Loading...
Staff Report/Annexation & Zoning dated 07/02/07City of Kalispell Planning Department 17 - 2"d Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Telephone: (406) 751-1850 Fax: (406) 751-1858 Website: kalispellplanning.com REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council FROM: Sean Conrad, Senior Planner James H. Patrick, City Manager SUBJECT Gateway Properties LLC. - Annexation and Initial Zoning of R-2, Suburban Residential MEETING DATE: July 2, 2007 BACKGROUND: The Kalispell City Planning Board met on April 10, 2007 and held a public hearing to consider a request for annexation and an initial zoning designation of R-2, Single Family Residential, and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay district on an 80.7t acre project site. The 80.7t acre project site is located on the east side of Highway 93 approximately 1 1/2 miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. The project site has approximately 1,100 feet of highway frontage between the Ponderosa Veterinary Hospital and Montana Home Outfitters. The properties included in the project site can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3 and Tract 213C in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. Sean Conrad of the Kalispell Planning Department, presented staff reports #KA-07-5 and KPUD-07-2, evaluated the proposal, and recommended the planning board recommend approving both the R-2 and PUD zoning request subject to the 13 conditions contained in the staff report. He noted the future subdivision plans for the property but at this time staff is only evaluating the initial zoning and PUD. At the public hearing the developer and two of his consultants spoke to the merits of the project. These include the mix of housing types, additional parkland and open space and how larger lots were included along the northern boundary of the project site to provide a transition into the Ponderosa subdivision. During the public hearing portion of the meeting the board heard from 9 neighboring residents. The majority of the speakers opposed the project based on concerns with the density of the project, potential water impacts to surrounding properties, traffic impacts, inadequate setbacks from the Ponderosa Subdivision and light pollution. Those favoring the project felt the increased density made sense and the type of density proposed should be located within the city limits. Others thought the project was well thought out and provided a lot of open space to coincide with the increased housing density. The planning board was also notified during the public hearing that a protest to the initial zoning district of R-2 was being submitted by adjoining property owners in accordance with State law. This provision states that if over 25% of the property owners living within 150 feet of the zone change protest, a minimum of 2/3 of the city council must approve the zone change. After the public hearing was closed the planning board discussed the initial zoning of the project site and recommended on a vote of 3-2 that the City Council approve an R- 2 zoning district for the site. The two board members who opposed the R-2 zoning cited concerns with the density of the project, requested deviations in the PUD and traffic impacts associated with the development of the site. After further discussion on the requested PUD portion of the project, a motion was made to table action on the PUD for Valley Ranch until the May 8, 2007 meeting. The motion to table passed on a roll call vote of 3 to 2. The board tabled discussion and action on the PUD portion of the proposal to address concerns both the board and public had on the project. After the April 10th meeting the developer revised the PUD plan submitted to the planning board's April 10th meeting. The altered PUD plan illustrated how staff conditions and input from the public during the April 10+h meeting would affect the PUD plan. The altered PUD plan was provided to the planning board with an attached memo prior to the May 8+h meeting. At the May 8, 2007 planning board meeting two more people spoke on the proposed PUD plan during the general public comment period. The main issues brought up were the increased density of the project, stormwater, the public benefit the PUD would provide and the inadequate notice of the revised PUD plan before the planning board. The board continued discussion on the requested PUD. The main focus of discussion was preserving the existing trees on the project site located between future lots in the Valley Ranch PUD and homes in the Ponderosa Subdivision. Planning board members noted that the revised plan dated April 23, 2007 provides a greater setback along the homes in the Ponderosa subdivision and would help to preserve the trees. A motion was made to amend condition # 1 to delete Valley Ranch PUD plan dated 3-5- 07 and insert the modified plan dated April 23, 2007 and recommend approval of the proposed PUD zoning district with the recommended conditions in the staff report as amended. This motion passed unanimously. At the city council meeting of June 4th the council heard from the developer and people speaking for and against the proposed zoning of R-2 and the requested PUD. Planning staff also informed the council that a petition had been received with over 25% of the property owners living within 150 feet of the land requesting the zone change protesting the requested zoning. In accordance with state law, staff informed the council that a minimum of 2/3 of the city council must approve the zone change request which includes the R-2 zoning and PUD zoning districts. Based on concerns of inadequate information to address issues such as water, sewer, stormwater and traffic as well as an insufficient information pertaining to architectural renderings of future homes on the site, council elected to not take action on the annexation request and instead scheduled the project for June 11th work session. At the June 11th work session the council heard again from the developer, planning staff and interested citizens. Some council members still took issue with the fact that a subdivision application was not submitted in conjunction with the PUD application to address issues brought up at the June 4th council meeting. After the June 11th work session the developer contacted the planning department and requested the PUD portion of the project be withdrawn and the request for annexation with the initial zoning district of R-2 be forwarded back to the city council for the July 2nd meeting. RECOMMENDATION: A motion to approve the resolution annexing the property and a motion to approve the first reading of the ordinance for initial zoning of R-2 would be in order FISCAL EFFECTS: Minor positive impacts once fully developed. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the city council. Respectfully sub ' d, -:� Sean Conrad Senior Planner Report compiled: June 22, 2007 Attachments: c: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk c w/o Att: Gateway Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 8776 Kalispell, MT 59904 Sitescape Associates P.O. Box 1417 Columbia Falls, MT 59912 awes H. Patrick City Manager Return to: Theresa White Kalispell City Clerk PO Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 RESOLUTION NO. 5208 A RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE ALTERATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL BY INCLUDING THEREIN AS AN ANNEXATION CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS TRACT 2, TRACT 3 AND TRACT 2BC IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 29 NORTH, RANGE 21 WEST, P.M.M., FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA, TO BE KNOWN AS VALLEY RANCH ADDITION NO. 393; 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 Gateway Properties, Inc., the owners of property located on the east side of Highway 93 approximately 1 1/2 miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive, requesting that the City of Kalispell annex the territory into the City, and WHEREAS, the Kalispell Planning Department has made a report on the petitioner's Annexation Request, #KA-07-5, dated March 26, 2007, and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission recommended that the territory be zoned City R-2, Single Family Residential, on approximately 80.7 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 above be annexed to the City of Kalispell and the boundary of the City is altered to so provide, and shall be known as Valley Ranch Addition No. 393. SECTION II. 