Reliance
that the conservation easement will further the goals of long-range
planning and the Board is in full support of the conveyance. Kennedy
seconded. By roll call vote, all members present voted unanimously in
favor.
President Hash announced a change in the published agenda to hold the
public hearings on the West Valley Neighborhood Plan, next. The two
matters overlap and were introduced together. Separate public hearing
and Board action was taken on each issue.
1
WEST VALLEY Hash introduced a request to amend the Kalispell City -County Master
NEIGHBORHOOD Plan by adopting the West Valley Neighborhood Plan as an addendum to
PLAN each of these master plans. The neighborhood plan focuses on the West
Valley area in order to provide more detailed analysis and direction in
this area. The plan was prepared through a public participation process
of monthly neighborhood meetings sponsored by the West Valley
Steering Committee. The neighborhood plan area generally covers West
Valley School District 41. A map of the neighborhood plan area is
attached as Exhibit A, and a legal description is attached as Exhibit B.
Staff Report Kountz introduced David Greer, Montana Planning Consultants, who
was hired by the County Commissioners to work with the West Valley
neighborhood in preparing a neighborhood plan.
Consultant's David Greer, Montana Planning Consultants, reviewed the background
Presentation and the planning process that began in September of 1995 for the West
Valley Neighborhood. The total land area included is 44,046 acres,
which approximately 9 square miles of that area is within the Kalispell
planning jurisdiction. The large majority of the neighborhood is within
the County's jurisdiction. The Flathead County Planning Board will hold
a public hearing on the plan December I Vh.
The public participation and involvement throughout the process was
high, and included the agricultural and timber interests. Greer gave an tr
overview of the results of the neighborhood meetings which entails
considerable compromise and reflects the visionary desires of the
neighborhood. He explained the performance based zoning regulations
that would rescind the West Valley Zoning District and be replaced with
the newly forged regulations. The West Side Zoning District would not
be replaced, but are proposing an overlay to recognize some
opportunities for clustering.
So, there are two separate issues to be acted on: (1) this overlay to
allow clustering in the West Side Zoning District; and (2) as part of the
whole planning area, we are recommending that a seven member
advisory committee be established. This would be a group appointed by
the County Commissioners, rather than a Community Council which is
elected by resident property owners in the area. With an advisory
committee, all interests can be represented such as the corporate timber
industry and the agriculture industry, who own large amounts of land
there, but may not five there.
The DNRC land was left out of the neighborhood boundary. We
recognize that there is a by-pass scheduled to be built in the area, and an
interest in recreational fields in the area.
2
Staff Report Kountz gave a detailed presentation of staffs review of the proposed
West Valley Neighborhood Plan, as submitted in his memo to the
Planning Boards, dated December 3, 1996. Amendment to the Master
Plan must be by resolution, and a draft resolution was attached for
consideration.
The second item for Board review is a change in the zoning regulations.
The West Side Zoning District already exists and no changes are
proposed. An overlay set of regulations would be established on top of
that to (1) extend the jurisdiction of the land use committee, an advisory
committee to look at land use issues, that would make a recommendation
to the Planning Board. The second item being changed is the clustering
.;>. regulations. The West Valley overlay to the West Side Zoning District,
. was evaluated in accordance with the necessary statutory criteria as set
forth in report #FZC-96-9, and based on the findings, staff recommended
six (6) changes as summarized in the report.
A neighborhood steering committee meeting was held December 9", to
review the proposed changes, and there were no objections.
Response to Staff David Greer responded to the staff report. With regards to the
Recommendations recommendations on the Plan, they had no problem with the policy on
weed control. However, there is a policy statement implementing the
state fire standards, and feels that would be redundant.
His comments on the zoning, the West Valley Zoning District is going to
be replaced by performance standards, which will include this cluster
provision. When we were working through the process, this was a new
concept that is different than the existing County regulations. We
worked very closely with the agricultural industry, and they agreed that
this provided the flexibility they need so they don't have to break their
farm up in chunks. It will allow them to create a one acre lot and
preserve 76% in open space. This was highly encouraged in the process.
Many of the farmers own land in both the West Side Zoning District and
the new proposed West Valley Zoning District, and they wanted
consistency between the two districts.
