Loading...
Staff Report/Annexation & Zoning dated 10/06/03Tri-City Planning Office 17 Second Street Fast — Suite 21.1 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 758-1850 Fax: (406) 751-1858 tricity@centurytel.net www.tricityplanning-mt.com REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council FROM: Thomas R. Jentz, Director Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT Nolan Holdings LLC Annexation and Initial Zoning of R-4 MEETING DATE: October 6, 2003 BACKGROUND: This is a request by Nolan Holdings LLC for an initial zoning designation of R-4, Two Family Residential on 3.9 acres located on the southwest corner of the intersection of US Highway 93 and Four Mile Drive in Kalispell. The property presently contains a nursery called the Greenery. This zoning designation anticipates single-family and duplex housing as a permitted use and has densities of up to 10 units per acre via the Planned Unit Development process. The property is currently zoned county SAG-10, Suburban Agricultural, 10-acre minimum lot size. No development proposal was submitted at this time. On September 9, 2003 the Kalispell Planning Board held a public hearing to consider the most appropriate zoning classification for the subject proper upon annexation to the city. Staff recommended initial zoning of City R-4, Single Family Residential based on the surrounding zoning and the Kalispell Growth Policy. At the public hearing the applicant spoke in favor. Five people from the neighborhood to the immediate south spoke raising concerns of increased density, increased traffic, the loss of views to the north and the incompatibility of duplex or denser housing in the immediate neighborhood. This neighborhood noted that while they are zoned R-4, by private covenant they are restricted to single family housing only. After the public hearing the planning board discussed the request and the density allowed under the proposed zoning and debated the appropriateness of R-3 single family zoning versus the proposed R-4 zoning. A motion failed on a vote of 6-1 to recommend R-3 zoning. The board ultimately voted 6-1 to forward a recommendation that initial zoning for this property should be R-4 as recommended by the staff upon annexation. A completed cost of services analysis is attached for your review. RECOMMENDATION: A motion to adopt the first reading of the ordinance for R-4 zoning upon annexation would be in order. FISCAL EFFECTS: Minor positive impacts once fully developed. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Council. Providing Community Planning Assistance To: • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish • City of Columbia .Falls • Nolan Holdings Annexation and Initial Zoning September 25, 2003 Page 2 of 2 Respectfully submitted, r, -- - - ..- � I Thomas R. Jentz Director Report compiled: September 25, 2003 c: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk Chris A. Kukulski City Manager Attachments: Transmittal letter Staff report KA-03-16 and application materials Draft minutes from 9/9/03 planning board meeting Cost of Services Analysis TiZANSMIT \KALISPEL \2003 \KA03-16MEMO RESOLUTION NO. 4838 A RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE ALTERATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL BY INCLUDING THEREIN AS AN ANNEXATION CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A", LOCATED IN SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 22 WEST, P.M.M., FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA, TO BE KNOWN AS NOLAN ADDITION NO.336; TO ZONE SAID PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE, AND TO DECLARE AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell has received a petition from Nolan Holdings, LLC, the owner of property located in the southwest corner of the intersection of US 93 North and Four Mile Drive, requesting that the City of Kalispell annex the territory into the City, and WHEREAS, the Tri-City Planning Office has made a report on Nolan Holdings, LLC's Annexation Request, #KA-03-16, dated August 29, 2003, and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission recommended that the territory be zoned City R-4, Two Family Residential, on approximately 3.9 acres, upon annexation into the City of Kalispell, and WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell desires to annex said property in accordance with Title 7, Chapter 2, Part 46, Montana Code Annotated. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. That all the real property as described on Exhibit "A" be annexed to the City of Kalispell and the boundary of the City is altered to so provide, and shall be known as Nolan Addition No. 336. SECTION IL Upon the effective date of this Resolution, the City Clerk is directed to make and certify under the seal of the City, a copy of the record of these proceedings as are entered on the minutes of the City Council and file said documents with the Flathead County Clerk and Recorder. From and after the date of filing of said documents as prepared by the City Clerk, or on the effective date hereof, whichever shall occur later, said annexed territory is part of the City of Kalispell and its citizens and property shall be subject to all debts, laws and ordinances and regulations in force in the City of Kalispell and shall be entitled to the same privileges and benefits as are other parts of the City. SECTION III. The territory annexed by this Resolution shall be zoned in accordance with the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. SECTION IV. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, THIS 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2003. Pamela B. Kennedy Mayor ATTEST: Theresa White City Clerk Tri-City Planning Office 17 Second Street East -- Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 758-1850 Fax: (406) 751-1858 tricitygcenturytel.net www.tricityplanning-mt.com September 25, 2003 Chris Kukulski, City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Nolan Holdings LLC - Annexation and Initial Zoning of R-4 Two Family Residential Dear Chris: The Kalispell City Planning Board met on September 9, 2003, and held a public hearing to consider a request by Nolan, Holdings LLC for an initial zoning designation of R-4, Two - Family Residential on 3.9 acres located on the southwest corner of the intersection of US Highway 93 and Four Mile Drive in Kalispell. The property presently contains a nursery called the Greenery. This zoning designation anticipates single-family and duplex housing as a permitted use and has densities of up to 10 units per acre via the Planned Unit Development process. The property is currently zoned county SAG-10, Suburban Agricultural, 10-acre minimum lot size. No development proposal was submitted at this time. Tom Jentz of the Tri-City Planning Office presented staff report KA-03-16, evaluating the proposed zoning. Staff recommended initial zoning of City R-4, Two -Family Residential based on the surrounding zoning and the Kalispell Growth Policy. At the public hearing the applicant spoke in favor. Approximately 5 people from the neighborhood to the immediate south spoke raising concerns of increased density, increased traffic, the loss of views to the north and the incompatibility of duplex or denser housing in the immediate neighborhood. This neighborhood noted that while they are zoned R-4, by private covenant they are restricted to single family housing only. After the public hearing the board discussed the request and the density allowed under the proposed zoning. A motion to consider R-3 zoning failed on a vote of 6-1. A motion was then made and passed on a vote of 6-1 to adopt staff report KA-03-16 as findings of fact and forward a recommendation that initial zoning for this property should be R-4 as recommended by the staff upon annexation. Please schedule this matter for the October 6, 2003 regular City Council meeting. You may contact this Board or Tom Jentz at the Tri-City Planning Office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Providing Community .Planning Assistance To: • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish • Nolan Holdings LLC - Annexation and Initial Zoning September 25, 2003 Page 2 of 3 Sincerely, Kalispell City Planning Board eor aylor esident GT/TRJ/ sm Attachments: Petition to annex (original) Exhibit A - legal description Staff report KA-03-16 and application materials Draft minutes 9 / 9 / 03 planning board meeting c w/ Att: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk c w/o Att: Nolan Holdings LLC, 607 Dakota Avenue, Whitefish, MT 59901 Raymond and Olivia Murphy, 2050 Hwy 93 North, Kalispell, MT 59901 TRANSMIT/ KALISPELL/2003/KA03- I6DOC Nolan Holdings LLC - Annexation and Initial Zoning September 25, 2003 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A NOLAN HOLDINGS LLC - #KA-03-16 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR ANNEXATION AND R-4 ZONING Tract A of COS# 7966 in Section 1, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana and including that portion of 4-Mile Drive that abuts Tract A extending to the centerline of the R/ W of Four Mile Drive. Jentz stated that the city components can be worked out, but that the city easement is only 20 feet and the owners would be hard pressed to get more from the city due to the location of existing utilities on this site. Atkinson asked about the 20 foot easement shown on the site plan and how far south Lot 32 goes. Jentz pointed to the footprint of an existing four plex to the immediate south of lot 32 stating that an access on the south side of lot 32 was not viable. Atkinson stated it was a neat design and a good looking project and it would clean up the corner, but there is no way to allow access of only 20 feet. He said that a single family or duplex unit is really the only option. Taylor asked Jentz if the 30 foot access was a deal breaker. Jentz stated they probably could not do the project if they could