The URL can be used to link to this page

02-08-16 Council Work Session Agenda with materialsCITY OF KALISPELL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2016 - 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 201 FIRST AVENUE EAST CALL TO ORDER DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Majestic Arena Request for County B-3 Commercial Zoning - Comment 2. National Forest Service Building Offer PUBLIC COMMENT MAYOR/COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER REPORTS ADJOURNMENT UPCOMING SCHEDULE City Offices will be CLOSED Monday, February 15, 2016 for Presidents' Day. Next Regular Meeting — TUESDAY, February 16, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. — Council Chambers Next Work Session — February 22, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. — Council Chambers Next Growth Policy Sub -Committee Session — Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. — First Floor Conference Room Ward IV Town Hall Meeting — Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. — First Floor Conference Room Reasonable accommodations will be made to enable individuals with disabilities to attend this meeting. Please notify the City Clerk at 758-7756. PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE REPORT TO: Doug Russell, City Manager FROM: Tom Jentz, Director Planning Department 201 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fag: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/planning SUBJECT Majestic Arena Request for County B-3 Commercial Zoning - Comment MEETING DATE: February 8, 2016 Work Session BACKGROUND: Jan Parker, owner of the Majestic Valley Arena, has petitioned the county for B-3 Community Business zoning on 40 acres of land, on the northwest corner of the intersection of Church Drive and US Highway 93. The applicants have no immediate plans to develop the site. The application states that they are applying for the B-3 commercial zoning now and when they have actual plans to develop they will do so through the PUD process. The planning staff sent a letter dated January 13, 2016, (attached) recommending denial of the application. The staff sent a similar letter dated November 30, 2015, (attached) also recommending denial of a similar application for the Majestic Valley Arena, that included a request for business/commercial zoning for all 135 acres of the site. At issue is a letter from former City Manager Jane Howington dated October 14, 2011, which recapped a city council/planning board work session that was based on a similar request four years ago. In that letter City Manager Howington stated that the city would be interested in providing water and sewer services to the site based on available capacity, and a petition to waive protest to annexation for the 40 acres. The applicants are using that letter to indicate that the city does support the re -zoning request and has agreed to serve the site. Staff feels that it is important for the city to clarify the concerns of the city relative to significant unplanned commercial development on the edges of our city, and particularly along the US Highway 93 corridor. The Flathead County Planning Board will be making a recommendation on this issue to the County Commissioners at their Wednesday, February 10 planning board meeting. Attachments: January 16, 2016, letter w/attachments to Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office November 30, 2015, letter w/attachments to the Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office Memo from City Manager Jane Howington dated October 14, 2011 Memo with report from Jane Howington and Tom Jentz dated September 12, 2011, concerning Majestic Valley Arena annexation. PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE January 13, 2016 MONTANA Erik Mack Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office 1035 First Avenue West Kalispell, MT 59901 Planning Department 201 V Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/planning Re: FZC-15-07, Zone change from SAG-5 to B-3 on Highway 93 North Dear Mr. Mack: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed zone change. We would recommend the proposed zone change of B-3 be denied based on the following issues and concerns: 1. The 37.633 acre site abuts both city water and sewer mains placed within Silverbrook Estates to the south. This type of speculative zone change pits the city against the county in a bidding war for zoning. The owner is requesting a more intensive zone change than would be allowed by the city. However, if the county grants the zone change, a future developer would be faced with the reality of hooking up to city services, which would require city annexation. Upon an annexation request, a County B-3 Zone would not comply with the city's growth policy. The city would anticipate this area as being within the suburban residential land use category. At most, a neighborhood commercial land use component may be permitted with an approved master plan/PUD. 2. The Glacier Town Center, which lies approximately 1.5 miles south of this site is a long range Planned Unit Development which was initially approved by Flathead County and then, because of the need to have urban services, the Glacier Town Center developer requested annexation into the city. This development is intended to serve the commercial land use needs for the north Kalispell area for well over 15 — 20 years. o The Glacier Town Center worked for almost 7 years to get a well -designed and acceptable development that mitigated all perceived impacts. o The 37.633 acre zone change request on the highway offers minimal mitigation with respect to visual impacts along the highway. o The zone change request would take advantage of the Glacier Town Center presence and actually compete with it on an unfair playing field, as the Glacier Town Center have a host of expensive but necessary mitigating conditions, and the 37.633 acre project site have none, thus becoming cheap commercial land in comparison. 3. The Highway 93 North zoning district, was specifically enacted by the property owners in the middle 1990's to avoid the spread of commercial development along US 93. This effort is at the heart of protecting our scenic corridors along our highways, a view championed by the greater community. Rezoning the subject property B-3 would take all future development control away from the County, which could lead to more strip commercial development. 4. Preventing the continuation of one long commercial strip from Kalispell to Whitefish along Highway 93 North is a community -wide priority. There is already ample commercial development potential currently along Highway 93 within the County. There are also hundreds of acres within the city limits zoned B-2 and B-5 for potential commercial development. 5. MDT has already indicated in the last several Transportation Impact Studies for users along this stretch of Highway 93 that full access approaches for commercial users are not available. Anything less than a full access approach onto Highway 93 would hinder future business access and success (i.e. right -in right -out only access) and if approved will hinder the free flowing capacities of Highway 93, a 4 lane road that the greater Flathead has worked hard to develop, and must work harder to maintain in a free flowing configuration. There does not appear to be a coordinated effort to mitigate traffic impacts to the adjacent highway and there is no perceived community benefit. 6. The singling out of properties for a type of zoning which is not generally shared or planned for within an existing zoning district and not supported by a growth policy is arbitrary and generally considered spot zoning. Spot zoning is generally considered illegal and is almost always considered ill -advisable. 7. The application is premature at this point. As stated in the Riverdale Neighborhood Plan (pg. 29), "The Mixed Use Land Use Category requires a Planned Unit Development Overlay to accompany a request for any rezoning to commercial, business or higher intensity residential zoning classification. This is intended to promote flexibility in site design and allow for alternative development standards contained in the subdivision and zoning regulations. The expectation is a superior site and building design." Existing commercial uses onsite does not preclude the requirement of a master plan and PUD Overlay. Outright rezoning of 37.633 acres of property to B-3 without a master plan would have negative implications on the Flathead Valley. 8. The proposed zone change is not consistent with Riverdale Neighborhood Plan for the following reasons: Policy 3.1 — Permit commercial business development within the corridor of U.S. Highway 93 as part of the Planned Unit Development process. Response: There has not been a PUD submitted with this application. A PUD should be required because the intent of the Riverdale Neighborhood Plan is "To develop a neighborhood that integrates residential, commercial, and open space and recreational uses which effectively function together, emphasizing and protecting the natural amenities and features of the land." The vision and policies of the plan suggest that all development of the site should be comprehensive in nature. An outright rezone of 37.633 acres of property to B-3 without a master plan in place is contrary to the plan. Policy 3.2 — Require site landscaping and architectural building styles suited to a particular site. 2 Response — The only way this policy can be implemented is through a master plan and PUD Zoning Overlay. Silverbrook has incorporated such features. Two additional yet to be developed projects, Glacier Town Center and Valley Ranch, have extensive site conditions placed on them to create compatibility with the greater community while focusing on maintaining and protecting the Highway 93 transportation corridor. Policy 3.3 — Plan a 150 foot building setback with an average 50-foot landscaped and bermed beautification zone to be dedicated and planted along U.S. Highway 93. The landscaped zone will be dedicated at the time of development and the width shall depend upon lit size and shape, site design, topography, landscaping, and vegetation, among other site specific characteristics. Response — Without a master plan and PUD Overlay Zone in place all the standards required by this policy are not possible. If the zone change is approved, any B-3 land use permitted by right would be allowed to proceed on the property without special consideration to any