He referred the Board to the maps provided in the plan, and noted that
all the major utility services are located within the Kalispell City -County
planning jurisdiction. What happens is "trickle down" zoning, with 80
acre pieces, down to 40, down to 20, until what you have is 10 and 5
acre pieces without any open space. What I see is if someone proposes a
high density development, they will annex into the city to get the
services. If they choose not to do that, they would have to do a cluster,
3
which goes through subdivision review. At a worse case scenario, I
would envision this area in 20 years to have at least 50% permanent open'`
space, with this cluster provision. In the absence of that, you are going
to have zone change requests for 20 acres, 10 acres, to 5 acres, and you
won't have any open space. I think this is a visionary proposal, I think it
is going to work, and I think it is something that gives the farmers
incentives not to sell their land. I strongly disagree with the tone of the
staff report. I think it is short sighted.
As far as the recommendations proposed for the zoning, most of this is
4k just clarification. We agree that these changes are not significant. The
only change we would prefer is to eliminate the words "should" and
"shall", altogether, as recommended in 10 of the staff report.
{ What is important about this whole process is that there were a lot of
compromises made. There were some that really wanted stricter
regulations, and those who didn't want any regulations. I think we are at
a point where the community really accepts this plan and I encourage you
to adopt it as recommended.
Public Hearing Hash opened the public hearing to those in favor of amending the
Kalispell City -County Master Plan by adopting the West Valley
Neighborhood Plan.
s
In Favor Bill Breen, 335 Mountain Meadow Road, said that he has been involved
in this process since it started back in September 1995. It is coming
down the home stretch. I want to support the plan we came up with.
We had a very diverse group of people, many large landowners, timber
and agricultural interests, and people, like myself, who five there. We
made a lot of concessions to each other and I think we came up with a
very suitable plan. I want to focus on the clustering provision, because
there are a lot of elements in here. Clustering is one of the key elements.
If you recommend that it be removed, you are going to destroy the major
elements in the plan. It gives the farmers flexibility and provides the
open space. It is particularly important around the city that we protect
this open space, because as the city grows, it becomes real hard to
protect it. I want to emphasize that the clustering concept has been
given a great deal of thought, and it is important that it be retained as
part of the plan. I urge this Board to adopt the Plan.
Bruce Tutdvedt, 1335 West Valley Drive, stated the agricultural
community strongly supports this unanimously. The clustering gives us a
way to get away from the 20's and 40's. It will let us have the houses in
the corner and still be able to farm and keep the rural beauty. We will
have an agricultural industry. Otherwise, we won't. It has been a good
4
committee, we have worked well together, and I think everyone has
voiced their concerns in a very civil manner.
No one else spoke in favor of the proposal.
Opposition The public hearing was opened to opposition. No one spoke in
opposition to the proposed plan. The public hearing was closed and the
meeting opened to Board deliberations.
Board Discussion Kountz addressed the Board and stated that he had no objections to the
changes proposed by David Greer.
The Board focused discussion on the Master Plan amendment to adopt
the West Valley Neighborhood Plan as an addendum.
Carlson commended Judy Hepper for her tremendous involvement with
bringing this plan to fruition. He went on to point out some minor errors
in the document. On page 3, the date on the quote by Bonny Ogle was
9/1/95; on page 18, 3`d line from the bottom, change ` VhrRiver" to
"Stillwater River". I think the plan, as written, is a commendable job.
~ You can tell there is a lot of compromise in attempting to have
f ,. = '` agriculture recognized as a major entity that requires special handling for
i; the future of the county, and I commend the group for what they came
up with.
Kennedy offered her support for the neighborhood plan. All the
neighbors in the area have invested a tremendous amount of time in their
neighborhood to come up with a truly comprehensive plan.
Motion Kennedy made the motion that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board
direct the President to sign resolution #KNP-96-2 and send a favorable
recommendation to the Kalispell City Council and Flathead, County
Board of Commissioner that the West Valley Neighborhood Plan be
adopted as an addendum to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. Bahr
seconded.
Kountz noted that any amendments should be attached to the resolution.