not get 30 feet; however, the applicant still has an option in working with lot 32. Hull stated that he feels the project would be too dense for the access and not good for the neighborhood. Atkinson stated that the road width would have to be a minimum of 20 feet and you'd have to have more than 20 feet of surface to pave. He feels that staff asking for 30 feet is reasonable and it is the bare minimum of what we can do. Norton agreed with Atkinson. ROLL CALL The motion carried on a 5-1 vote with Johnson abstaining and Hull voting against. NOLAN HOLDINGS, LLC A request by Nolan Holdings, LLC for an initial zoning INITIAL ZONING UPON designation of R-4, Two Family Residential, on approximately ANNEXATION 4 acres located on the southwest corner of the intersection of US Highway 93 and Four Mile Drive, upon annexation to the City of Kalispell. STAFF REPORT KA-03-16 _ Tom Jentz, 'with the Tri-City Planning Office, gave a presentation of Staff Report KA-03-I6, a request by Nolan Holdings, LLC for initial zoning of R-4, Two Family Residential, on approximately 4 acres located on the southwest corner of the intersection of US Highway 93 and Four Mile Drive, upon annexation to the City of Kalispell. Jentz showed the site plan noting that the youth sports complex to the north and FVCC is across US 93 to the northeast. Jentz said that zoning is a mixture of uses in this Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 9, 2003 Page 7 of 10 area, and that immediately to the south Sunrise Terrace has R-4 zoning. The applicants are requesting similar R-4 zoning, but have not submitted a development proposal. The Greenery is currently operating on this site and the property lies in the county on an SAG-10 agricultural zone. Jentz said that this land over the past decade has been surrounded by the city. He stated that the applicant initially wanted an RA- 1 zone, but decided to request an R-4 zone instead. Jentz said that staff made findings that it is a suitable request and that it complies with the growth policy. This is a single family and duplex zone with a minimum 6000 square foot lot. He stated that the applicant is looking for something a little denser than a single family or duplex neighborhood, and will possibly apply for a PUD at a later date. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished, to speak . on the issue. APPLICANTS/AGENCIES Norman Beach, Nolan Holdings, stated that he is looking at bringing the project back as a PUD after neighborhood discussions. PUBLIC COMMENT Carole Jorgensen, 723 Parkway Drive, currently living in Oregon. She stated that their development is all single family by covenant and that the neighbors have concerns about traffic, noise, safety, and property values. She asked the board to consider the detrimental effects on her neighborhood if it is developed as a multi family project. Arnold Forsyth, 729 Parkway Drive, stated that he has a beautiful view and does not want to lose it. Ralph Sletten, 741 Parkway Drive, said that he bought his property for the view and is concerned about tall apartments being built. He feels that 38 lots would be too much (the maximum density allowable under a PUD request). Dick Sonju, Lot 2, stated that he has a lot of concerns about safety and parking issues. He said that the Christian Center, the bail fields, and the college all add up to a lot of traffic and parking and he is concerned about adding more. He is mainly worried about the density of the area. Beth Forsyth, 729 Parkway Drive, stated that all of the homes on the south side are two stories and all the homes on the north side were held to one story in their covenants, and she has concerns about taller buildings obstructing her view. She also has concerns about the type of tenants. Beach was brought back for questions. Taylor asked if after hearing the neighbors' comments he had anything else to Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 9, 2003 Page 8 of 10 say. Beach said that he was not thinking about apartments but about townhonaes with possibly a cluster development. He stated that he wants to assure the homeowners that he would work closely with them.. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Johnson moved and Norton seconded to adopt staff report KA-03-16 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the initial zoning for this property should be R-4, Two Family Residential on approximately 4 acres upon annexation to the City of Kalispell. BOARD DISCUSSION Taylor asked Jentz if there were any height restrictions in the R-3 zone. Jentz stated that all residential zones have a maximum height restriction. of 35 feet. Thus a standard subdivision, regardless of zone could have tall houses obstructing views. However, if a project comes in as a PUD, all design standards are on the table and it would be a negotiated process. The entire project would be designed and described under a PUD so that there would be no surprises. Atkinson asked Jentz: if R-4 would be the