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 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2007. Pamela B. Kennedy Mayor ATTEST: Theresa White City Clerk KA-0'7-05 Valley Ranch Annexation Cost of Services Analysis (Residential) Once annexed to the City, full City services will be made available to the property owner. Any necessary infrastructure associated with a future 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. Number of Dwelling Units proposed to be annexed • 0 Estimated Increase in Population: (based on US Census Figure of 2.2 per household) C 1. Cost of Services Per capita costs • Fire: $68.84 per person per year. Additional costs to the fire department 0 x 68.84 = $ 0 • Police: $110 per resident per year. Additional costs to the police department 0 x 110.00 = $ 0 • Administration: $39.48. Additional cost to administration 0 x 39.48 = $0 • Solid Waste: Additional cost to solid waste (none for five years) _ • Roads: $193.56 per dwelling unit Additional cost in road maintenance 0 x 193.56 =$ 0 • Water: $221.21 per ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit) Additional cost in water line maintenance 0 x 221.21 = $0 • Sewer: $329.64 per ERU Additional cost in sewer maintenance • Storm water: $72.68 per ERU Additional cost in storm maintenance Total Anticipated Cost of Services: 2. Assessment revenue based on square footage: Average square foot per lot (capped at 1/2 acre): • Storm sewer assessment $0.004480 per square foot (capped at 1/2 acre for residential) 0x329.64=$0 0x72.68 =$00 $ 0 $0 Revenue - storm sewer assessments: 1 x 21,780 x $0.004018 = $ 87 • Street maintenance assessment $0.0101 per square foot (capped at 1/2 acre for residential) Revenue -street maintenance assessments 1 x 21,780 x $0.0101 = $ 220 • Urban forestry assessment $0.00135 per square foot (capped at $150 for residential) Revenue - urban forestry assessments 1 x 21,780 x $0.00135 = $ 29 • Special Assessments: There are no special assessments. _ $ 0 • Light maintenance assessment $0.003 per square foot (no cap) Revenue - light maintenance assessment 1 x 21,780. x $0.003 = $ 65 Total Anticipated Revenue From Assessments: 3. Tax revenue: Assessed value of property: $ 5,992 Total assessed value: 1 x 5,992 = $ 5,992 Total taxable: 5,992 x 0.03543 = $ 212 Total revenue based on 170 mill levy: $212 x 0.170 = 36 Total anticipated Revenue from Property taxes: 4. Impact fees revenue: • Water system impact fee $2,155 per residence Revenue - water system impact fee upon hook up • Wastewater impact fee $2,433 per ERU (A single family home is (1) ERU) Revenue - wastewater impact fee upon connection • Storm water impact fee $1,092 per ERU (A single family home is (1) ERU) Revenue - existing development • Police impact fee $43 per single family residential unit Revenue - existing development $ 36 0x$2,155=$0 0 x $2,433 =$ 0 0 x $1,092 =$0 $401 0 x $43 = $0 • Fire impact fee $533 per unit (single family residential) Revenue - existing development 0 x $533 = $0 Total Anticipated Revenue From Impact Fees: $0 01 REVENUE SUMMARY Total assessment and taxable revenue to the City (Items 2 & 3) $ 437 Less costs of services to the city (item 1) $00 Net annual revenue to the city $ 437 One Time Impact Fee Payment to the City (Item 4) $ 0 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 services. This information can only be used as a general estimate of the anticipated cost of services and revenue. Additionally, the impact fees are based on an assumption that water and sewer impact fees will be paid at the time of hook up for the existing house and that storm water, police and fire impact fees are payable at the time of annexation of an existing residence. 3 Gateway Properties, Inc. REQUEST FOR INITIAL ZONING OF R-2 UPON ANNEXATION STAFF REPORT #KA-07-5 REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT #KPUD-07-2 KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT MARCH 26, 2007 A report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding the request for annexation and initial zoning of R-2 (Single Family Residential) and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on a property located on the east side of Highway 93 approximately 11/2 miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. A public hearing has been scheduled before the planning board for April 10, 2007, 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. A. Petitioner and Owners: Technical Assistance: Gateway Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 8776 Kalispell, MT 59904 (406) 249-7317 Sitescape Associates P.O. Box 1417 Columbia Falls, MT 59912 (406) 892-3492 B. Nature of the Request: The property owners have requested annexation into the City of Kalispell with the initial zoning of R-2, Single Family Residential, and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay zoning district on the 80.7t acre project site. The PUD will be known as Valley Ranch and is proposing 204 residential lots, 29 townhouse lots, a future assisted and independent living facility with up to 120 units and 15.1 acres of open space and parkland on the project site. The proposed plan departs from the requested zoning of R-2 with regards to uses permitted within the zoning district, minimum lot area, minimum lot width and setback requirements. A detailed discussion of the proposed deviations from the R-2 zoning district can be found on page 6. C. Location and Legal Description of Property: The properties included in the proposed project can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3 and Tract 213C in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7t acre project site is located on the east side of Highway 93 approximately 1 1/2 miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. The project site has approximately 1,100 feet of highway frontage between the Ponderosa Veterinary Hospital and Montana Home Outfitters. From the highway the project site extends east and south wrapping around the southern boundary of the Ponderosa subdivision. D. Eldsting Land Use and Zoning: The property is currently in the County zoning jurisdiction and is zoned SAG-10, Suburban Agricultural. The purpose of the SAG- 10 district is to provide and preserve agricultural functions and to provide a buffer between urban and unlimited agricultural uses, encourage separation of such uses in areas where potential conflict of uses will be minimized, and to provide areas of estate -type residential development. The 80.7t acre project site is currently undeveloped. The land is level for the most part with a small hill along the western boundary of the site adjacent to Highway 93. Portions of the eastern boundary of the project site are at the base of another small hill, the majority of which makes up the area developed with the Ponderosa Subdivision, a single-family residential subdivision located in the county. E. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning: North: Single-family homes and commercial business, County B-1 and County R-1 zoning East: Single-family homes; County R-1 and SAG-10 zoning South: Agricultural lands; County SAG-5 zoning. West: Commercial businesses and National Guard Armory; County SAG-10 zoning F. General Land Use Character: This site is in a mixed use area generally characterized as agricultural lands mixed with single family residences to the east and north of the site. Immediately south of the site is a large agricultural tract of land currently undeveloped. To the west, along Highway 93, are existing commercial businesses and a church. Across Highway 93, on its west side, is a private golf course. G. Utilities and Public Services: Sewer: City of Kalispell Water: City of Kalispell Refuse: Private contractor Electricity: Flathead Electric Cooperative Gas: NorthWestern Energy Telephone: CenturyTel Schools: School District #5 Fire: Kalispell Fire Department Police: City of Kalispell I. EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR MTIAL ZONING AND PROPOSED PUD OVERLAY The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-303, M.C.A. Findings of fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the itemized criteria described by 76-2-304, M.C.A. and Section 27.30.020, Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. 2 1. Does the requested zone comply with the growth policy? On August 7, 2006 the Kalispell City Council adopted Resolution 5129B which amended the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use map north to the intersection of Highway 93 and Church Drive. On the amended land use map the 80.7 acre project site is designated Suburban Residential with typical densities of up to 4 dwelling units per gross acre. The R-2 zoning designation being proposed for the 80.7 acre project site can be found to be consistent with the Suburban Residential land use designation shown on the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map dated August 8, 2006. The R-2 zoning district is intended primarily for detached single-family dwellings. It has a minimum lot size requirement of 9,600 square feet and a minimum lot width of 70 feet. Setbacks are 20 feet in the front and 10 feet on the sides and rear. The requested PUD would deviate from the minimum lot sizes but would maintain a single-family residential development except for a proposed assisted and independent living facility in the northwest corner of the project site. The Kalispell Growth Policy 2020, Chapter 3, Policy 9 states in part that suburban housing densities should not exceed two to four dwellings per gross acre. The proposed PUD would exceed this density slightly at approximately 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre, however