Amended Motion Kennedy amended her motion to include amendments as follows: to
correct the typographical errors on page 3 and page 18, and on page 24,
add the residential polity "Encourage control of noxious weeds". Bahr
seconded the amended motion. On a roll call vote Bahr, Kennedy,
Sanders, Brenneman, Carlson, Johnson, Conner and Hash voted aye.
The vote was 8-0 in favor of adopting the West Valley Neighborhood
Plan as an addendum to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan.
5
WEST SIDE Hash introduced the related public hearing on a request to amend'`
ZONING DISTRICT portions of the West Side Zoning District located within the proposed
"OVERLAY" West Valley Neighborhood Plan area. Within the affected portions of the
PROVISIONS district, the existing AG-80, AG-40 and SAG-10 zoning classifications
would remain in place, and the amendments would consist of "overlay"
provisions that would also apply- The amendments would extend the
jurisdiction of the West Valley Land Use Review Committee to the
affected portions of the West Side Zoning District. The amendments
would also extend the residential clustering provisions of the proposed
WV West Valley zoning classification to the affected areas. The location
of the affected areas is described in the attached Exhibit E, and it
generally consists of the portions of the West Side Zoning District within
West Valley School District No. 1.
Staff Report Kountz did not have anything to add to his previous presentation of
report #FZC-96-9. ,
Greer had nothing further to add to his previous comments. They concur
with Kountz's recommendation, but would request that the words
"should" and "shall" be eliminated from his recommendation #3.
Questions Kennedy asked why section 36 (DNRC - State owned land) was not
zoned P-1?
Kountz replied that the neighborhood proposed not to address the State
land issue. They are only Iooking at the West Side Zoning District
concerning the Land Use Advisory Committee and the clustering
provisions.
Greer addressed the issue. He said that DNRC warns to reexamine their
land and see what classification will work best for them, through their
own planning process.
Public Hearing Hash opened the public hearing on the amendments to the zoning
regulations to provide for an "overlay" to the West. Side Zoning District.
In Favor Bill Breen, 335 Mountain Meadow Road, offered the same support as his
previous testimony. He added that there is an element of predictability
that is desireable in the plan. I think this is good for landowners, for
developers, the real estate industry, and this would be another advantage
we would have in specifying the clustering provisions and performance
standards that we have come up with.
6
No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the proposed
overlay provisions to the West Side Zoning District. The public hearing
was closed and the meeting opened to Board discussion.
Board Discussion The Board agreed with the recommendation to delete the word "sheuW',
and to replace pages 7-8 and Exhibits 1 and 2 as indicated in the memo
to the Board from Steve Kountz, dated December 3rd.
Motion Kennedy moved to adopt report #FZC-96-9 as findings of fact, with the
changes as noted, and forward a favorable recommendation to the
Kalispell City Council and Flathead County Board of Commissioners, for
adoption of the proposed zoning regulations in establishing the West
Valley overlay to the West Side Zoning District. Conner seconded. On
a roll call vote Johnson, Bahr, Conner, Kennedy, Brenneman, Sanders,
Carlson, and Hash voted aye. The motion carried unanimously in favor.
SAMARITAN A request was received to continue until the February 11, 1997 planning
HOUSE board meeting the public hearing on a request by Samaritan House, Inc.
CONDITIONAL for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a homeless
USE PERMIT shelter in the RA-1, Low Density Residential Apartment district.
SPRING ZONE The next public hearing was introduced on a request by Jackola
CHANGE FROM Engineering on behalf of Michael Spring for annexation into the City of
COUNTY R-4 TO Kalispell and initial zoning from County R-4, Two -Family Residential, to
CITY R-3 UPON City R-3, Residential. The property proposed for annexation is a 60 foot
ANNEXATION wide roadway easement directly west of Ashley Creek connecting to
property south of Sunnyside Drive approximately 500 feet. The area to
be annexed will be known as Lonepine View Estates and contains
approximately 9.4 acres.
Staff Report Wilson
7
i' I� r a LL._ 7'-� P.
Board Discussion The Board commented that this area is not contiguous to the City in any
direction, nor is there is any other City R-3 in the vicinity.
Wilson explained that the developer's intention was to create a single
family subdivision. The City R-4 is a Two Family Residential district. It
is consistent with the urban residential density and is designated in the
master plan. The developer obtained a master Arlan amendment to
accommodate this development.