of the aforementioned requirements. Again as mentioned above, Silverbrook has incorporated such features. Two additional yet to be developed projects, Glacier Town Center and Valley Ranch, have extensive site conditions placed on them to create compatibility with the greater community while focusing on maintaining and protecting the Highway 93 transportation corridor. Policy 3.4 — Encourage creative and exceptional site design and landscaping plans. Response — There are no creative and exceptional site/landscape designs submitted because no plan has been submitted for development of the subject property. A B-3 zone requires none of these things yet allows significantly intense commercial development in a neighborhood (65 mph traffic corridor) that does not need or cannot safely access such services and goods. Policy 5.5 — Encourage creation of Planned Unit Developments (PUD). Response — A PUD has not been submitted. Policy 7.2 — Allow options for creative mixed use developments which will provide a compatible mix of high density residential and commercial uses through innovative site planning. Response — The proposed zone change to B-3 has no plan in place to provide for a mixed -use development. Nor, is there an innovative development plan in place that would provide for a compatible mix of high density residential and commercial uses. Policy 7.3 — Intense mixed use developments should be sited in proximity to U.S. Highway 93. All residential and commercial developments should be mutually supportive in the Mixed Use Development Area and, neighborhood plan. Response — There is no plan in place that would suggest the proposed rezone to B-3 would be mutually supportive to residential. In fact, the proposed zone change has no residential component; therefore it is not possible to meet this policy. 3 Policy 7.5 — Mixed use developments should have a residential component to enhance the supporting general commercial uses. Response — The subject property is within the Mixed Use land use category, but provides no plan for mixed use. The rezone would change 37.633 acres of land to B-3 Zoning with no plan in place to provide for housing to support the commercial land use component. Policy 15.2 — Permit commercial business development within the corridor of U.S. Highway 93 as part of the Planned Unit Development process. Response — Once again, no PUD has been submitted. Policy 15.8 — Requests for zone changes appropriate for Mixed Use land use area will be considered if accompanied with a request for a Planned Unit Development Overlay. Once approved, the PUD Overlay will become the permanent zoning district. Response — Once again, no PUD has been submitted. Page 31 — Page 31 of the Riverdale Neighborhood Plan states that, "commercial developments should be configured as centers or nodes. Strip commercial configuration should be avoided and that commercial development such as shopping malls or large box retail stores is neither appropriate nor contemplated in the Mixed Use land use category." Response — The application as submitted has no means of preventing strip commercial development or large box retail stores. B-3 Zoning permits retail stores by right and there are no design guidelines being implemented that would prevent a strip mall configuration. Adding to the commercial zoning inventory at this time and at this location is not appropriate based on the points above. We would encourage the Flathead County Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners to consider the above comments and possible negative effects approving a B-3 zoning district would have along this portion of Highway 93 North. Again, thanks for the opportunity to comment on the proposed zone change. If you have any questions, please contact me at (406) 758-7940, or tjentz@kalispell.com. Respectfully, Tom Jentz Kalispell Planning Department 2 Jarod Nygren From: Jarod Nygren Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 3:17 PM To: 'emack@flathead.mt.gov' Subject: Winter Park Ventures - Zone Change Request Attachments: 20160114_151210.pdf Erik, I have attached our response to the zone change request. Jarod Nygren City of Kalispell Planning & Building Department Senior Planner 201 1st Street Avenue East, Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 inygren@Kalispell.com 1035 First Ave West Kalispell, MT 59901 406.751.8200 +w 406.751.8210 planningwebs^flathead.mt.gov ilatheo d. mt, gov/planning-zoning i' December 31, 2015 Tom Jentz, Director Kalispell Planning Office 201 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: FZC-15-07 Winter Park Ventures - Zone Change Request Dear Tom: AW LIE PARTMENIT This office has received a zone change request from Sands Surveying, Inc., on behalf of Winter Park Ventures and Majestic Valley, LLC for a property located at 3630 Highway 93 North near Kalispell, MT, just north of Church Drive (see Figures 1 and 2 below). The request is for a zone change on the property from SAG-5 Suburban Agricultural to B-3 Community Business in the Highway 93 North Zoning District. The properties are legally described as Lot 2 of Patterson Tracts of Section 12, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. The total acreage involved in the request is approximately 37.633 acres. N-igure 1: aubject property (outlined m red) and area zoning. naeo i I R; f , I IA — I I I JJy I ; ._ O.1�P ID I - —10 I � I 6AC fi j I encourage your comments on this proposal, and ask that you please submit them to the Flathead County Planning and Zoning office, in writing or via email (emack@fiathead.mt.gov), by 5:00pm Friday, January 15, 2016 so they may be included in the staff report and considered by the Flathead County Planning Board and Flathead County Commissioners in their review of this zone change request. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at (406) 751-8200. Sincerely, Erik K. Mack, ACIP Planner III Attachments: Application fLflT- flD (oonrV PIOHN zomm nFFicE 406.751.8200 Fox 406.751.8210 1035 First Ave West Kalispell, MT 59901 EMAIL planningweb@flathead.mt.gov WEB. ilathead.mt.gov/planning_zoning The following is a list of agencies we will be contacting during our review process. This list does not limit this office from contacting additional agencies if necessary: 1. Flathead County Sheriff 2. Dave Prunty, Public Works/Flathead County Road Department 3. Flathead County Solid Waste 4. Flathead City -County Health Department S. Flathead County Weeds & Parks Department 6. Montana Department of Transportation 7. Bonneville Power Administration 8. City of Kalispell Planning Department 9. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 10. West Valley Fire District WTAU COUHTV PIUM(„nD ZOHIH( nmcE 406.751.8200 F.�x. 406.751.8210 1035 First Ave West Kalispell, MT 59901 EMAIL planningweb@flothead.mt.gov wEa. flathead.mt.gov/planning_zoning Flathead Counter Planning & Zoning - 1035 13t Ave W, Kalispell, MT 59901 Telephone 406.751.8200 Fax 406.751.8210 RA1UiAD (OUM PLUXIA L' W19 ^="k PETITION FOR ZONING AMENDMENT Submit this application, all required information, and appropriate fee (see current fee schedule) to the Planning & Zoning office at the address listed above. FEE ATTACHED S APPLICANT/OWNER: 1. Name: Winter Park Ventures Phone: 4071766-0023 2. Mail Address: CIO Jan and Bob Parker, PO Box 1028 3. City/State/Z:p: Winter Park, FL 32790 4. Interest in property: Owners Check which applies: ® Map Amendment ®Text Amendment: TECHNICAL/PROFESSIONAL PARTICIPANTS: Name: Sands Surveying, Inc. Erica Wirtala, Planner Phone: 406R55-6481 Mailing Address:2 Village Loop City, State, Zip: Kalispell, MT 59901 Email: erica(d-sandssurveying.com IF THE REQUEST PERTAINS TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: A. What is the proposed zoning text/map amendment? IF THE REQUEST PERTAINS TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: A. Address of the property: This portion of the property is not addressed at this time. B. Legal Description: Lot 2 of COS 17246 aka Lot 2 of Amended Patterson Tracts (LoVBlock of Subdivision or Tract 0) 12 _ 29N _ 22W Section Township Range (Attach sheet for metes and bounds) C. D. E. F. M Total acreage: 37.633 Zoning District: Highway 93 North The rp esent zoning of the above property is: SAG-5 The proposed zoning of the above property is: B-3 State the changed or changing conditions that make the proposed amendment necessary: The owners of the property would like to supplement the arena's facilities with complementary uses such as a restaurant, a hotel and additional signage. (Amended)Addendum to Majestic Valley Arena Zoning Application: 1. Is the proposed amendment is accordance with the Growth Policy/Neighborhood Plan? The subject property of the proposed zoning map amendment falls within the Riverdale Neighborhood Plan, which is included within the Flathead Growth Policy. The parcel of land where the arena and associated buildings ore located is designated on "Riverdale Existing Land Types" (Map 2) as "Commercial". The subject parcels directly to the north and south of the arena, and under the same ownership, are designated as "Agriculture" as they serve as posture land for the main facility. There is also a caretaker's residence and a covered pavilion that is rented out for special occasions on the parcel to the south. The Riverdale Neighborhood Plan then goes on to note on Map 9 "Future Land Uses" that these three properties are designated for future "Mixed Use". The Riverdale Land Use Category defines Mixed Use as "intended to provide flexibility in design and to promote a mix of commercial and housing options. This category permits retail and general commercial uses that serve the broader community and tourist economy. Mixed residential -commercial uses where the commercial portion is compatible with the residential is appropriate. This category permits a range of commercial development such as hotels, banks, restaurants, professional office centers and a mix of residential use including apartment complexes, single-family attached and detached, duplexes, town homes and accessory apartments at an average density of six d/u per acre. Commercial developments should be configured as centers or nodes. As this proposal is a zoning map amendment only, there is no development plans at this time. Should the owners (or future developers) of the property decide to pursue the hotel/restaurant component to the facility, a PUD overlay will be submitted. The B-3 Community Business zone's definition reads: "A business district to provide areas