section 27.21.030(4) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum permissible density of 5 dwellings per acre if a residential PUD is created. Subsection b of Policy 9 further states that the suburban residential designation is intended to reduce density and development impacts in sensitive areas and existing rural neighborhoods. The proposed R-2 zoning district limits the land uses to primarily single-family residences with a density of approximately 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed PUD would provide for larger lots, varying between 15,OOOt square feet to 30,OOOt square feet adjacent to the Ponderosa subdivision, as well as lots smaller than minimum lot size under the R- 2 zoning district. The Ponderosa subdivision is a rural neighborhood plated in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Lots within the Ponderosa subdivision vary between 1/2 acre to 1 acre in size. The proposed PUD layout would provide larger lots adjacent to Ponderosa as described above. The larger lots would provide a transition between the smaller single-family lots proposed in the interior of the PUD layout. Therefore, the proposed R-2 zoning district and PUD can be found to comply with the Suburban Residential land use designation and implement the policies regarding Suburban Housing as found in Chapter 3 of the Kalispell Growth Policy. 2. Is the requested zone designed to lessen congestion in the streets? As part of the overall project proposal the developer had a traffic impact study conducted to provide possible mitigation measures to the increase in traffic the development proposal will have on Highway 93. It can be anticipated that the proposed zone change of the property will increase traffic impacts in the area due to the relatively low density of the area currently and the relatively higher density allowed under the proposed R-2 and PUD zoning districts. However, through the 3 PUD and subsequent subdivision review process conditions will be recommended to insure that existing streets are upgraded and new traffic routes are provided to lessen congestion in the streets. A full discussion of the traffic impact study and recommended mitigation measures can be found under the review for the PUD in this staff report. 3. Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers? At the time this property is developed, the property owners will be required to insure that there is adequate infrastructure in the case of an emergency. There are no features related to the property which would compromise the safety of the public. New construction will be required to be in compliance with the building safety codes of the City which relate to fire and building safety. All municipal services including police and fire protection, water and sewer service is available to the property and will be utilized at the time another lot is created in the future. The site is within the immediate service area of the new north Kalispell fire station. 4. Will the requested zone promote the health and general welfare? The requested zoning classifications will promote the health and general welfare by restricting land uses to those which would be compatible with the adjoining properties and provides 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 suburban residential development. The anticipated densities of the proposed zoning districts can be found to be consistent with the land use designation for the site. All public services and facilities will be available to serve this property. 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? An increase in the number and concentration of people in the area will likely result after this land has been converted from county agricultural zoning to a more intensive residential use within the city. However, the intensity of the uses of the property would be in direct relationship to the availability of public services, utilities and facilities as well as compliance with established design standards. The design standards and availability of utilities would provide the infrastructure needed to insure that there will not be an overcrowding of the land or 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 further developed. 4 8. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewera,ge, schools, parks, and other public requirements? Municipal water and sewer will be extended along Highway 93 past the site to the Silverbrook Estates subdivision, located at the intersection of Church Drive and Highway 93, this summer. The water and sewer lines will be sized to accommodate this development. The developer would need to extend the needed city services that are not currently extended to the property at the developers' expense and in accordance with the city's policies and standards. New improvements to the property such as roads, water, sewer, parks and drainage would be installed in accordance with city policies and standards at the developers' expense thereby insuring that there is adequate provision of services at the site prior to development. Fire, police, ambulance and public access are adequate to accommodate potential impacts associated with the development of this site. There will be impacts to services that can be anticipated as a result of this proposal which can be met by the city. All public services and facilities are currently available or can be provided to the property. 9. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular suitability of the property for particular uses? The 80.7 acre site is fairly level throughout with a small hill on the western boundary of the site and some moderate slopes along the eastern boundary of the site. The proposed R-2 zoning would encompass the entire project site. As stated previously, Chapter 3, policy 9(b) of the Kalispell Growth Policy states that the Suburban Residential land use designation is intended to reduce density and development impacts in sensitive areas. The Suburban Residential designation encompasses the entire 80.7 acre project site. Based on the location of the proposed R-2 and PUD zoning districts and their corresponding uses and densities, the requested zoning does give consideration to the particular suitability of the property for the particular uses under the requested zoning districts. 10. Does the requested zone xive reasonable consideration to the character of the district? The general character of the area is a mix of agricultural, commercial and rural residential development. The proposed zoning allows this development to address needs within the community for a variety of housing types in reasonable proximity to the city core for the future. Availability of public water and sewer to the area indicate that this type of development will continue to occur on the urban fringes of the community to be developed with similar types of uses as is proposed with this property, i.e. suburban residential rather than rural residential or agricultural uses. It appears that the proposed rezoning gives reasonable consideration to the character of the district. 11. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings? The development anticipated under the proposed zoning is more intensive than the 5 land uses currently surrounding the project site. City standards will insure that there is high quality development which will insure the value of buildings and homes is protected, maintained and conserved. Value of the buildings in the area will be conserved because the zoning will promote compatible and like uses on this property as are found on other properties in the immediate area. 12. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout the municipality? Suburban residential development is encouraged in areas were services and facilities are available or can be extended to serve such development such as the development being proposed in conjunction with the annexation, initial zoning and PUD request. When the city council adopted the growth policy amendment for this area and designated the 80.7t acre project site as Suburban Residential, the council determined at that time suburban residential development was the most appropriate use of this land. The proposed zoning is consistent with the growth policy plan. EVALUATION OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: Project Narrative: Valley Ranch is a residential planned unit development proposed on property currently in the County. The property owners have requested annexation into the City of Kalispell with the initial zoning of R-2. The proposed PUD would allow a variety of residential uses on the 80.7 acre project site not currently permitted within the R-2 zoning district. The PUD request includes allowing 204 residential lots, 29 townhouse lots and a future assisted and independent living facility. The 204 residential lots would vary in size from 6,000 square feet to over 1/2 an acre. The 29 proposed townhouse lots would range in size from 2,640 square feet to 3,740 square feet. The assisted and independent living facility is proposed in the northwest corner of the site. The facility would encompass approximately 4.6 acres and, as stated in the application, will come back before the planning board and city council as an amendment to the PUD when the developers are ready to proceed with the facility. The intent of the initial zoning and PUD request is to secure the zoning and requested deviations included in the PUD to allow a future subdivision on the 80.7 acre site. The subdivision will, for the most part, comply with the plan shown on the Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development. In order to allow the design of the future subdivision shown as part of the application, the proposed PUD seeks six deviations or relaxations from the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The six relaxations are as follows: 1. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (1) (Minimum lot size in the R-2 zoning district) The minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet provides an overall maximum density within the R-2 zoning district of 4 units per acre. The proposed PUD seeks a density of approximately 4.4 units per acre (204 residential lots, 29 townhouse lots, 120 unit assisted living facilty/80.7 acres) which is slightly higher than the 0 permitted density under the R-2 zoning district. However, this density does fall within the permitted maximum permissible density of 5 dwelling units/acre under section 27.21.030, Standards for Planned Unit Development District (PUD), of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. 2. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (1) (Minimum lot size in the R-2 zoning district) This section requires a minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet for new lots created in the R-2 zoning district. The owners are requesting a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet for a detached, single family residence and 2,640 square feet for a townhouse lot. 3. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.020 (Permitted uses within the R-2 zoning district) This section of the code does not permit townhouse units with a configuration of 2 or more attached units. Townhouse units with a configuration of 2 or more attached units are allowed as a conditional use requiring a conditional use permit be secured prior to creating the townhouse lots. The developer is requesting that the townhouse lots be a permitted use rather than a conditional use. 4. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (2) (Minimum lot width in the R-2 zoning district) The minimum lot width in the R-2 zoning district is 70 feet. The developer is requesting the minimum lot widths be reduced to 48 feet for the detached single family lots and 25 feet for the townhouse lots. 5. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (3) (Minimum yard setbacks in the R-2 zoning district) The section requires a front and side corner yard setback of 20 feet with side and rear setbacks of 10 feet. The developer is requesting the setbacks be reduced to 10 feet for side corner property boundary on all of the lots within the subdivision. A reduction down to 5 feet from the side setbacks is also requested on all lots except the larger detached single family lots lining the northern and eastern boundaries of the project site (lots 1-16 and 179-204 as shown on the Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development). A 5-foot rear yard setback is also proposed on all lots with alley access. The 10-foot rear setback would still apply to those lots without alley access. 6. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.020 (Permitted uses within the R-2 zoning district) and Section 27.05.030 (Conditional uses within the R-2 zoning district) The developer is requesting that an assisted and independent living facility with up to 120 units be permitted within the R-2 zoning district. Currently assisted and independent living facilities are not permitted or conditionally permitted within the R-2 zoning district. 7 Criteria for the Creation of a Planned Unit Development IPUDI District The following information and evaluation criteria are from Section 27.21.020(2), of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the planned unit development provisions are to provide a zoning district classification which allows some flexibility in the zoning regulations and the mixing of uses which is balanced with the goal of preserving and enhancing the integrity of the neighborhood and the environmental values of an area. The zoning ordinance has a provision for the creation of a PUD district upon annexation of the property into the city. Review of Application Based Upon PUD Evaluation Criteria: The zoning regulations provide that the planning board shall review the PUD application and plan based on the following criteria: 1. The extent to which the plan departs from zoning and subdivision regulations otherwise applicable to the subject property, including, but not limited to, density, bulk and use, and the reasons why such departures are or are not deemed to be in the public interest; As stated above the owners are requesting six relaxations in the zoning and subdivision regulations. Below are the six relaxations requested with the consultants reasoning on why such departures are deemed to be in the public interest. Planning staff has provided its comments in italics. 1. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (1) (Minimum lot size in the R-2 zoning district) The minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet provides an overall density within the R-2 zoning district of 4 units per acre. The proposed PUD seeks a density of approximately 4.4 units per acre (204 residential lots, 29 townhouse lots, 120 unit assisted living facilty/80.7 acres) which is slightly higher than the permitted density under the R-2 zoning district. However, this density does fall within the permitted maximum permissible density of 5 dwelling units/acre under section 27.21.030, Standards for Planned Unit Development District (PUD). Section 27.05.010, Intent of the R-2 zoning district, states that it is a district to provide adequate lot areas for urban residential development. Development within this district should have good thoroughfare and be in proximity to community and neighborhood facilities such as schools, parks and shopping areas. Although much of the immediate land surrounding the proposed PUD site is agricultural or rural residential lands, the city of Kalispell is quickly growing north into this area. Silverbrook Estates, a 586 residential and commercial development, has recently been approved with the 325 acre site annexed into the city. Silverbrook Estates is located approximately % mile north of this project. A proposal for a "lifestyle center" incorporating commercial office, retail and a mix of residential housing has been discussed for the land immediately south of the project site. With recent annexations and upcoming development proposals in this area, the proposed development at 4.4 units an acre would provide a mix of housing types within close proximity to community and neighborhood facilities. The planning department would encourage higher densities within close proximity to community and neighborhood facilities. U 2. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (1) (Minimum lot size in the R-2 zoning district) This section requires a minimum lot size of 9,600 square feet for new lots created in the R-2 zoning district. The owners are requesting a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet for a detached, single family residence and 2,640 square feet for a townhouse lot. The proposed reduction in lot sizes would allow the overall density of the subdivision to increase. As stated above, the planning department does not have a problem with the increase in density for the R-2 zoning district in this particular area. The PUD would create smaller lots, however, the developers have offset the smaller lots by creating larger lots, 113 of an acre and larger, along the northern and eastern project boundaries. These larger lots would abut existing lots urithin the Ponderosa subdivision and provide for a transition from the smaller single family and townhouse lots within the project site to the larger % acre to 1 acre lots within the Ponderosa subdivision. In addition, the project proposes 15.1 acres of open space and park area totaling approximately 19% of the site. 3. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.020 (Permitted uses within the R-2 zoning district) This section of the code does not permit townhouse units with a configuration of 2 or more attached units. Townhouse units with a configuration of 2 or more attached units are allowed as a conditional use requiring a conditional use permit be secured prior to creating the townhouse lots. The developer is requesting that the townhouse lots be a permitted use rather than a conditional use. Townhouse lots are a conditionally permitted use within the R-2 zoning district. The proposed PUD would allow 29 townhouse lots or roughly 8 percent of the total number of dwelling units proposed as part of the Valley Ranch project. The developers have included in the project proposal 15.1 acres of open space and parkland. Planning staff would consider the amount of proposed open space and parkland a reasonable offset to permit the 29 townhouse lots as part of the project proposal. 4. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (2) (Minimum lot width in the R-2 zoning district) The minimum lot width in the R-2 zoning district is 70 feet. The developer is requesting the minimum lot widths be reduced to 48 feet for the detached single family lots and 25 feet for the townhouse lots. The reduced lot uidths would apply to the smaller, interior lots within the subdivision. Planning staff does not have a problem with the reduced lot widths as the developer has placed the larger lots which conform to the R-2 zoning district adjacent to existing large residential lots in the Ponderosa subdivision. Furthermore, the developer has widened the comer lots in order to accommodate the side corner setbacks required under the zoning code. The sidecomer setbacks are 9 greater in width than side setbacks and can be problematic if not taken into account during the design of future homes. 5. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.040 (3) (Minimum yard setbacks in the R-2 zoning district) The section requires a front and side corner yard setback of 20 feet with side and rear setbacks of 10 feet. The developer is requesting the setbacks be reduced to 10 feet for the side corner property boundary on all of the lots within the subdivision. A reduction down to 5 feet from the side setbacks is also requested on all lots except the larger detached single family lots lining the northern and eastern boundaries of the project site (lots 1-16 and 179-204 as shown on the Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development). A 5-foot rear yard setback is also proposed on all lots with alley access. The 10-foot rear setback would still apply to those lots without alley access The planning department does not have a problem with the reduced setbacks for homes on the individual lots. The setbacks proposed as part of the PUD are more conducive to the smaller, urban scale development the developer is trying to achieve. However, the 10 foot side corner setback and 5-foot rear yard setback would not apply to garages. Existing developments in the city have proved problematic when garages are allowed within 10 feet of the side corner property boundary. The potential to park in front of the garage is high which often times results in a car or truck extending over the adjacent sidewalk. This same problem can be extended to the garages setback just 5 feet from the alley. A car parking in front of the garage would extend into the travel lane of the alley. A 5-foot setback would work for a garage off of an alley if the garage is side loaded wherein the garage doors are facing parallel to the alley instead of perpendicular. 6. Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.05.020 (Permitted uses within the R-2 zoning district) and Section 27.05.030 (Conditional uses within the R-2 zoning district) The developer is requesting that an assisted and independent living facility with up to 120 units be permitted within the R-2 zoning district. Currently assisted and independent living facilities are not permitted or conditionally permitted within the R-2 zoning district. Assisted and independent living facilities are currently permitted as a conditional use within the low and medium density residential apartment zoning districts and the H-1 (Health Care) zoning district. The proposed assisted and independent living facility would take up an area approximately 4.6 acres or roughly 6 percent of the entire site. The assisted and independent living facility would provide options for residents in the area that may want to live close to family residing in homes to the south or east within the same subdivision. Chapter 3 of the Kalispell Growth Policy, Goal 1 states, "Provide an adequate supply and mix of housing that meets the needs of present and future residents in terms of cost, type, design and location." The incorporation of the assisted and independent living facility into the overall project would help the PUD achieve this goal. 10 Upon reviewing the PUD proposal the Fire Department and Building Department recommended that an automatic fire suppression system be required as part of construction for the assisted and independent living facility. The building and fire codes may not require it depending on the size of the future building and type of construction, however, the departments felt that requiring the developer to include an automatic fire suppression system in the building's design would help to alleviate life safety issues. Furthermore, the Planning Department is recommending that future design of the facility incorporate a public transportation stop since many of the residents within the facility may not be driving. Because of the lack of specific detail provided for the assisted living facility, the owners shall submit an amendment to the PUD specifically addressing architecture, access, parking, landscaping and screening and other impacts as deemed appropriate by the staff. Figure 1: View of the project site looking north towards Whitefish. Highway 93 is on the left side of the picture. The Ponderosa Veterinary Hospital and existing homes within the Ponderosa subdivision are in the background. The proposed PUD is deemed to be in the public interest because it provides housing options in an area of the city for which the type of density proposed has been anticipated. 2. The nature and extent of the common open space in the planned development project, the reliability of the proposals for maintenance and conservation of the common open space and the adequacy or inadequacy of the amount and function of the open space in terms of the land use, densities and dwelling types proposed in the plan; The PUD plan calls out 15.1 acres of open space and parkland throughout the 80.7 acre site. The 15.1 acres is in the form of neighborhood parks, perimeter buffers and accent areas at project gateways. The application states that the open space areas will be 11 governed by a homeowner's association with portions of the large open space/park areas offered to the City of Kalispell for public park space. The Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development plan shows seven areas labeled on the plan as park area. These park areas range in size from approximately 6,400 square feet to close to three acres in size. The park areas, as shown on the plan, are spread throughout the proposed project with a 20-foot wide buffer area located along the eastern and northern boundaries of the site to provide some separation from the project site and existing rural residential and agricultural tracts of land. One of the larger park areas proposed is adjacent to the park area of the Ponderosa subdivision. The Ponderosa park is privately owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The developer has proposed a large park area next to the existing park within the Ponderosa subdivision to allow for a generous sized open space transition between two residential developments. The proposed 15.1 acres of open space and parkland is adequate to provide for the active and passive recreational uses within the residential PUD. The PUD request would allow 204 residential lots, 29 townhouse lots, 80 assisted living units and 40 independent living units; a total of 353 dwelling units on the project site if the PUD is approved. Section 3.19(A)(2) of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations requires the subdivider to dedicate to the City a cash or land dedication equal to 0.03 acres per dwelling unit when residential densities in a proposed subdivision exceed 11,880 square feet per dwelling unit. This equates to a cash or land dedication equal to 10.59 acres. Although the assisted and independent living units technically would not be included in this calculation because no land is being subdivided to accommodate those units, the PUD still requires the city to address the open space needs of the development as a whole. Therefore, these units have been included in the open space review. The proposed 15.1 acres exceeds what would be required under subdivision regulations and can be considered appropriate for the amount of dwelling units proposed. However, of the 15.1 acres proposed as open space and parkland, at a minimum, 10.59 acres should be incorporated as parkland meeting the parkland requirements in the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations along with a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Director. Not only shall this land be included as parkland but improved to function as a park with improvements to be proposed by the developer and reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Director. The Parks and Recreation Department reviewed the proposed PUD park plan and had the following comments on the project. The Department recommends that when a subdivision is