Kennedy questioned that the subdivision will be accessed from it county
road and then it will be a city street in the subdivision.
Bahr felt it was commendable that the developer proposed a single family
development rather than have duplex lots in the area.
Motion Bahr moved to adopt report #KA-964 as findings of fact and forward a
favorable recommendation to the City Council for an initial zoning ofR-3
upon annexation into the City of Kalispell. Johnson seconded. On a roll
call vote, Conner, K.etmedy, Sanders, Carlson, Bahr, Johnson,
Brenneman, and Hash vote aye. The motion carried 8-4.
APPLEWAY DRIVE The next agenda item was a request by the Flathead County Board of
/ TWO MILE DRIVE Commissioners for armexation of certain properties known as Appleway �
CITY ZONING Drive and a portion of Two Mile Dave into the City of Kalispell and
UPON initial zoning. Various zoning districts are proposed consistent with the
AN-NEEXATION zoning of persotial properties located Borth and south of the centerline of
these roadways, The properties proposed for annexation are located in
Sections 12 and 13, Township 28 North., Range 21 West, RAM,,
Flathead County.
Staff Report Wilson presented an overview of report #KA-96-7, which reviewed the
request in accordance with the necessary criteria. This is primarily a
housekeeping matter to bring the roadways with the City water and
sewer mains into the City with initial zoning consistent with the zoning
north and south of the roadways. Staff recommended approval.
Public HearhW The public heating was opened. No one spoke either in favor or in
opposition to the proposed initial zoning of the roadways. The public
hearing was closed.
Board Discussion Carlson noted that the property owners located north of Appleway
Drive, are in the County, are going to cut off and surrounded by City.
He wanted to know if those property owners had been notified?
Nilson replied that they will be completely surrounded by City and could
8
JAI't- _-� RI A rEAE, :y.:E 4C58 -57�:
be annexed with no right to protest. They had not been notified of the
annexation of the roadway.
It was noted for the record, that the vicinity reap attached to report #KA-
96-7, be corrected to reflect a B-2 zoning south of Highway 2 West,
rather than RA-1 .
Motion Kennedy made the motion to adapt staff report #KA-96-7 as findings of
fact and recommend to City Council that the initial zoning for the
roadways to be annexed into the City be zoned consistent with the
zoning north and south of the centerline. Bahr seconded. On a roll call
vote Brenneman, Sanders, Johnson, Bahr, Kennedy, Canner, and Hash
voted aye. Carlson voted no. The motion carried 7.1 in favor.
KOENIG ZONE The next public hearing was introduced on a request by Lana Koenig on
CHANGE FROM behalf of Agnes 0"Hare for a zone change from R.-2, Single Family
COUNTY R-2 TO Residential, to B-2, General Business. The property being proposed for
COUNTY B-2 rezoning contains approximately 2.6 acres and is located south of
Highway 2 East approxsmstely 600 feet east of the Stillwater River. This
property is in the Evergrem and Vicinity Zoning District,
Staff Report Wilson gave a presentation of report #FZC-96-08, which reviewed the
request in accordance with the statutory criteria. Based on the findings,
stuff recommended the zone change request from R-2 to B-2 be granted.
Public Dearing The public bearing was opened to those in favor of the zone change.
In Favor Lana Koenig, representing the applicant, spoke in favor.
There was no one else who spoke either in favor or in opposition. The
Public hearing was closed.
Board Discussion The Board asked for clarification on the parcel of land that is located in
the 100 year floodplain, and the piece being a split zone.
Wilson explained that the applicant will do a boundary line adjustment to
add 2.6 acres to Tract 3, to the north., which is zoned B-2. The
remainder of the parcel will remain as the original parcel 1, zoned R-2.
Being in the floodplain does not effect the zone classification. The parcel
will not be a split zone.
Motion Bahr moved that report #FZC-96-08 be adopted as findings of fact, and
forward a favorable recommendation to the County Commissioners to
grant the zone dwge as requested from R-2 to B-2. On a rail can all
members present voted aye. The motion carried unanimously.
9
F
i
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
t,.