for the development of congregated community shopping areas, to serve the range of a number of neighborhoods of a major segment of the Planning Area. This district should be a business center and not a strip development." The City of Kalispell often designates commercial "nodes" at major intersections of county roads/highways. As this property is directly adjacent to a major highway and a cloverleaf interchange, this is an ideal "commercial node". The commercial activities would be central to the arena, its functions and its clientele. It would not become a strip development. It also allows the residential components required by the "Mixed Use" designation of the Riverdale Plan as accessory apartments are a permitted use in the B-3, and duplexes, multi -family, resort and mixed -use buildings are allowed as Conditional Uses. When submitting a PUD, the base zoning is considered first, and in the case of a PUD in a Commercial/Industrial Mixed Use zoned area, the Flathead County Zoning Regulations note: "The uses appropriate to a Mixed Use PUD shall be determined by the County Commissioners on the basis of (a) their compatibility with the surrounding land uses and (b) their compatibility with one another." This is a bit of an unusual situation that the Commissioners would be determining compatibility on a case by case basis, but in the case of the Majestic Valley Arena, should the owners decide to move forward with further development plans, residential housing based on the proximity of an arena might have the same appeal to some as much as those who prefer to live on a golf course or near a marina. There are also long-range plans by the applicant to perhaps build a retreat/lodge facility on the northern portion of the arena property to allow guests to participate in week-long clinics, classes and ranch -stays. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements? As noted above, there is a network of county paved and state highway roads that access the subject properties (Church Drive and Highway 93). Should the property owner decide to pursue additional development (i.e., subdivision or additional commercial development), they would have to work with MDT to secure a "change of use" permit. Soils are compatible with those required for proper functioning of individual septic systems, and the existing structures utilize a well and septic system currently. There appears to be an adequate supply of water resources to access for individual wells. Additionally, when the extension of the public water and sewer facilities were completed at Silverbrook, the infrastructure was stubbed out at the property line of the subject properties. According to the owner of the properties, there is a letter issued from the City of Kalispell that would allow them use of the water and sewer lines should the need arise. Soils exist on the properties that are conducive to the construction of buildings and driveways. The subject properties lie within the Whitefish School District, which has just undergone some significant expansions/upgrades to their High School and Middle School, however, as this is a commercial application, there would be no school - age children impacting the District. Tax revenues generated as a result of the commercial enterprise would be directed into the Whitefish School System. There are no publically owned/ maintained parks within the Riverdale Plan or in the general area, however, the very nature of the land within the vicinity is open rural landscape. At some point a bike path will connect Whitefish to Kalispell will be completed and allow walkers and bikers the ability to shop and recreate without getting into their car first. The easement forsuch a bike path would be considered upon any future development of the Majestic Valley Arena site. 2. Does the proposed amendment consider: a. The reasonable provision of adequate light and air? The proposed zone change is from a five acre minimum lot size to no minimum lot size, however, yard requirements apply. As the use of the facility is not intended to change, no overcrowding of the land is anticipated. The livestock for various events are moved in and out of the property as needed and a pasture component will always be needed for a facility holding horse - based events such as this. Pastureland, zoning -mandated setbacks and height restrictions as well as the need for roadways/infrastructure will ensure adequate light and air for future use. This is not being proposed for residential development, at this time only a caretaker lives on the property. Residential development is encouraged in this "Mixed Use" designation, and several dwelling types are allowed in the e-3 zone as permitted and conditional uses. DEC ? 1 Q� e. Conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area? Yes, by approving this zone change proposal, the value of the existing buildings will be preserved. The proposal is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and will be a benefit to the community. The Riverdale Plan supported and encouraged just this type of project. 3. Is the proposed amendment, as nearly as possible, compatible with the zoning ordinances of nearby municipalities? The City of Kalispell has a B-1 zone that is very similar to that of the County B-3 zoning designation. The City of Whitefish does have a WB-3 zone, which allows for most general business operations, including restaurants and hotels as a permitted use. The County, Kalispell and Whitefish all have fairly similar uses and standards for their B-3 (B-1, WB-3) zones and it appears that the proposed zoning map amendment is not contradictory to either of the nearby municipalities zoning regulations. Planning Department 201 1"' Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kafispeU.com/planning November 30, 2015 Erik Mack Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office 1035 First Avenue West Kalispell, MT 59901 Re: FZC-15-07, Zone change from SAG-5 to B-2 on Highway 93 North Dear Mr. Mack: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed zone change. We would recommend the proposed zone change of B-2 be denied based on the following issues and concerns: l . The 134.78 acre site abuts both city water and sewer mains placed within Silverbrook Estates to the south. This type of speculative zone change pits the city against the county in a bidding war for zoning. The owner is requesting a more intensive zone change than would be allowed by the city. However, if the county grants the zone change, a future developer would be faced with the reality of hooking up to city services, which would require city annexation. Upon an annexation request, a .County B-2 Zone would not comply with the city's growth policy. The city would anticipate this area as being within the suburban residential land use category. At most, a neighborhood commercial land use component may be permitted with an approved master plan/PUD. 2. The Glacier Town Center, which lies approximately 1.5 miles south of this site is a long range Planned Unit Development which was initially approved by Flathead County and then, because of the need to have urban services, the Glacier Town Center developer requested annexation into the city. This development is intended to serve the commercial land use needs for the north Kalispell area for well over 15 — 20 years. o The Glacier Town Center worked for almost 7 years to get a well -designed and acceptable development that mitigated all perceived impacts. o The 134.78 acre zone change request on the highway offers minimal mitigation with respect to visual impacts along the highway. o The zone change request would take advantage of the Glacier Town Center presence and actually compete with it on an unfair playing field, as the Glacier Town Center have a host of expensive but necessary mitigating conditions, and the 134.78 acre project site have none, thus becoming cheap commercial land in comparison. The Highway 93 North zoning district, was specifically enacted by the property owners in the middle 1990's to avoid the spread of commercial development along US 93. This effort is at the heart of protecting our scenic corridors along our highways, a view championed by the greater community. Rezoning the subject property B-2 would take all future development control away from the County, which could lead to more strip commercial development. (by right) that are not compatible with adjacent City development to the south. The only way the appropriate mitigation measures could be implemented is through a comprehensive master plan of the subject property. Even with a comprehensive master plan, B-2 is the wrong zoning classification to start with. Policy 1.2 — Permit mixed use structures that allow ground level neighborhood commercial and residential dwelling units on the upper level in the mixed use land use category. Each commercial unit/space shall county as a unit for density calculation. Response — There is no plan in place that would provide for such development of mixed uses. More importantly, the County B-2 Zoning does not allow for residential development (other than apartments). The only way to implement the Riverdale Neighborhood Plan would be through a master plan with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning Overlay and through the use of a different zone classification, not B-2. Policy 3.1 — Permit commercial business development within the corridor of U.S. Highway 93 as part of the Planned Unit Development process. Response: There has not been a PUD submitted with this application. A PUD should be required because the intent of the Riverdale Neighborhood Plan is "To develop a neighborhood that integrates residential, commercial, and open space and recreational uses which effectively function together, emphasizing and protecting the natural amenities and features of the land." The vision and policies of the plan suggest that all development of the site should be comprehensive in nature. An outright rezone of 134.78 acres of property to B-2 without a master plan in place is contrary to the plan. Policy 3.2 — Require site landscaping and architectural building styles suited to a particular site. Response — The only way this policy can be implemented is through a master plan and PUD Zoning Overlay. Silverbrook has incorporated such features. Two additional yet to be developed projects, Glacier Town Center and Valley Ranch, have extensive site conditions placed on them to create compatibility with the greater community while focusing on