proposed the park areas should be condensed from seven down to two park areas which would serve an active recreation function in the subdivision. The Department felt that should the city accept the larger park areas, as stated in the application, maintaining two larger parks would be more economical than maintaining several smaller parks. The Department added that the 20-foot buffer areas along the perimeter of the project site may be counted towards the parkland requirements if a trail system is provided which connects the residential units throughout the project with the parkland areas. In addition, the Department felt that the proposed park area adjacent to Highway 93 would not be counted towards the overall parkland needs of the subdivision due to its location and undulating topography. The planning department would recommend that 12 this area remain as it provides additional open space within the overall PUD and, as stated in the application, would make a great site for passive recreation and excellent views of the valley floor and beyond. The open space area also provides a noise barrier for future residents to the east of the open space and Highway 93. Figure 2: View of the open space/parkland adjacent to Highway 93 looking south towards Kalispell. Highway 93 is just outside the picture frame on the right. The Kalispell Growth Policy, Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment, Policy 3.i.i recommends a minimum 100-150 foot impact area be provided for major entrances. The PUD proposes a 50-foot setback as well as a passive park area along the project's Highway 93 frontage. Fifty foot setbacks for minor entrances are recommended in the growth policy however Policy 2.c of the Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment identifies Whitefish Stage from West Reserve Drive to Birch Grove as a minor entrance way. Therefore, a condition on the PUD will require the impact area along Highway 93 to be expanded to a minimum of 100 feet. This would add approximately 30,000 square feet (0.7t of an acre) in addition to the proposed 15.1 acres of open space and parkland. 3. The manner in which said plan does or does not make adequate provision for public services, provide adequate control over vehicular traffic and further the amenities of light or air, recreation and visual enjoyment; The extension of water and sewer to the site will be required to serve the development. The application states that an 8-inch water main will be installed as part of the internal water distribution system. The 8-inch water main will connect to a future major transmission pipeline to be constructed along the east side of the Highway 93 right-of- way to service the Silverbrook development located north of the project site. The application also states that sewage collection will be provided by an 8-inch diameter or larger gravity sewer collection main that will drain to a pump station. The pressure main from the pump station will convey the sewage to the future new interceptor that will be installed along the east side of Highway 93 to serve the Silverbrook subdivision. 13 The General Layout for Water, Sewer and Storm Water for the proposed project indicates a sewage lift station would be located in the proposed park area immediately south of lots 70-76. Due to the visual presence and fencing accompanying a typical lift station a recommended condition of approval for the PUD would require a landscaping plan be provided as part of the preliminary plat of the future subdivision and implemented prior to final plat approval. The landscaping would help to screen the lift station from residents, pedestrians and vehicular traffic coming into and out of the subdivision. Storm water management will be required to be handled and retained on site. The storm water layout plan indicates a number of underground storm water detention areas will be utilized within the park areas throughout the project site. If the park areas are required to be condensed, then the storm water plan will need to be modified accordingly. The developer hired WGM Group, Inc. of Missoula to conduct a traffic impact study for the proposed project. The traffic impact study determined weekday average daily traffic to be approximately 2,600 vehicles trips. The majority of these trips during peak traffic hours are anticipated to travel south of the project site. As a result of the traffic impact study the Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development layout shows two access points along Highway 93 that would be 3/4 turning movements at this time (allowing left and right -turns in and right -turns out, but prohibiting left turns out for traffic to travel southbound on Highway 93). A full movement intersection onto Highway 93, which would allow traffic to travel south from the project site, is not proposed because of the poor level of service for this turning movement. Due to the access limitations to the site the traffic impact study recommends a connection with the commercially zoned property immediately south of the project site when the site is developed. A connection to the south would provide the project site with a connection with Rose Crossing and a potential future signalized intersection of Rose Crossing and Highway 93. The project proposal also includes future roadway connections to the east and south as well as a road right-of-way dedication to tracts 2BAA and 2BA located west of the site between the project site and Highway 93. Based on the traffic impact study, city staff is recommending that a condition of the PUD require the future subdivision on this site not be given final plat approval until a connection is made to the south or east which provides a full movement intersection. The access to the south would be through a potential commercial site and connect with Highway 93 as stated in the traffic impact study. To the east a future road connection is possible through existing agricultural land with a road intersection at Whitefish Stage. In either case, the future roadway connection will need to be constructed to city standards and be adequate to handle the volume of traffic generated by this development and subsequent development in the immediate area. The project includes approximately 2.7 miles of internal roadways constructed to city design standards. However, the developers have opted to design the roads with 7-foot wide boulevards instead of the standard 5-foot boulevards. The project design also includes the use of alleys on the smaller detached single-family lots and the townhouse lots. With the use of alleys planning staff is recommending the power, phone, natural gas and cable television lines normally placed just outside the road right-of-way instead be located within the alley right-of-way. This would place potential electrical and phone 14 pedestals in the alley preventing the street sides of the lots from being obscured with utility boxes and pedestals. The proposed R-2 zoning as well as the proposed PUD amendments still require housing setbacks and height limitations to provide for adequate light and air within the project proposal. Design guidelines have been included to provide housing standards to maintain the visual quality of the entire project. The park areas and open space area will provide the recreational amenity within the development. These facilities will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association with the larger parks within the project being offered to the city to own and maintain.. 4. The relationship, beneficial or adverse, of the planned development project upon the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be established; The project is proposed in a rural area of Flathead County with existing rural residential development immediately north of the project site. There are also several businesses located along Highway 93 immediately west and north of the site. Development of the 80.7 acre project site has the potential to impact existing residences of the Ponderosa subdivision located north of the project site. The Ponderosa subdivision is a rural neighborhood platted in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Lots within the Ponderosa subdivision vary between 1/2 acre to 1 acre in size. For decades residents in the Ponderosa subdivision have lived in a relatively quiet rural setting but as the city grows northward it is reasonable to expect city densities to accompany this northward expansion. The developers have tried to offset some of the housing density impacts by incorporating larger lots, varying between 15,000± square feet to 30,000± square feet, adjacent to the Ponderosa subdivision and proposing a park area next to the existing homeowners park in Ponderosa. The developer has also proposed a 20-foot wide open space corridor between the proposed lots and the existing lots within the Ponderosa subdivision thereby creating a greater setback from future houses within Valley Ranch to existing homes within Ponderosa. For the past 5 years the City of Kalispell has been experiencing tremendous growth outward from its city