designation and E would the PUD would be an overlay on that. E Jentz said yes and if the applicant chooses to go the PUD route, it would mean an additional public hearing process. Atkinson reminded the board that they are only discussing annexation and zoning and nothing further tonight. Johnson thanked the audience for loving where they live and stated the developer has other options available and this may not be where a lot of those concerns should be addressed. The board is only talking about the R-4 zoning tonight. Hinchey stated this is essentially an R-3 neighborhood and the board should respect that character and he would suggest that the parcel be zoned R-3. E ? MOTION (AMENDMENT) Hinchey moved and Taylor seconded to amend the main ? motion to R-3 zoning. DISCUSSION Johnson stated that we would be creating an island in the sky and he would be opposed to making it R-3 zoning. Kalispell Cite Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 9, 2003 Page 9 of 10 Atkinson. asked Jentz what the restrictions would be under R-3. Jentz said that a PUD could stilt be done, but that the density would be about 30% less dense. He stated that there could be approximately 26 units in an R-3 if it all was dedicated to residential. Jentz also noted that under a straight R-3 zone, the applicant could still build conventional 35 foot tall buildings blocking views. Hinchey commented that the neighborhood to the east is essentially an R-3 and we should preserve it. Taylor stated that the board cannot demand a PUD, but that it can dictate the zoning. He feels that the R-3 would be more compatible. Norton stated that he does not feel an R-4 zoning would be detrimental in this case and the board should zone it as such. Anderson agreed with Norton and Johnson. Atkinson also agreed, and stated that the board should only be concerned with the zoning. He said that the neighbors will have another chance to be heard, but he is afraid that the board is being swayed by irrelevant comments. ROLL CALL (AMENDED The amended motionn. failed 6-1 upon a roll call vote. MOTION ROLL CALL (MAIN MOTION) The main motion passed on a roll call vote by 6-1 with Hinchey voting against. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS Jentz suggested the sign ordinance be discussed in 2 weeks at the scheduled work session on September 23. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:13 p.m. The � next regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission will be held on Tuesday, October 14, 2003. The next work session will be held on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 at 7:00 pm. George Taylor President Judi Funk Recording Secretary APPROVED as sub.itted/corrected: / /03 Kalispell City Planning Beard Minutes of the meeting of September 9, 2003 Page to of t0 Nolan Holdings LLC Cost of Services Analysis Once annexed to the City, full City services will be made available to the property owner_ Any necessary infrastructure associated with this development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell's Design and Construction standards and any other development policies, regulations or ordinances that may apply. Note, no development proposal was submitted at this time; therefore the impact of the existing Greenery was analyzed. Four Mile is already maintained by the city and services are already in place as this is infill annexation.. Number of Dwelling Units within the Subdivision N/A Estimated Increase in Population: (based on US Census Figure of 22 per household) N/A Cost of Services Per capita costs • Fire: $68.84 per person per year. Additional costs to the fire department • Police: $110 per resident per year. Additional costs to the police department • Administration: $39.48. Additional cost to administration Unknown x 68.84 = $ Unknown Unknown x 110.00 =$ Unknown Unknown own x 39.48 = $ Unkn own • Solid Waste: Additional cost to solid waste none for five years Lineal Feet Costs: (Lineal feet - No new roads, sewer or water mains) • Roads: $1.14 per lineal, foot Additional cost in road maintenance • Water: $3.44 per lineal foot Additional cost in water line maintenance • Sewer: $S. SO per lineal foot Additional cost in sewer maintenance Storm sewer maintenance costs: Average Square foot per lot -- 169,884 Ox 1.14=$ 0 Ox3.44=$ 0 Ox6.50=$ 0 • Number of units x square foot x 0.0126 169,884 x 1 x 0.0126 = $ 2,140 Total_ Anticipated Cost of Services: $ Unknown Anticipated Revenue Generated Assessments based ou s uare foots e: Average square foot per lot: 169,884 • Storm sewer assessment $0.00323 per square foot Revenue from storm sewer assessments 1 x 169,884 x 0.005798 = $ 985 • Street maintenance assessment $0.0126 per square foot Revenue from street maintenance assessments 1 x 169,884 x 0.0126 = $ 2,140 • Urban forestry assessment $0.00135 per square foot Revenue from urban forestry assessments 1 x 169,884 x 0.00135= $ 229 Special Assessments: There are no special assessments. General revenue: • Assessed