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 758-5980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
December 19, 1996
Clarence Krepps, City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Drawer 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: Flathead County Annexation of Appleway Drive and Two Mile Drive
Dear Clarence:
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission held a public hearing at their
regular meeting of December 10, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Kalispell City Council Chambers.
During that meeting they considered a request by Flathead County Board of County
Commissioners for annexation of certain properties known as Appleway Drive and a portion of
Two Mile Drive into the city of Kalispell and initial zoning. Various zoning districts are proposed
consistent with the zoning of personal properties located north and south fo the centerline of these
roadways. The properties proposed for annexation are located in Sections 12 and 13, Township 28
North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana.
Staff report #KA-96-7 was presented by Narda Wilson of the Flathead Regional Development
Office, who evaluated the proposal based upon the statutory criteria and recommended the
proposed initial zoning which is consistent with the zoning north and south of the roadways. She
explained that this is primarily a housekeeping matter. Maintenance of the water and sewer mains
within the roadway, as well as the roadway itself will be done by the City of Kalispell.
Board member Carlson noted that the annexation of the roadway would completely surround
several lots north of Appleway Drive, and asked if those property owners had been notified. They
had not been notified.
On a roll call vote the motion to adopt the findings of fact and forward a favorable recommendation
to City Council carried on an 8-1 vote.
Please schedule this request for annexation and initial zoning for the December 30, 1996 City
Council work session and subsequent January 6, 1997 regular meeting.
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
Clarence Krepps
Re: Flathead County Annexation of Appleway Drive and Two Mile Drive
December 19, 1996
Page 2 of 2
Please contact this Commission or Narda Wilson at the Flathead Regional Development Office if
you have any questions regarding this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
7co.,
LCITY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING CONBUSSION
P- 4L,/vt
Therese Fox Hash
President
TFH/NW/eo
Attachments: FRDO Report #KA-96-07 and back-up materials
Draft Minutes from the 12/10/96 Planning Board meeting
c: Flathead County Commissioners
Debbie Gifford, City Clerk w/Att
H: \...\KAL\ 1996\KA96-7
FLATHEAD COUNTY ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST
ZONING AND ANNEXATION STAFF REPORT #KA-96-7
FLATHEAD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
DECEMBER 2, 1996
The Flathead County Board of Commissioners have petitioned for annexation into the city limits
of Kalispell and initial zoning. This report evaluates the appropriate assignment of a City zoning
classification in accordance with Section 27.03.010(4) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. A
public hearing has been scheduled before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission for December 10, 1996 beginning at 7:00 PM. The Planning Board and Zoning
Commission will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action.
PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATION
The applicants have proposed zoning classifications consistent with the zoning north and south
of the centerlines of the roadways of Appleway Drive and Two Mile Drive. Those zoning
classifications include residential, commercial and industrial.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The City of Kalispell has water and sewer lines which run along both of the roadways proposed
for annexation and most of the properties adjoining the roadways areas proposed for annexation
are in the city limits of Kalispell. Additionally the City of Kalispell has water and sewer lines
within the roadway areas proposed for annexation.
A. Petitioner and Owners: Board of County Commissioners
Flathead County Courthouse
800 South Main Street
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406)758-5503
B. Location and Legal Description of Property:
The properties proposed for annexation are located the west side of Kalispell. The
Appleway roadway is located west of Meridian Road and south of Highway 2 West. The
Two Mile Drive section of roadway is located west of Meridian Road for approximately
one mile. The property is shown in Exhibit A.
C. Existing zoning:
The roadways are zoned consistent with the properties lying north and south of the
centerline of the roadways and area a mix of residential, business and commercial.
D. Proposed Zoning:
The proposed zoning will be consistent with the zoning of the properties which are north
and south of the centerline of the roadways which contain a mix of residential, business
and commercial.
E. Size: The area proposed for annexation and zoning contains approximately 10 acres.
F. Existing Land Use: This property is used as a public roadway and will continue to be
used as such.
EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA
The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-205, M.C.A. Findings
of fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the itemized criteria described by
76-2-203, M.C.A.
1. Does the requested zone comply with the Master Plan?
The property is designated by the Kalispell City -County Master Plan as a roadway and
will continue to be used as such. Zoning will be consistent with the master plan.