limits. Along the Highway 93 corridor large commercial subdivisions have been approved allowing larger, "big box" retailers to locate on the northern end of Kalispell. A new high school is currently under construction approximately 1 1/2 miles to the southwest of the project site. The Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map designates the 80.7t acre project area as Suburban Residential for which the map provides a density not to exceed 4 dwellings per gross acre. This Suburban Residential land use designation was designed to lessen the impacts future city growth may have on surrounding agricultural lands and rural residential development. S. In the case of a plan which proposes development over a period of years, the sufficiency of the terms and conditions proposed to protect and maintain the integrity of the plan which finding shall be made only after consultation with the city attorney; The application states that a phasing plan will be developed as soon as access connections are developed to facilitate a left turn access to Kalispell. The left turn access depends in large part on the development schedule of the property immediately 15 south of the project site. The developer is requesting that as soon as the connection to Rose Crossing can be made to facilitate a left turn movement south on Highway 93, the future development of Valley Ranch will proceed as phased preliminary and final plats. The developer has therefore not provided development phasing at this time. Although planning staff acknowledges the development constraints on the property and the developer's dependence on future projects located to the south, the proposed PUD, if approved, should have a sunset date. Planning staff recommends that the PUD be valid for a period of three years with the option for a one year extension. Within this time the developers would need to obtain approval of a preliminary plat for the project site. When a preliminary plat is submitted and approved for the site the preliminary plat will have up to three years to complete the first phase and two years to complete subsequent phases, if applicable. However, the PUD will expire if, after preliminary plat approval is given, the final plat is not filed within the above stated timeframes (i.e. a maximum of 7 years from the PUD approval date). 6. Conformity with all applicable provisions of this chapter. No other specific deviations from the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance can be identified based upon the information submitted with the application other than those addressed in the beginning of this report. RECOADMNDATIONS Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KA-07-5 and recommend that initial zoning of the 80.7 acre site be R-2 as shown on the zoning district map for the property. I1. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KPUD-07-2 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the PUD for Valley Ranch be approved subject to the conditions listed below: General Conditions: That the development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with the following plans, materials and other specifications as well as any additional conditions associated with the PUD as approved by the city council: • Valley Ranch PUD plan dated 3-5-07 • Valley Ranch PUD plan indicting lots sizes and land use types dated 3-5-07. Note: The approved PUD allows the density to increase in the R-2 district as well as allow a reduced lot size and width to accommodate the proposed PUD plan. 2. Townhouse lots with a configuration of 2 or more units shall be permitted within the Valley Ranch PUD however all garages shall be alley loaded. 3. An assisted and independent living facility shall be permitted within the Valley Ranch PUD. Prior to obtaining a building permit for the assisted and independent living facility the developer shall submit an amendment to the Valley 16 Ranch PUD for a public hearing showing the location, size, elevations, landscaping and parking associated with the assisted and independent living facility. Note: The building shall incorporate four sided architecture and an on - site public transit location. Building plans shall incorporate the use of an automatic fire suppression system. 4. Setbacks shall be amended as follows and shall apply only to the house unless otherwise specified: a. 10 feet for the side corner property boundary on all of the lots b. 5 foot side setbacks on all lots except the larger detached single family lots lining the northern and eastern boundaries of the project site (lots 1-16 and 179-204 as shown on the Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development) C. 5-foot rear yard setback for the garage only on all lots with alley access. The 10-foot rear setback shall still apply to those lots without alley access. Note: In order for a garage to utilize the 5-foot setback the garage doors shall be side loaded (garage doors are facing parallel to the alley instead of perpendicular) 5. The impact area along Highway 93 shall be expanded to a minimum of 100 feet. Within this area the developer shall incorporate a combination of berming, landscaping and a 10-foot wide bike/pedestrian path along the project's Highway 93 frontage. A detailed plan of this impact area shall be provided with the submittal of a preliminary plat for the project site. 6. Any parking or signage within the impact area shall only be permitted as an amendment to the Valley Ranch PUD. Signs shall be limited to monument signs and shall be located in the rear portion of the impacted area, other free standing signs shall not be allowed. 7. A landscaping plan for any lift stations on the project site shall be provided with the submittal of a preliminary plat. The landscaping plan shall incorporate a combination of trees and shrubs with a density adequate to screen the lift station from public view. 8. The future subdivision on the project site shall not be given final plat approval until a street connection is made to the south or east which provides a full movement intersection in order for traffic to travel south on either Highway 93 or Whitefish Stage Road. 9. The open space and parkland shall comprise of 15.1 acres plus the additional land area needed to provide a minimum 100 foot buffer along Highway 93. The area shown on the approved PUD plan as parkland adjacent to Highway 93 shall remain in size and shape as shown on the approved plan. Exact size and location of other parks shown on the approved PUD plan shall be determined by the city council with recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Director and planning board. 10. Upon submitting a preliminary plat for the project site the developer shall submit a parks improvement plan to be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Director. Of the 15.1+ acres of open space and parkland a minimum of 10.59 acres shall be incorporated as parkland. 17 11. The power, phone, natural gas and cable television lines shall be located within the alley right-of-way. Where an alley is not adjacent to the lot the power, phone, natural gas and cable television lines shall be located within a separate 5-foot easement outside of the road right-of-way easement. 12. Street lighting shall be located within the development and shall have a full cutoff lens so that it does not intrude unnecessarily onto adjoining properties. 13. Approval of the planned unit development shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of approval with the possibility of a one-year extension to be granted by the city council. Within this time the developers shall obtain approval of a preliminary plat for the project site. When a preliminary plat is submitted and approved for the site the preliminary plat will have up to three years to complete the first phase and two years to complete subsequent phases, if applicable. The Valley Ranch PUD shall expire if, after preliminary plat approval is given, the final plat is not filed within the above stated timeframes 18 Return to: Theresa White Kalispell City Clerk P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 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 made 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) fin-ther herein express an intent to have the property as herein described withdrawn from the WEVV UALA:e �j 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. This City hereby agrees to allow Petitioner(s) to connect and receive all available utilities from the City of Kalispell excluding solid waste services. MCA 7-2-4736 prohibits the city from providing solid waste services to this property for a minimum of 5 years from date of annexation. 3( ?