value per property: $375,000 Total assessed value: 1 x 375,000 = $ 375,000 Total taxable: 375,000 x 0.03543 = $ 13,286 • Total additional general revenue based on 144.65 mill levy: 13,286 x .14465 = $1,922 Total Additional Annual Revenue: $5 276 NOTE: This information is based upon assumptions regarding building valuations and does not take into consideration the build -out time or changes in methods of assessment and estimated costs associated with senices. This information can only be used as a general estimate of the anticipated cost of services and revenue. TFANSIvIITTALS ;' 2003/ KA03-16COSTOFSVCS NOLAN HOLDINGS, LLC REQUEST FOR INITIAL ZONING OF R 4 UPON ANNEXATION TRI-CITY PLA MING OFFICE STAFF REPORT #KA-03-16 AUGUST 29, 2003 A report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding the initial zoning of R-4 upon annexation to the city on property in. north Kalispell. A public hearing has been scheduled before the planning board for September 9, 2003 beginning at 7:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The planning board will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action. This report evaluates the appropriate assignment of a City zoning classification in accordance with Section 27.03.010(4) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The developer has petitioned annexation and initial zoning classification of R-4, a Two Family Residential district. The property is in the County zoning jurisdiction and is zoned County SAG-10, a Suburban Agricultural Zoning district with a 10 acre minimum lot size. This property will be annexed under the provisions of Sections 7-2-4601 through 7-2-4610, M.C.A., Annexation by Petition. The applicant will submit a development proposal for this site at a later time. Note that the original application and the pubic notice that was placed in the newspaper and sent to the adjoining property owners noted a request for RA 1 Love Density apartment zoning. The applicant has since altered the request designating a less dense residential zone compatible with the property abutting to the immediate south. .A. Petitioner (Purchaser): Nolan Holdings, LLC 607 Dakota Ave. Whitefish, MT 59937-2106 (406) 862-6061 Owner Raymond and Olivia Murphy 2050 Hwy 93 North Kalispell, MT 59901 (406) 752-7878 B. Location and Legal Description of Property: The property proposed for annexation lies in the southwest corner of the intersection of US 93 North and 4-Mile Drive. The site is wholly surrounded by the city of Kalispell. The site is currently occupied by The Greenery, a local landscape business. The property proposed for annexation and initial zoning can be described as tract A of COS# 7966 in Section 1, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. C. Existing zoning; The property is currently in the County zoning jurisdiction and is zoned SAG-10, Suburban Agriculture. The suburban agriculture district is intended to provide for and preserve agricultural functions and to provide a buffer between urban and unlimited agricultural uses. D. Proposed Zoning: City R-4, Two -Family Residential, has been proposed for the property. The R-4 zoning distract allows duplexes and single-family dwellings as permitted uses. The minimum lot size for the district is 6,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 50 feet with setbacks of 15 feet in the front, ten feet in the rear and five feet on the sides. Note that via the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, which requires planning board public hearing and City Council approval, this zone could potentially accommodate densities of up to 10 dwelling units/ acre. E. Size: The area proposed for annexation and zoning contains approximately 3.9 acres. F. Existing Land Use: Currently this property is being used as The Greenery, a commercial landscape and nursery business. G. Adjacent Lanes Uses and Zoning: The immediate area is characterized by a mix of residential, recreational and institutional uses. North: 160 acre youth sports complex containing youth soccer, baseball and football fields. P-1 zoning. East: US 93. Across the highway, several multi family structures and single family neighborhood. To the northeast lies Flathead Valley Community College campus. R-3 zoning_ South: Sunrise View subdivision (single family houses) R-4 zoning. West: Vacant land. R-4 & R-3 zoning and county zoning. H. General Land Use Character: The site in question, can be described as a remnant of agricultural land use that developed years ago at the northern edge of the city of Kalispell (the Greenery). The city has since grown a mile to the north of this site and the 3.9 acre property is now completely surrounded by urban scale land uses including single family housing to the south, a youth sports complex serving the greater Kalispell area to the north and the Flathead Valley Community College to the northeast I. Availability of Public Services and Extension of Services: Public services can be provided to this site and will be done in accordance with the City of Kalispell's Extension of Services Plan and in accordance with Kalispell's Design and Construction Standards. Water abuts the site to the north. Sewer is also to the north although the most immediate access could be via a boring under US 93 to the east to the City's lift station. 