maintaining and protecting the Highway 93 transportation corridor. Policy 3.3 — Plan a 150 foot building setback with an average 50-foot landscaped and bermed beautification zone to be dedicated and planted along U.S. Highway 93. The landscaped zone will be dedicated at the time of development and the width shall depend upon lit size and shape, site design, topography, landscaping, and vegetation, among other site specific characteristics. Response — Without a master plan and PUD Overlay Zone in place all the standards required by this policy are not possible. If the zone change is approved, any B-2 land use permitted by right would be allowed to proceed on the property without special consideration to any of the aforementioned requirements. Again as mentioned above, Silverbrook has incorporated such features. Two additional yet to be developed projects, Glacier Town Center and Valley Ranch, have extensive site conditions 3 Policy 15.8 — Requests for zone changes appropriate for Mixed Use land use area will be considered if accompanied with a request for a Planned Unit Development Overlay. Once approved, the PUD Overlay will become the permanent zoning district. Response — Once again, no PUD has been submitted. Page 31 — Page 31 of the Riverdale Neighborhood Plan states that, "commercial developments should be configured as centers or nodes. Strip commercial configuration should be avoided and that commercial development such as shopping malls or large box retail stores is neither appropriate nor contemplated in the Mixed Use land use category." Response — The application as submitted has no means of preventing strip commercial development or large box retail stores. B-2 Zoning permits retail stores by right and there are no design guidelines being implemented that would prevent a strip mall configuration. The actual configuration of the entire property zoned B-2 is "strip commercial" on its face. Adding to the commercial zoning inventory at this time and at this location is not appropriate based on the points above. We would encourage the Flathead County Planning Board and Board of County Commissioners to consider the above comments and possible negative effects approving a B-2 zoning district would have along this portion of Highway 93 North. Again, thanks for the opportunity to comment on the proposed zone change. If you have any questions, please contact me at (406) 758-7940, or tjentz@kalispell.com. Respectfully, Tom Jentz Kalispell Planning Department 5 1035 First Ave west 0 Kalispell. MT 59901 .l 40L751.8200 +siv 406.751.8210 pianningweb'aflathead. mt.gov ila (head. mt.gov{planning_,zoning November 10, 2015 Tom Jentz, Director Kalispell Planning Office 201 l't Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: FZC-15-07 Winter Park Ventures - Zone Change Request iNOV 1,62015 1"'I ISPELI. FLANPd'P,G DEPARTMENT Dear Tom: This office has received a zone change request from Sands Surveying, Inc., on behalf of Winter Park Ventures and Majestic Valley, LLC for a property located at 3630 Highway 93 North near Kalispell, MT, just north of Church Drive (see Figures 1 and 2 below). The request is for a zone change on the property from SAG-5 Suburban Agricultural to B-2 General Business in the Highway 93 North Zoning District. The properties are legally described as Lot lA of the Amended Plat of Lot 1 of Patterson Tracts, Lot 2 of Patterson Tracts and Tract 3 of Section 12, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. The total acreage involved in the request is approximately 134.78 acres. rigure is Nunject property (outlined m rea) and area zoning. I encourage your comments on this proposal, and ask that you please submit them to the Flathead County Planning and Zoning office, in writing or via email (emack p flathead.mt.goy), by 5:00pm Monday, November 30, 2015 so they may be included in the staff report and considered by the Flathead County Planning Board and Flathead County Commissioners in their review of this zone change request. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at (406) 751-8200. Sincerely, Erik K. Mack, ACIP Planner III Attachments: Application 101flUD (OUNTU PUNNING zohmc nFF[CE 406.751.8200 =.x 406.751.8210 1035 First Ave West Kalispell, MT 59901 EMAIL planningweb@flathead.mt.gov wee flathead.mt.gov/planning_zoning The following is a list of agencies we will be contacting during our review process. This list does not limit this officefrom contacting additional agencies if necessary.• 1. Flathead County Sheriff 2. Dave Prunty, Public Works/Flathead County Road Department 3. Flathead County Solid Waste 4. Flathead City -County Health Department S. Flathead County Weeds & Parks Department 6. Montana Department of Transportation 7. Bonneville Power Administration 8. City of Kalispell Planning Department 9. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 10. West Palley Fire District fLOW COUNTU RON% ""., ioNx OFFICE 406.751.8200 F4;< 406.751.8210 1035 First Ave West Kalispell, MT 59901 EMAIL planningweb@flathead.mt.gov N,. flathead.mt.gov/planning_zoning Flathead County Planning & Zoning i 1035 1st Ave W, Kalispell, MT 59901 Telephone 406.751.8200 Fax 406.751.8210 i ��0�) , l"T iolllU - PETITION FOR ZONING AMENDMENt Submit this application, all required information, and appropriate fee (see current fee schedule) to the Planning & Zoning office at the address listed above. i APPLICANT/ OWNER: FEE ATTACHED $J 1. Name: Winter Park Ventures/ Majestic Valley LLC Phone: 407/766-0023 2. Mail Address: C/o Jan and Bob Parker PO Box 1028, 3. City/State/Zip: Winter Park, FL 32790 4. Interest in property: Owners Check which applies: li� Map Amendment ❑ Text Amendment: TECHNICAL/PROFESSIONAL PARTICIPANTS: Name: Sands Surveying, Inc. Erica Wirtala, Planner Phone: 406/755-6481 Mailing Address:2 Village Loop City, State, Zip: Kalispell, MT 59901 Email: erica@sandssurveyinq.com IF THE REQUEST PERTAINS TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: A. What is the proposed zoning text/map amendment? IF THE REQUEST PERTAINS TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: A. Address of the property: 3630 Highway 93 North, Kalispell, MT 59901 B. Legal Description: Tract 3, PTR-2, PTS-1A AM 7-1-a& /, Lof 114/ Lot Z C.-aS /:7z1�& (Lot/Block of Subdivision or Tract #) 12 -29 -22 Section Township Range (Attach sheet for metes and bounds) C. Total acreage: 134.78 D. Zoning District: Highway 93 North E. The present zoning of the above property is: SAG-5 F. The proposed zoning of the above property is: B-2 G. State the changed or changing conditions that make the proposed amendment necessary: The subject property has never been able to sign this venue properly due to the fact that it sits in a SAG-5 zone, which has very restrictive sign limitations. The property i Addendum to Majestic Valley Arena Zoning Application: i i NOV 4 20-15 1. Is the proposed amendment is accordance with the Growth Policy/Neighbor-Hood Plan? The subject property of the proposed zoning map amendment falls within the Riverdale Neighborhood Plan, which is included within the Flathead Growth Policy. The parcel of land_wh,ere the -arena and associated buildings are located is designated on "Riverdale Existing Land Types" (Map 2) as "Commercial". The subject parcels directly to the north and south of the arena, and under the same ownership, are designated as "Agriculture" as they serve as pasture land for the main facility. There is also a caretaker's residence and a covered pavilion that is rented out for special occasions on the parcel to the south. The Riverdale Neighborhood Plan then goes on to note on Map 9 "Future Land Uses" that these three properties are designated for future "Mixed Use". The Riverdale Land Use Category defines Mixed Use as "intended to provide flexibility in design and to promote a mix of commercial and housing options. This category permits retail and general commercial uses that serve the broader community and tourist economy. Mixed residential -commercial uses where the commercial portion is compatible with the residential is appropriate. This category permits orange of commercial development such as hotels, banks, restaurants, professional office centers and a mix of residential use including apartment complexes, single-family attached and detached, duplexes, town homes and accessory apartments at an average density of six d/u per acre. Commercial developments should be configured as centers or nodes. As this proposal is at the zone amendment only, there is no development plans at this time. Should the owners of the property decide to pursue a housing component to the facility, a PUD overlay will be submitted. When submitting a PUD, the base zoning is considered first, and in the case of a PUD in a Commercial/Industrial Mixed Use zoned area, the Flathead County Zoning Regulations note: "The uses appropriate to a Mixed Use PUD shall be determined by the County Commissioners on the basis of (a) their compatibility with the surrounding land uses and (b) their compatibility with one another." This is a bit of an unusual situation that the Commissioners would be determining compatibility on a case by case basis, but in the case of the Majestic Valley Arena, should the owners decide to move forward with further development plans, residential housing based on the proximity of an arena might have the same appeal to some as much as those who prefer to live on a golf course or near a marina. Furthermore, there are Goals and Policies from Section II of the Riverdale Neighborhood Plan that support this zone change application. Policy Al reads: "Encourage growth and development patterns to take advantage of existing and expanding infrastructure while protecting natural amenities and resources." By encouraging the growth and development of the Majestic site versus not letting it live up to its fullest potential, by the nature that the facility has thrived and succeeded for twelve years bringing thousands of dollars into the Valley with their competitors/performers spending money at local hotels, restaurants, gas stations, bars and retail establishments, takes advantage of existing infrastructure and improvements. Goal 3 notes that "General commercial development sustains the viability of business operations within the Highway 93 corridor". Policy 7.7 reads: "Requests for zone changes appropriate for the mixed -use land use area will be considered if accompanied with a request fora PUD Once approved, the PUD Overlay will become the permanent zoning district. " As this is