2. Is the requested zone designed to lessen congestion in the streets?
No development is likely to occur on this property, thus lessening congestion in the
streets.
3. Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers?
No uses on this property other than for public access is anticipated.
4. Will the requested zone promote the health and general welfare?
The general health and welfare of the community will be promoted by providing areas
for public access.
5. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air?
No development is likely to occur on this property and it will remain in use as part of
the public roadway system, thus providing adequate light and air.
],
6. Will the requested zone prevent the overcrowding of land?
No private development or other development will likely occur on this land which will
prevent the overcrowding of land.
7. Will the requested zone avoid undue concentration of people?
No development can be anticipated to occur on this property which would result in the
undue concentration of people.
8. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water,
sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements?
This property will further the goals of providing adequate public roadways for the
community.
9. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular suitability of the property
for particular uses?
Currently this property is used as part of the County roadway system and will continue
to be used as such. The zoning will facilitate the continuance of the use of the property
for public access.
10. Does the requested zone give reasonable consideration to the character of the district?
This zoning is consistent with the character and zoning in the area.
11. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings?
Value of the buildings in the area will be conserved by keeping this property in public
use.
12. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout the
municipality?
Continuing this property to be used as part of the public roadway system encourages the
continuation of the current use of the property which is the most appropriate use of the
land for the community and municipality.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
This is primarily a housekeeping matter to bring this property into the city of Kalispell.
Maintenance of the water and sewer mains within the roadway as well as the maintenance of the
W
roadway itself will be done by the City of Kalispell. No public services or utilities are
anticipated to be required upon annexation to the city of Kalispell. 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 November 5, 1995 (Resolution #4241).
RECOMNI MNDATION
It is recommended that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt
Staff Report #KA-96-7 as findings of fact and forward a recommendation to City Council for
initial zoning which is consistent with the zoning north and south of the roadways.
HA ... \KA\KA96-07. RPT
4
APPLE AY / TWO MILE DRIVE
ANNEXATION
KA 96-7
EXHIBIT A
66
=L 'M ■ �a 1iK z� <Btc r 58 y SJ c
LIU
I t� 8 c
I S^ wAi I A f GF
i — 1 R'A4' 3Ru. j.
72�
Sa fQ T �? G�.xS �..vt { UNBURST',Ar£itArimay.
I a: .� -
"`l -•'`` V (IrtRerr RD4 5CC svees I _ _-
i
! 5N ( 5Gj 5Fj 5E j r ,
21
I=p,RCRCUNDS j
6GA ' I ..-wD �L,�r two =Ur+camoK
-r-- I 6C.w : :G ■ STERLY �C E AIADF 1 A0D KIL!S?fLL
w a GAICWAY NE 4.. G ADD.:2
8 c rExA '` GATEWA
� �«Es ICA
A 6E6—
®:W ■ AMD "T OF of � WEST
THE o Qt FAIRGRC
1 . OF AwD RUT OF "Y7E � Qa r ,
" x U+D PLAT OF
AD 34
W'LY RCRT!GN a�
a �• g OF GATEWAY 10 �St
WEST ADD ADDITIC
oEE - 134 ,
m LOTR 2CK �v __w=3wuN�
2CN
PJL_ARK \ ^ 2CCA Y I v ��v\J ll` BLK i
® 7AD R area to be annexed _ _ „� IFA HWY 2
— 4-
9 G / / , KALISPELL W Sc
6K Gf6SON ADD.' #41 5 AD , / / . 1 2D STANLEY LUMBER CO. LUM'`
■ /
T-1 4 AO.42 ADO. N0. 27 ;
® / 9� 1a
ew — 0 2 / Q p Li PO�.
.�- �..._,pG � 1 1 i sti ` Awp R OF
sAw i 6Ay ® a�0v&3
TAERIDI
6L -KTgt 4D CA.PLA£. s J.
2. v..+`kT-2 LO
6J 6H i 6HA— AD i / AG �+ t E 1 E 1 C NE;SSMAN t;�,V
.4
` 6 ■ res^r� ADD.j4, IAA + ADD. N0, as
f 1 _IRC Q K 2
A,EA 16C
v� I 15 14 `