4-mile and Parkway Drive abutting the site are city streets. EVALUATION EASED 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 growth olie? The property is designated by the Kalispell Growth Policy future land use map as Urban Residential" which anticipates residential development with a density of between four to 12 dwelling units per acre. Because of the provision of public water and sewer to the site, the proposed R-4 zoning designation is in compliance with the future land use designation for the area. The R-4 zoning has a minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet with each lot allowing a duplex or a base density of one dwelling per 3,000 square feet. This same R-4 zoning is on the land immediately to the south, Sunrise View, where all of the lots have been developed as single-family lots. Nate that via the PUD process, the R-4 zoning could accommodate up to 10 units per acre. 2. is the requested zone deli ed to lessen congestion in the streets? Once the property is developed, all of the improvements and infrastructure will be constructed to city standards. Traffic in the area will increase. The requested zoning designation and subsequent development of the site will not lessen the volume of traffic in the streets. However, the city via the public review process has the ability to insure that future development has infrastructure including streets and traffic flows designed to limit congestion. 3. Will the requested zone secure safe from fire anic and other dangers? Adequate access and public facilities are available to the site in the case of an emergency. There are no features related to the property that would compromise the safety of the public. New construction will be required to be in compliance with the building safety codes of the City that relate to fire and building safety. All municipal services including police and fire protection, water and sewer service is available to the area and will be extended as part of the development of this property at some point in the future. 4. Will the requested zone proraote the health and general welfare? The requested zoning classification will promote the health and general welfare by restricting land uses to those that would be compatible with the adjoining properties and providing a place for new housing in the community. 5. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air? Setback, height, and coverage standards for development occurring on this site are, established in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to insure adequate light and air is provided. 6. Will the requested zone prevent the overcrowding of land? As previously noted this area has been anticipated for urban residential development and now that public water and sewer are in close proximity an R-4 zoning designation is appropriate. The anticipated Growth policy density projected for the site falls within the proposed R-4 zoning designation. All public services and facilities will be available to serve this site. An overcrowding of land would occur if infrastructure were inadequate to accommodate the development in the area. This is unlikely to occur. 7. Will the requested zone avoid undue concentration of people? Minimum lot standards and use standards as well as subdivision development standards will avoid the undue concentration of people at the time the property is developed. 8. Will the reguested zone facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage,_ schools, parks, and other public requirements? All public services and facilities are currently available or can be provided to the property. Development should be encouraged in areas where these services are available. 9. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular suitab4ity of the RM211X for Rarticular uses? The proposed R-4 zoning district is consistent with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area and gives due consideration of the suitability of this property for the permitted uses in the district. 10. Does the re uested zone W've reasonable consideration to the character of the district? The residential subdivision to the immediate south shares the R-4 zoning although it is developed at a much less dense pattern than can be accommodated by the R-4 zoning. The property abuts, U5 93, a major 4-lane arterial. To the immediate north lies 160 of developed open space and recreational complexes. Traffic access is good, the site has immediate access to public open space and abuts residential development. The site is well suited for residential development. 11. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings? Value of the buildings in the area will be conserved because the R-4 zoning will promote compatible and like uses on this property as are found on other properties in the area. Public review processes, including the subdivision review process and planned Unit Development processes that will insure that any development plans that do come forward for this site will receive public review and scrutiny. 12, Will the requested zone encourage the most a ro riate use of the land throughout the municipality? Urban. scale residential development should be encouraged in areas were services and facilities are available such as is being proposed on this parcel. The proposed zoning is consistent with the future land use designations for the area and surrounding zoning in the area. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KAW03-16 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the initial zoning for this property upon annexation be R-4, Two Family Residential. REPORTS \KA\©3 \KA03- I6, DOC Tj IN-O_- • 6 O M,NNUTIMNt Randy Brodehl - .Fire Chief Jim Stewart - Assistant Chief/Prevention Dee McCluskey — Assistant Chief'Operations TO: TOM JENTZ, DIRECTOR FROM: JIM STEWART, FIRE MARSHAL DATE: AUGUST 25, 2003 312 First Avenue Fast Kalispell, Montana 59901 (406)758-7760 FAX, (406) 758-7952 SUBJECT: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING — NOLAN HOLDINGS, LLC We have reviewed the information submitted on the above -referenced project and have the following comments. 1. Water mains designed to provide minimum fire flows shall be installed per City specifications at approved locations. Minimum fire flows shall be in accordance with Uniform Fire Code (1997) Appendix III -A. Homes in excess of 3600 square feet shall be provided with a minimum fire flow of 1500 gpm or more, dependent on square footage and type construction. 2. Fire hydrants shall be installed per City specifications at locations approved by this department. 3. Street designs shall provide for a minimum clear width of 20' for emergency vehicle access. No Parking signage shall be provided as necessary to maintain width. 4. Approved emergency vehicle turnarounds shall be provided at dead-end access roads that exceed 150' in length. This requirement will also need to be addressed during project phasing. 5. Secondary emergency vehicle access shall be provided as required by this department. This requirement will also need to be addressed during project phasing. 6. Street names/addressing shall be approved by this department. Please contact me if you have any questions. I can be reached at 758-7763, ".Assisting our communifIv in reducing, preventing, and mitigating emergencies. " Tri-City Planning Office 17 Second St East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 751-1850 Fax: (406) 751-1858 PETITION FOR ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING CITY OF KALISPELL NAME OF APPLICANT: a 4or-NAllu'alA�GL'0�x MAIL ADDRESS: ju/'+- o o CITY/STATE/Z : pt 97, - A6k6 PHONE: INTEREST IN PROPERTY:. A'ern, .4 A,(V S-6Ea Other Parties of Interest to be Notified: PARTIES OF INTEREST: #+(/►q 011�$0 A-$-o r-- Jt10 t MAIL ADDRESS: �;Qty CITY/STATE/ZIP: PHONE: INTEREST IN PROPERTY: f�1�rGS PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: Address of the pro Legal Description (Section, Township, Range) The present zoning of the above property is: and Block of Subdivision: Tract 9) metes and bounds as Exhibit A) The proposed zoning of the above property is:---E1VV&p t State the changed or changing conditions that make the proposed amendment necessary a , The signing of this application signifies that the foregoing information is true and accurate .,aced upon the best information available and further grants approval for Tri-City Planning staff to be ores : nt on the Property for rout inspection du2gthe annexation process. (Applicant) PETITION TO ANNEX. AND NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM RURAL FIRE DISTRICT The undersigned hereinafter referred to as Petitioner(s) respectfully petition the City Council of the City of Kalispell for annexation of the real property described below into the City of Kalispell. The Petitioner(s) requesting City of Kalispell annexation of the property described herein and further described in Exhibit A hereby mutually agree with the City of Kalispell that immediately upon annexation of the land all City of Kalispell municipal services will be provided to the property described herein on substantially the same basis and in the same manner as such services are provided or trade available to other properties within the rest of the municipality. Petitioner(s) hereby state that there is no need to prepare a Municipal Annexation Service Plan for this annexation pursuant to Section 7-2-4610, M.C.A. since the parties are in agreement as to the provision of municipal services to the property requested to be annexed. The Petitioner(s) fuherei press an intent to have the property as herein described withdrawn from the �`-- 55` hl Rural Fire District under the provisions of Section 7-33-2127, Montana Code Annotated; and that incorporated into this Petition to Annex is the Notice requirement pursuant to said Section; and that upon proper adoption of an ordinance or resolution of annexation by the City Council of the City of Kalispell, the property shall be detracted from said district. In the event the property is not immediately annexed, the Petitioner(s) further agree(s) that this covenant shall run to, with, and be binding upon the title of the said real property, and shall be binding upon our heirs, assigns, successors in interest, purchasers, and any and all subsequent holders or owners of the above described property. This City hereby agrees to allow Petitioner(s) to connect and receive the utilities from the City of Kalispell. Petitioner/Owner Please return this petition to: Tri-City Planning Office 17 2'6 St East, Suite 211 Kalispell MT 59901 NOTE: Attach Exhibit A STATE OF MONTANA ) J4 : ss County of Flathead County L%%G't '1Gtti �i? J�S;'✓2 '' �'- �O 16,E? CL lW15&,b,22, On this -'��'``day of �i a �' , bef re me, the undersigned, a Notary Public for the State of Montana, persona ly appeared �%ir�Ctrtri<� known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Notary Seal the day and f year in t4 41?9moskst above written. STAIWLF MONT ss County o' 3.ry Pu`b k, State of Montana�- Edin f l�IJc��f,T7" Commission expires: / - �2 C. � On this day of , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public for the State of Montana, personally appeared known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Notary Seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. STATE OF MONTANA ) ss County of Flathead Notary Public, State of Montana Residing at My Commission expires: On this day of I , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public for The State of Montana, personally appeared and , the and respectively, of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and the persons who executed said instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Notary Se< the day and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Public, State of Montana Residing at My Commission expires ID,,4—z 0—if- ORDINANCE NO. 1482 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 27.02.010, OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, CITY OF KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE, (ORDINANCE NO. 1460), BY ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS NOLAN ADDITION NO. 336 AND FURTHER DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A" LOCATED IN SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 22 WEST, P.M.M., FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA (PREVIOUSLY ZONED COUNTY SAG-10, SUBURBAN AGRICULTURE) TO CITY R-4 (TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KALISPELL GROWTH POLICY 2020, AND TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Nolan Holdings, LLC, the owner of the property described on Exhibit "A", petitioned the City of Kalispell that the zoning classification attached to the above described tract of land be zoned R-4, Two Family Residential, upon annexation, and WHEREAS, the property is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of US 93 North and Four Mile Drive, and WHEREAS, the petition of Nolan Holdings, LLC was the subject of a report compiled by the Tri- City Planning Office, #KA-03-16, dated August 29, 2003, in which the Tri-City Planning Office evaluated the petition and recommended that the property as described above be zoned R-4, Two Family Residential, as requested by the petition, and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopted the TCPO report and recommended the property as described be zoned R-4, Two Family Residential, and WHEREAS, after considering all the evidence submitted on the proposal to zone the property as described R-4, Two Family Residential, the City Council finds such initial zoning to be consistent with the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020 and adopts, based upon the criterion set forth in Section 76-3-608, M.C.A., and State, Etc. v. Board of Count Commissioners, Etc, 590 P2d 602, the findings of fact of TCPO as set forth in Report No. KA-03-16. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 27,02.010, of the Official Zoning Map of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, (Ordinance No. 1460) is hereby amended by designating the property described on Exhibit "A" as R-4, Two Family Residential, upon annexation. SECTION II. The balance of Section 27.02.010, Official Zoning Map, City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance not amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION III. 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 AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR THIS 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2003. Pamela B. Kennedy Mayor ATTEST: Theresa White City Clerk