not a request for new NO 4 2015 which has just undergone some significant expansions/upgrades to their High School and Middle School, however, as this is a commercial application, there would be no school - age children impacting the District. Tax revenues generated as a result of the commercial enterprise would be directed into the Whitefish School System. There are no publically owned/maintained parks within the Riverdale Plan or in the general area, however, the very nature of the land within the vicinity is open rural landscape. At some point a bike path will connect Whitefish to Kalispell will be completed and allow walkers and bikers the ability to shop and recreate without getting into their car first. The easement for such a bike path would be considered upon any future development of the Majestic Valley Arena site. 2. Does the proposed amendment consider: a. The reasonable provision of adequate light and air? The proposed zone change is from a five acre minimum lot size to a 7500 square foot minimum lot size, however, as the use of the facility is not intended to change, therefore no overcrowding of the land is anticipated. The livestock for various events are moved in and out of the property as needed and a pasture component will always be needed for a facility holding horse - based events such as this. Pastureland, zoning -mandated setbacks and height restrictions as well as the need for roadways/infrastructure will ensure adequate light and air for future use. This is not being proposed for residential development, at this time only a caretaker lives on the property. Residential development is not encouraged in a business zone. b. The effect on motorized and non -motorized transportation systems? Majestic Valley Arena's property encompasses approximately 134 acres comprised of three parcels of land. The northernmost parcel is strictly pastureland for livestock, the southernmost parcel is pastureland, but also has a caretaker's residence on it and an outdoor pavilion for rent. The remaining land is the middle parcel is where the barns, pastures and arena have sat for 12 years. MDOT has granted the properties five access locations, although at this time, only three are being utilized. There is an approach on Church Drive, a main entrance and an exit on the arena property. Two approaches have not been developed at this time. Signage is needed on all three parcels that front the highway to alert drivers where the entrance to the facility sits. This is especially vital to drivers coming from the north and need to slow considerably before making the hard turn into the arena. A deceleration lane is sorely needed as trucks pulling loaded livestock trailers must come to very slow speeds to make the turn. Drivers coming from the south have a left hand turn lane that they can utilize, however, there is very little indication on the highway as to where the entrance to the facility lies. As Majestic Valley Arena has been functioning for twelve years now, traffic patterns have been established and are not NOV VI clni ty Map for: N WINTER PARK VENTURES, LLC. in SEC. 12, T.29N., R.22W., P.M.,M., FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA SCALE : 1 " = 1000' 1000' 500, 0 1000' 2000' City of Kalispell Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903 Telephone: (406) 758-7701 Fax: (406) 758-7759 October 14, 2011 Jan Parker Majestic Valley Arena 3630 Highway 93 North Kalispelli. MT, 59901 Dear Ms. Parker: In response to your letter of request dated October 12, 2011, the City of Kalispell held a joint planning board/city council work session on September 12 to discuss the city's annexation policy. The members of council, by consensus, agreed that waivers of annexation to properties abutting the corporate limits would be appropriate for permitting access to the city's utilities. The Majestic property boundary abuts Kalispell'$ corporate lirnats and utility lines are stubbed to the property boundary. At this time, the city has the water and wastewater capacity to service the demands from your property. Please note however, this availability is based on a first come, first served process which may alter available capacity in the future. Please feel free to contact me should you have questions on this matter. ane Howingto kc Kalispell City Manager (406) 758-7703 cityrnana ger @ kal ispel l.com ZB/Z0 39dd A37-IVA 3IiS3CVW 66ESSSL90P WdEI:ZT ST©Z/L9/ZT ZO/10 39VJ 1,311 A OIiS3rVH 66ESSSL900 WdZI:ZI SIOZ/L0/ZI Planning Department 201 1" Avenue East Kalispell,lVTI° 59901 Phones (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 wrvw. kalispell. eom/ulannWLY MEMORANDUM REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council FROM: Jane Howington, City Manager Tom Jentz, Director SUBJECT: Annexation Issues: Majestic Valley Arena 40 acre site 8s Trumbull Creek Crossing Annexation MEETING BATE: September 12, 2011 joint council/planning board work session BACKGROUND: Two requests for annexation have been submitted to the city in recent months. Both properties lie outside the immediate annexation boundary of the city and as such our recently adopted annexation policy requires further discussion to determine the appropriateness of any action by the city. Trumbull Creek Crossing phase 2 was first submitted by Mike Anders in 2007. A letter requesting consideration as an annexation district was received on June 23, 2011. The second request is from the owners of the Majestic Valley Arena for annexation of a 40 acre tract of vacant land between the Majestic Valley Arena complex and Church Drive. Two addendums are attached to this memo containing a thorough analysis of each annexation proposal. Because the annexation policy is new and both of these projects could ultimately require both planning board and council action, a joint work session has been called to discuss these projects as well as the larger picture of annexations on the edge of our city. APPENDI K A Majestic Valley Arena - 40 acre site Background: Bob and Jan Parker, owners of the Majestic Valley Arena sent a letter to the city dated April 8, 2011 asking for direction from the city concerning the potential for extension of water and sewer services to a 40 acre parcel of land they own immediately north of Church Drive. They are trying to sell the entire Majestic Valley Arena ownership and are putting together a marketing and development proposal for these 40 acres which is currently pasture land immediately south of the arena site. The 40 acre site is currently vacant. It is bordered by the Majestic Valley Arena to the north, Highway 93 on the east, Church Drive (a city street) and Silverbrook Subdivision on the south and farm land preserved in a conservation easement to the west. The property has city water and sewer mains stubbed underneath Church Drive which were installed by Howard Mann when infrastructure was extended to Silverbrook. The Parkers are in the process of master planning the 40 acre site with the intention of providing a development package that would be compatible with and support the Majestic Valley Arena. The Parkers stated that they went to the Flathead County Planning Office initially, but that office referred them to the city when they learned that Kalispell water and sewer served the site. The site is currently zoned "agricultural' under the county Zoning ordinance. Status of municipal services available to serve the site: Water system - A municipal water line was stubbed underneath Church Drive to serve this area by Howard Mann when he developed the Silverbrook subdivision in anticipation of development to the north of Church Drive. Water pressure and volume are good. Future maintenance of the system however will place a disproportionate expense on Public Works crews because the property lies so far from the city core and the pattern of development (except for Silverbrook) has not filled in. Sanitary sewer - A municipal sewer line was stubbed underneath Church Drive to serve this area by Howard Mann when he developed the Silverbrook subdivision in anticipation of development to the north of Church Drive. The main was sized in anticipation of additional development north of Church Drive and the Silverbrook lift station which would serve this site was designed to accommodate such flows as well. Future maintenance of the system however will place a disproportionate expense on Public Works crews because the property lies so fax from the city core and the pattern of development (except for Silverbrook) has not filled in. N Streets - Except for Silverbrook and Church Drive, there is no city development north of Reserve Drive. Silverbrook presently plows their own streets. The city has traded Church Drive snow plow maintenance with the county for a county street closer to the city center. At some time in the future the city will end up taking over snow plowing and general maintenance of all the streets including Church Drive in this area. Currently, maintaining any new roads in the subject site will place an increased disproportionate burden on city street maintenance crews. Parks - A commercial venue is being requested which will have no impact on the parks department as they primarily serve a residential population. Police - The site is significantly far from the city core and patrolling would continue to unduly stretch the department at this time. As future development infiIls the area the department could have a greater presence and efficiency of service. Fire - The site is significantly far from the city core and exceeds the 5 minute response time from station 62. Providing fire service would continue to unduly stretch the department. The department is currently responsible for response to Silverbrook which is slowly building out. Demand for service in this area is very low but will increase as development increases. Planning Issues - The property, while lying immediately adjacent to the city, is outside the Growth Policy Map therefore an amendment to the growth policy would be in order if it were to be considered for some method of annexation (either outright annexation, a waiver of protest of annexation, or annexation district) . The property abuts the Majestic Valley Arena to the north and is served by the junior interchange off of Highway 93. Direct access onto Highway 93 is otherwise prohibited along the frontage of the 40 acre parcel because MDT has designated Highway 93 as a limited access highway. However the tract does have access to the Majestic Valley Arena main intersection to the north out onto Highway 93. Additional users at this intersection will increase the likelihood that intersection improvements and possibly a light could be warranted. This is not a preferred outcome. Some form of commercial development is being considered by the applicant. This is not unreasonable given the neighborhood, presence of the Majestic Valley Arena to the north and being adjacent to Highway 93. From a land use perspective, the property abuts the city, has access to city sewer and water and is part of the entrance corridor to the City of 3 Kalispell. If the property is to develop, it should be done under city overview and specifically in accordance with city policies and city entrance design standards. The Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment contains policies that would guide development of this site. Conversely, if the property were to develop outside city review, three issues arise 1. The property will be planned, marketed and built to a rural standard in terms of infrastructure and highway frontage design. 2. The use of the property will conflict with the long range development processes and entrance corridor policies of the city. 3. The property will ultimately look to the city for urban services in the future setting up an untenable situation of trying to adapt and incorporate the development that exists at that time with the city. Growth Policy - Annexation Policy analysis; The recently adopted Annexation Policy (amendment to the Kalispell Growth Policy) provides policy guidance on how to proceed with the question of annexation in such situations. According to the annexation policy Section A., Annexation Options - Policy 2 states as follows: When an owner petitions for annexation or the extension of services for property that 1_ies outside of the Kalispell Annexation Boundary Area there are four different options that could be pursued based on conditions and circumstances: 1. Direct annexation of the property into the city, 2. Filing a petition to waive the right to protest annexation, 3. The creation of an annexation district, or 4. Denial of the request. Options analysis: 1. Direct annexation - The property must meet 2 of 3 criteria. The site meets one criteria in that it abuts the city and annexation would form a logical extension of the city. However, at present time it fails the 2 remaining criteria. The property is outside the immediate 5-minute response time of the fire department. Secondly the property will unduly stretch all other city services. It is beyond the reasonable and efficient police response area as well as reasonable snow plowing, street maintenance and sewer and water maintenance crew's access. 2. Waiver of Protest to annexation - It must meet the majority of 6 criteria. It appears to meet 4 1/2 to 5 of the criteria as follows: a. The property is outside the city's annexation boundary: Yes 4 b. The property lies in the immediate path of additional annexations: Yes, the site is adjacent to the city. c. The property will be adjacent to existing city infrastructure in the next 10 - 20 years: Yes. Sewer and water service is available today. There is a future fire station site in Silverbrook adjacent to the site. Church Drive is a city street which, abuts the south side of the site. d. The property is within the service area of the Kalispell Fire Department and is serviceable by proposed/existing municipal water and sewer. The site is outside the 5 minute response time of the fire department however it is adjacent to a future fire station site. City water and sewer serve the site. e. Services to the site can be provided in the near term by other than municipal means. Fire - West Valley could continue to provide fire protection. Streets - A private owners association could be responsible for road maintenance in the short term. Police - the county sheriff's office could continue to provide law enforcement, park maintenance and policing development standards. Sewer and water - Municipal water and sewer are already there, thus it would be most reasonable for the city to provide maintenance and service. f. Development of the property achieves key goals of the growth policy, or provides a necessary community connection, facility, infrastructure component or community benefit. The only community benefit ascertainable at this time would be the ability of the city to influence the type and pattern of development on this property and to set the level of urban standards it could and should be built to. This would include implementing the entrance corridor design standards espoused in the Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment and a design that addresses traffic flows so as to avoid a new traffic light at the Majestic entrance. 3. Annexation district - available if the property meets the following: a. The project meets a significant number of criteria in 2. above. As stated above, the project meet 4Y-- - 5 criteria above. 5 b. The property would be adjacent to or inside the city's annexation boundary in the next 5 - 10 years. The site abuts the city limits and the annexation boundary today. It is expected that it will be within the annexation boundary within 10 years. 4. Denial of request - this would be the "no action" position. • Because the site abuts the city limits and has access to city streets and sewer and water, this would only be considered a feasible short term option if the applicants agreed not to proceed with development plans at this time. • It would only be considered a viable long term option if the city determined that in the very long term future Church Drive was the permanent northern boundary of the city. Annexation policy conclusions: • The site is not conducive to immediate annexation. • The site could be considered for extension of services and waiver of protest to annexation; however using this method would allow the site to be planned and developed typically under county review and county rural standards. It would not provide for building department review of construction and would not allow for collection of impact fees. A possibility would be to enter into an MOU with the county allowing the city to take lead in the design review process. • The site could be considered for an annexation district where the planning and design would happen at the city level and the provision of urban services could be timed and orchestrated between the city (water and sewer), homeowners association (streets and parks) and current rural service providers (West Valley Fire, Sherriff's Office). It would also allow for building inspection and the payment of impact fees. • "No action" would not be beneficial in the long term to the city unless the city council so determined that the city will never grow north of Church Drive. City of Kalispell Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903 Telephone: (406) 758-7701 Fax: (406) 758-7758 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Johnson and City Council From: Doug Russell, City Manager Re: National Forest Service Building Offer Meeting Date: February 8, 2016 BACKGROUND: Attached to this memorandum is a letter from the National Forest Service regarding the potential of a direct sale of Forest Service property to the City of Kalispell. As identified in the letter, the Forest Service has identified property that it could dispose of to reduce its facilities' footprint. This site is located adjacent to the City Airport and Wastewater Treatment Plant (see map- site 3AA). As the Forest Service was investigating this property, they identified a reversionary clause dictating that if the Forest Service decides that the site is no longer needed by the United States, it would revert to the City for the initial consideration paid, which was $828.00 (see deed). This would apply to the 2.07 acres, but not the buildings or other improvements. As noted in the letter, the Forest service would like to appraise the value of the buildings and execute a direct sale to the City of Kalispell for the value of the buildings and the original purchase price of the land. At the work session, it is recommended that the City Council discuss this offer and provide staff direction related to the offer made by the Forest Service as this acquisition was not planned during the development of the FYI budget. Initial review has identified a potential use of the facility for equipment storage and use within our public works department. Staff will be meeting with Forest Service representatives on the afternoon of Monday, February 8 to tour the site and identify initial pros and cons of the facility and site for municipal purposes. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council hold initial discussions related to the offer from the Forest Service and their request to move forward with a non -binding appraisal for the improvements. USDA United States Forest Flathead National Forest 650 Wolfpack Way Department of Service Kalispell, MT 59901 Agriculture 406-758-5200 FAX: 406-758-5379 File Code: 5400 Date: January 11, 2016 Doug Russell City Manager City Hall 201 1 st Ave. East Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mr. Russell: This letter is a follow-up to discussions you and City Planner, Tom Jentz, had with Flathead National Forest Staff Officer, Gary Danczyk, regarding the Flathead National Forest Supervisor's Office shop (Flathead shop) located next to the Kalispell City airport. The Forest Service has limited authority to dispose of property. However, this administrative site falls under the Forest Service Realignment & Enhancement Act of 2005 (FSFREA) which makes it eligible. Furthermore, there is an ongoing national effort to increase the efficiency of Forest Service operations by finding efficiencies and reducing the facilities foot print needed for administration of the National Forest System lands. This led to the Forest nominating the Flathead shop as a potential administrative site for sale as part of a Region -wide facilities conveyance effort. FSFREA sets limitations on what can be considered for disposal and requires a rigorous process to ensure all aspects of due diligence have been undertaken to protect the Federal estate. It establishes two processes that must be followed, one for competitive sales, and one for direct sales to limited qualifying entities. The Forest Service typically uses competitive sales as they generally result in more monetary return to the Agency, thus more public benefit. Any direct sale proposals must be justified to be in the public interest in an internal sales implementation strategy that has to be approved by our Regional office. As Gary and Tom discussed, once we began our due diligence it was revealed the Forest Service purchased the property from the City in 1956, and the deed has a reversionary clause. To paraphrase, this clause dictates that if the Forest decides the site is no longer needed by the United States, then it will revert to the City for the consideration paid. In the Flathead Shop's case, this would apply to the 2.07 acres (more or less) of land we purchased from the City, but not the shop building and other improvements as the reversionary clause also says the Forest Service has the right to remove, sell, or otherwise dispose of any and all improvements and structures that we erected or constructed on the premises. The FSFREA process mandates that market value of an administrative site be determined by conducting an appraisal that is performed in accordance with Federal appraisal standards (the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, established in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. IrCaring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper Doug Russell 2 4601 et seq.); and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice). The market value established by this appraisal is the least amount of consideration that we can receive for the site, which in this case is the building(s) and other improvements that the Forest Service placed on the property. The following excerpt is from our Forest Service regulations to implement FSFREA: For all direct sales, an Agreement of Intent is required prior to appraisal to set out the basic terms and conditions, responsibilities for accomplishing required actions, and the parties responsible for paying costs of processing the sale. The recipient of the conveyance may bear all reasonable costs of administration, survey and appraisal incidental to the conveyance. This agreement is similar to the agreement to initiate a land exchange and ensures that the proposed governmental or other approved non-federal entity understands and accepts the intended sale procedures, such as use of a federally approved appraisal to establish the sale price, an expectation of a full cash payment within a reasonable amount of time, and no availability of financing or discounting of the purchase price. It is a nonbinding agreement. I would like to see this transaction proceed so that the Forest can meet the intent of the Regional facilities conveyance effort and benefit the City by providing a good location for your public works department. In that spirit of cooperation, I propose we share the cost of a federally approved appraisal. We would contract with a private appraiser that is jointly agreed upon. The Region has several appraisers that are familiar with the federal appraisal standards that can be selected from. Our Staff review appraisers would cover the required review process. In discussions with our Regional Appraiser, there is no way to estimate the cost of the appraisal without obtaining bids from the private sector. When the price of the contract for the appraisal of the building is determined, we will jointly agree to continue processing through the appraisal or terminate moving forward with the sale process. I have enclosed a Draft Agreement of Intent so we can initiate a conversation regarding the conveyance and appraisal process and the terms of our sale. I look forward to hearing from you on whether or not the City wishes to proceed with bids for the appraisal and their responsibility for half of the appraisal costs. Should you have any questions on this process please do not hesitate to contact Gary or Len Newton at 406-758-5335. Sincerely, CHIP WEBER Forest Supervisor cc: Gary Danczyk; Len Newton 5570 Flathead National Forest Flathead Shop Agreement of Intent for a Direct Sale U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service AGREEMENT OF INTENT PROPOSED SALE OF FOREST SERVICE PROPERTY Kalispell, Montana Proposed Direct Sale of Land (Forest Service Facility Realignment and Enhancement Act of 2005) We, the City of Kalispell of 201 1` Ave. E., Kalispell, MT., 59901, phone: 406-758-7701, hereinafter called the City, and the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, acting through their authorized representatives, intend to enter into a sale agreement to convey to the City the Federal property described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and under the terms and conditions described herein and in the Implementation Schedule, attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B. The basis of this Agreement of Intent is the interest expressed by the City to acquire the Flathead Forest shop adjacent to the City airport. GENERAL PROVISIONS: It is understood that the basis for value (sale price) of the shop building and appurtenant improvements shall be an appraisal which has been approved by the Forest Service. This Agreement of Intent authorizes the City and its contractors to enter on Federal lands for such purposes as preparing environmental, site assessments, historic and cultural investigations, land line surveys, wildlife and wetland inventories and other evaluations deemed necessary by the Forest Service to fully evaluate the affects and merits of the sale proposal. 3. It is understood that upon approval of the sale price, terms and conditions by the appropriate Forest Service official, the parties will enter into a Purchase and Sale Agreement that shall be binding to both parties. It is understood that prior to the Purchase and Sale Agreement, or issuance of a deed by the United States, if no Purchase and Sale Agreement is executed, no action taken shall create or establish any contractual or other obligations against the City or the United States. Either the City or the Forest Service may withdraw from the sale at any time prior to execution of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, or conveyance from the United States. 4. Title will be conveyed by quitclaim deed issued by the USDA Forest Service, unless some other form of deed is approved by the USDA, Office of the General Counsel. 5. The United States does not furnish title insurance for the property it conveys. If title insurance is desired by the City, it must be procured. at its own expense. 6. A tentative timeline for processing this proposal and the agreement on responsibility for costs on specified items is provided for in Exhibit B, the Implementation Schedule. The Forest Service is responsible for compliance with Section 120(h) or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Prior to entering into the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the Forest Service will conduct an environmental investigation of the Property, as appropriate to comply with Section 120(h) of CERCLA, concerning any release or threatened release of hazardous substances or petroleum products on the Property. In the event that the Forest Service determines that any hazardous substance was stored for more than 1 year or more, known to have been released, or disposed of on the Property, the Purchase and Sale Agreement shall include a notice of the type and quantity of such hazardous substance and the time at which such storage, release, or disposal took place, to the extent such information is available on the basis of a complete search of agency files. Pursuant to Section 120(h)(3)(A) of CERCLA, the Forest Service will also include covenants in the conveyance document providing that all response action necessary to protect human health and the environment with respect to any hazardous substance remaining on the property has been taken before the date of the transfer, that the United States shall conduct, after the conveyance, any response or corrective action found to be necessary to protect human health and the environment from associated with releases or threatened releases attributable to the time the United States owned and operated the property, and a clause granting the United States access to the property to conduct the response or corrective action on the property. 9. No member of Congress, or Resident Commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of this proposal or to any benefit that may arise therefrom unless it is made with a corporation for its general benefit (18 U.S.C. 431, 433). 10. The undersigned is a citizen of the United States or a corporation or other legal entity subject to the laws of the United States or a State thereof, and is 21 years old or over. 11. Notification Statement: Public Availability of Property -Related Information. Any party who has signed below acknowledges receipt of this notification: All documents pertaining to Federal lands necessary for the evaluation, processing and consummation of a land adjustment transaction, including but not limited to appraisals, timber cruises, specialist reports, geology/mineral reports, title and other property information, are subject to public availability at the discretion of the Federal party. This includes information which may be contained in a system of records exempted from the requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), and information which may qualify for exemption from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552b)). However, it is the general intent of all parties that land adjustment transaction documents will be considered "pre -decisional working papers" not subject to premature availability prior to the point which concludes evaluation of the proposal through the agency's established, required processes and policy. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: The City will provide the following services: a. One half of the appraisal costs of the property, prepared by a qualified contract appraiser to Forest Service standards. b. A letter requesting purchase of the Forest Service facilities as described in Exhibit A and acquisition of the original property through the reversionary interest for consideration paid. The Forest Service will provide the following services and information. a. One half of the appraisal costs of the property, prepared by a qualified contract appraiser to Forest Service standards. b. The Forest Service Review Appraiser will prepare bid specifications for an appraisal; meet with the contract appraiser and will provide "appraisal specifications" for conducting the appraisal. The forest Service will be responsible for review and approval of the appraisal. c. The Forest Service will complete the required specialist reports and Environmental Site Assessment necessary for conveyance. This Agreement of Intent may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. M Date Date City of Kalispell Forest Supervisor U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service EXHIBIT A Property that the Forest Service is proposing to sell: Montana Principal MeridianFlathead County, Montana The following list of structures and improvements located on the Forest Service property at 1899 Airport Road located in the NW'/4 sec. 20, T. 28 N., R. 21 W.: An 8700 square foot wood sided, stick built warehouse/vehicle maintenance shop. The building was constructed in 1964. The building includes heated office space, restroom, mechanical room, heated vehicle bays and storage areas, unheated vehicle bays and storage areas, vehicle lift and air compressor, built in shelving and cabinets; electric, telephone, water, wastewater and natural gas service and perimeter chain -link fencing. Property that will be conveyed through reversionary interest for consideration paid: Montana Principal Meridian, Flathead County, Montana SW'ANW'/4 sec. 20, T. 28 N., R. 21 W. More particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of Section 20, Township 28 North, Range 21 West; thence South 0°06' West 1802.5 feet along the westerly boundary of said Section 20; thence east 30 feet to the easterly boundary of the County road, the true point of beginning; thence east 300 feet; thence south 0°06' west 300 feet; thence west 300 feet to the easterly boundary of the County road; thence North 0°06' east along the easterly boundary of the County road 300 feet to the true point of beginning, and containing 2.07 acres more or less. Land reservations and exceptions to title: None Reservations: None Outstanding Rights: Easements for rights -of -way for underground water conduits and an underground sewer line. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Direct (Non -Competitive) Land Sale Case Name: Flathead Shop (Improvements only) Forest/District: Flathead NF Sale Authority: Forest Service Realignment & Enhancement Act of 2005 (FSREA) Total Acres: Land Status: PD Acres: Acquired Acres: Responsible Responsible Due Dates Action Item/Step for for Implementation Strategy Items 1-20 Preparation Costs Target Actual 1. Property identified for disposal in Peter B. FS 10/15/15 10/15/15 Facility Master Plan 2. Forest Plan Compliance Review Joe Krueger FS 2115116 3. Verify/Certify Federal Land Acreage & L. Newton/ FS 2115116 Legal Description Form FS 5400-41 M. Burkhart 4. Federal Land Status Report/Title L. Newton FS 2/15/16 Report (Acuired S. Civil Rights Impact Analysis Michelle Draggoo/Caro FS 311SI16 1 n Snyder 6. Notice of Proposed Realty Action Len/Newton 4/15/16 (Public Scoping) County & Deb/Michele FS Congressional notification 7. Federal Land Water Rights Analysis Craig FS 4115116 Kendall 8. Prepare Sales Implementation Deb FS 5115116 Strategy Report 9. Oversight Implementation Strategy, _ including Appraisal Staff Market RO FS 6115116 Analysis 10. Request BLM Segregation PD FS FS N/A N/A 11. Request Appraisal FS FS 4115/16 12. Request Withdrawal Revocations (if FS FS N/A N/A an 13. Prepare Mineral Potential Report S. Gerwe FS N/A N/A (Request BLM Concurrence detailer 14. Prepare Cultural Report/SHPO Steve Lucas FS 4115116 Consultation 15. Prepare TES Report/Consultation Amy Jacobs FS 4115116 16. Prepare Wetlands/Floodplains Report Craig FS 4115116 Kendall 17. Conduct Environmental Site Assessment & LPB Risk Assessment. Debbie FS 9115116 Submit to RO Env. Eng. For approval 18R Access Analysis Len FS 4115116 are NEPA Analysis (CE) Michelle FS 5/01/16 Dra oo IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE (cont) Responsible Responsible Due Dates Action Item/Step for for implementation Strategy Items 21-49 Preparation Costs Target. Actual 20. NEPA Comment Period (EA) Michelle FS N/A N/A Draggoo 21. Respond to NEPA Comments (EA) Michelle FS N/A N/A Draggoo 22. Review Appraisal R1 FS 7115116 Appraisers 23. Prepare Decision Document FS N/A N/A 24. Oversight Decision Document RO FS N/A N/A 25. Issue Decision Document — Publish FS N/A N/A Notice of Availability of Decision EA 26. Decision Appeal Period 30 days) EA Public Public N/A N/A 27. Establish Account for Deposit of FS TBD Proceeds 28. Letter Offering Direct Sale FS FS TBD 29. Terminate Special Use Permits (if FS TBD needed)FS 30. Preparation of Purchase and Sale FS/OGC FS TBD Agreement 31. Execution of Purchase and Sale FS FS TBD Agreement 32. Submission of Purchase Price Non -Fed Party FS TBD 33. Deposit of Sale Proceeds to Special FS Fiscal FS TBD Account 34. Preparation of Quitclaim Deed, Req. RO/OGC FS TBD for Patent, Easement Deeds 35. Execute Quitclaim Deed or Patent FS FS TBD 36. Transmit Deed to Purchaser for FS FS TBD Recording Flathead County, Montana - Interactive Mapping System Page 1 of 2 FLATHEAD COUNTY GIS KALISPELL, MONTANA GIS Home Downloadable Data Search Help Contact Us maps€ale: 1:2,102 map center: latitude 48° 10' 34.79 longitude -1141 18' 17.54 active tool: pan map active laver: Parcel Owners Physical Address v J� I ' I 3AB tJ l 2 0 ' :3AA 3A i t 1 N+ z �, 1N+ o I U 4 a. iY Q 4C ?_101 U i 28 m tools 1:100. TR! C 0 http://maps.flathead.mt.gov/ims/default.aspx 2/4/2016 STATE OF MONTANA � sr>nL 3';? .' , , 4.7 County af•fs'1.n1:,itrs.ud.,........................... u. On this... % .t ....._ ......................day o/..................in the Vent nineteen hundred and lilt•t;y.-sl.x............... heforc .... ......_.. ......... .., a Notary Public fir the State of Illantaria, personally appeared......LtJitla..: !�.slAtk..stzd..k3sl:A t..iti....(iuslclt 1•nau•n In mr.i_...................... ................... I. ............. _.-..................... .._._................ ............ for tirmvrd to me on onih of ............ .................. .... ..................... ........................... ) to be the. per.-,wa . whose nnme.a......... subscribed to the within ins(rumen( and acltnomledged In ive (hot ......... t.hcy.... .... executed Ilse same. IN WITNF�S WHEREOF, / have hereunto set Inv hand and affixed my Notarial Scat the day and year fiat above u)ritlen. Notary I'ubtir for the .Slaic of Montana, Residing ot...--......u....,.,...:.. .............. ,.......'m9..... - . �.1:.na }, .,... :1/C Cnnuni.+star exprn:s. .... ....-_... ,lr. I r THIS INDE1,1141E, Xnde thin Firct_ F.; ',I Stuvo 1!+'ili, iotwecn The Ci'I:y of Rsrl..t.ere'l.l, a 1M,iicipal. >,•i.:�r•,tti0rt of the County of Flathead, i;lsate of :•ttt.?.nn ,arty of the. .':[rat. ,art nr:�.! ;.,�n llrStccd &Lator of Airr)a:t whose ri•ir, r e ! � part, w � c. host. u. •r. wirlraus Is rlanldigton, 11. C., pasty rd' the second part; tI,PI$!:a51't^i!, that thn saJd party of thn first, past, for arxl'in connidorntion of the mix;r,f 'ririrt hundrod Twnntyy-a1t•h1: Dollnry (3 fl2R.00 ) to It. in hand paid by kt; , rn.i u party 11v nvcnnd part:, the r000i pt. wheroof i r her-: -,y arknowl.edged, riagr!l by tisane presenl;n rr'nnt, 13arrnin, null, convoy, warrant, and confirm unto thn said partl- of tho snoond part and to its anaignu forever, the foUowinr do crib r,,-0 •ivt.nix-.., si,tuat-od iu the County of F'lathend, and 3tat,e oi11-rrritririn, to wits A tryst of Land approximately 300 .fe^t s:p,arcr sitvat-,r1 in the SW pli•I-I of net': or, 20, TinJnc,hir 211 tiorttt, liange 21 '.Jest, P.P.1•!., and beinit mere part:,c,ul,nrly doscr•:lbed ac followat Comtruncinp, at the flort,hwtyat corner of :lontinn 201 Township 28 11orth, Raore .l. +i,:;t; Lltanre Snuth 00061 'Aunt 1.i1r,2.5, feet alor:l; the weat(,.r%V boundar}^ of tlaid Section 20; thence plant i0 feet to the nani.erly boundary of the Ontmty rand, the true point of hPoTininitt thence oast 300 feat; thence south OoLY3r wens; 300 feet; thence west. 300 fer.t to tho easterly boundary of the County rond; thence Borth 00061 chat, along tilt rrly boundary of the County. road 300 feet to the true paint or bar,•; •tnd cnataining 7.0 acres more or lnaa. Subject, however, to the resery in the granter of riarem,�nts for ri.t±hts-of- rtv Car underground nduil.r. and an nnderrrwtnd never• line. Tognther w1.th nU nntl ai-?v:ular that r._t^ere:.i.w, hornr•itn:rr.oite and appurtennnres throlmunto helonrinr, or in any wisp apr,ertnirrinr,. TO lUNE Alit) TO HOLi), all and singular tha above m•:nt.ionoc; and decaribod preminns unto the maid party or tho nncond pert and to its assirnn rorevor•. Pr^oviAed, howc:vat, t,hnt if at arrr time the nnid nart,y of the sr:coy.d part shall decide t!ust that natal premises are no larva^r needed by the United 5tat.e11 and stall ad✓iso tho said party of" the first. Part to that effect in writing Lhen the raid preedses horei,rr conveyed shall, upon repnyntnnt to the said second t,. rl *.ha said nor.- n1deration hnreinabnve t?tated, revrrt to and hocorrt vest, : aid party or Lhe fist ;tort nn fully rind compintely as if this r,.onveyanee had iv�v-,r heron made, :ntb;Jeot, however, tr, tho ritrht of the said party of the second part to ronove, sell., or othoririnn dinporn of nng and all irgtrnirviwnts and strueturor, it, tarry have i•rtwtnd or curintrnat.vi on tho snid nremices. Anti Uw and nnrt} ,f' the first part and its assit;na doon hereby convnnnnt that it wLLI fnrover wa.•rart ani dofnnd all riplit, title and i'ntereat in and to the said pre?rinea and the quiet and peaceful possession thereof unto the raid party of the secorui part :end to its asnipns against Life acts and deeds of the said party of the first 'p•nrt and all >,r.d e,very ptvrtntt :tad prrsons whomsoever claiming or to claim ti c ono. r fF�f. 77— IN WTM$.WHMR9O? the said partY of the fireL part has caused its rwmr to be hereru.isa written and ita seel affixed the day and year first above written. as County of Flathead ,it;; cif1Ca.l.!;ape77 1'iv49_� _�. 1 apor Acknowlcdrment On this First day of June 1956 before mo II.J.Nunt a Notary Public for the State of Montano, personally appeared Claude Walter known to pre to be the Nayor of the City of liali.npoll, a Flunicipal. C.'rporat,iopr, the Irroon who yxeeutvd the within inatrruir<+nt and acknowledged to me that he executer) the same for and on behalf or said corporation. To W.I.V#SS WH> Mule, I have hereunto met W hand and a;ff:txed my vff:lei,ttl non] the day and Year i.n"this certi.ficnte first above written. 7,1tl r! Morita llotary Public f ' h?nntann Ras t dl nr, nt. na l : airnl 1, Montana. MY Gummiaction Oxpi.rAm i- dnY 1959 WIN rNJ 11; 'I �