/ a Petitioner/Owner Date Petitioner/Owner Date NOTE: You must attach an Exhibit A that provides a bona fide legal description of the property to be annexed. STATE OF MONTANA ) : ss County of Flathead County On this le day of _ before trye, the undersigned, a Notary Public for the State of Montana, personally appeared y�•C_� 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 WITNES R�O ve hereunto set my h d ane m Not Seal the day and year in this a ate�first .written. . STATE OF : ss County of Flathead County Notary-Publici State Residing at ` c My Commission expires: 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 , 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, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Notary Seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Public, State of Montana Residing at My Commission expires Exhibit A Legal Description Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development That portion of land situated and lying in the West Half (W'/2) of Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Principal Meridian Montana, Flathead County, Montana, described as follows: Government Lot 2 (shown as Tracts 1 & 2 of Certificate of Survey No. 4491, records of Flathead County Montana), the North Half (N'/) of Government Lot 3 (shown as Tract 3 of Certificate of Survey No. 4491, records of Flathead County Montana), and the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE%4 SW'/2 - shown as Tracts 7 & 8 of Certificate of Survey No. 4491, records of Flathead County Montana). EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING TRACTS OF LAND: Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey No. 5324, records of Flathead County, Montana, located in the North Half (N'/2) of Govemment Lot 3 of Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West; Principal Meridian Montana, Flathead County, Montana and Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey No. 5975, records of Flathead County, Montana, located in the South Half (S'/2) of Govemment Lot 2 and the North Half (N'/2) of Government Lot 3 of Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West; Principal Meridian Montana, Flathead County, Montana and That portion conveyed to the Sate Highway Commission in Bargain and Sale Deed recorded July 9, 1956 in Book 391, Page 408 and conveyed to the State of Montana Department of Highways in Bargain and Sale Deed recorded July 23, 1996, Instrument No. 96- 205-10010, records of Flathead County, Montana and That portion conveyed to the Sate Highway Commission in Bargain and Sale Deed recorded July 9, 1956 in Book 391, Page 408 and that portion granted to the State of Montana Department of Highways in Judgment and Final Order of Condemnation recorded January 11, 1996, Instrument No. 96-011-10250, records of Flathead County, Montana. METES and BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Government Lot 4, Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Principal Meridian Montana, Flathead County, Montana, which is a found brass cap, thence North 00' 09' 50" West 3,956.91 feet along the west boundary of Section 19 Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Principal Meridian Montana, Flathead County, Montana, to the northwest corner of Government Lot 2, Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Principal Meridian Montana, Flathead County, Montana, thence, leaving said west boundary of Section 19, South 893 39' 45" East along the north boundary of said Govemment Lot 2, a distance of 95.73 feet to the east R/W of U.S. Highway 93 and THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; said point is a found rebar with cap stamped #2516S, thence Continuing South 89' 39' 45" East along the north boundary of said Govemment Lot 2, a distance of 1,196.53 feet to the northeast corner of said Government Lot 2; said point is a found rebar with cap stamped #251.6S, thence South 00° 22' 21" East along the east boundary of said Government Lot 2, a distance of 1,318.91 feet to the southeast corner of said Government Lot 2; said point is a found rebar with cap stamped #2516S, thence South 890 36' 28" East along the north boundary of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE Y4 SW %) of Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Principal Meridian Montana, Flathead County, Montana, a distance of 1,329.98 feet to the northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE Y4 SW Y4), thence South 00° 16' 47" East along the east boundary of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE %4 SW %) a distance of 1,321.22 feet to the southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE % SW Y4), said point is a found rebar, thence North 89" 34' 58" West along the south boundary of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE % SW %4) a distance of 1,327.88 feet to the southwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE % SW Y4), said point is a found rebar with cap stamped #2516S, thence North 00' 21' 59" West along the west boundary of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NE % SW %) a distance of 660.24 feet to the southeast corner of North Half (N Y2) of Government Lot 3, of Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West; Principal Meridian Montana, Flathead County, Montana, thence North 89* 35' 39" West along the south boundary of said North Half of Government Lot 3 a distance of 561.63 feet to the southwest corner of Tract 2 of Certificate of Survey 5975 in said Section 19, records of Flathead County Montana, thence North 000 20' 38" East along the west boundary of said Tract 2 of Certificate of Survey 5975 and the east boundary of Tract 1 of said Certificate of Survey 5975 a distance of 928.89 feet to the northeast corner of said Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey 5975, said point is a found rebar, thence North 890 40' 37" West along the north boundary of said Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey 5975 a distance of 632.78 feet to a point along the east R/W of U.S. Highway 93, said point is a found rebar, thence North 140 28' 57" East along the east R/W of U.S. Highway 93 a distance of 33.77 to a found Montana Department of Transportation 2-inch diameter aluminum cap, thence Continuing along the east R/W of U.S. Highway 93 North 000 21' 47" East a distance of 499.90 feet to a found Montana Department of Transportation 2-inch diameter aluminum cap, thence Continuing along the east R/W of U.S. Highway 93 North 130 40' 24" West a distance of 144.31 feet to a point, thence Continuing along the east R/W of U.S. Highway 93 North 00' 20' 43" East a distance of 377.40 feet to the point of beginning and containing 80.626 acres of land, more or less. City of Kalispell Planning Department 17 - 2od Street East, Suite 211, Kalispell, Montana 59901 Telephone: (406) 751-1850 Fax: (406) 751-1858 PETITION FOR ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING NAME OF APPLICANT: Gateway Properties Inc. (Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development) MAIL ADDRESS: P.O. Box 8776 CITY/STATE/ZIP: Kalispell, Montana 59904 PHONE: Brent Card 249-7317 INTEREST IN PROPERTY: Owners Other Parties of Interest to be Notified: PARTIES OF INTEREST: Sitescape Associates, ATTN.: Bruce Lutz MAIL ADDRESS: Box 1417 CITY/STATE/ZIP: Columbia Falls, MT 59912 PHONE: 892- 3492, Fax: 892-0367 INTEREST IN PROPERTY: Land Planner, Landscape Architect PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: Address of the property: 3225 Highway 93 North, Kalispell Legal Description: Tract 2 in NESW, Tract 3 and Tract 2BC, Section 19, T29N, R21 W, Flathead County, Montana (Section, Township, Range) (Attach metes and bounds as Exhibit A) Land in project (ac) 80.678 Acres The present zoning of the above property is: Suburban Agriculture (SAG) 10 The proposed zoning of the above property is: Kalispell R-2 with a PUD Overlay State the changed or changing conditions that make the proposed amendment necessary: This request for initial zoning and annexation supports the applicants desire to develop a Planned Unit Development intended to accommodate single-family residential, townhouse and assisted/independent living units on the 80.68 acre property north of the current Kalispell City Limits. Once the zoning and PUD are approved the project will move forward as a phased residential development. The signing of this application signifies that the foregoing information is true and accurate based upon the best information available and further grants approval for Kalispell Planning staff to be present on the property for routine inspection during the annexation process. (Date) ORDINANCE NO.1615 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 27.02.010, OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, CITY OF KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE, (ORDINANCE NO. 1460), BY ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS TRACT 2, TRACT 3 AND TRACT 2BC IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 29 NORTH, RANGE 21 WEST, FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA (PREVIOUSLY ZONED COUNTY SAG-10, SUBURBAN AGRICULTURAL) TO CITY R-2 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KALISPELL GROWTH POLICY 2020, AND TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Gateway Properties, Inc., the owner of the property described above, petitioned the City of Kalispell that the zoning classification attached to the above described tract of land be zoned R-2, Single Family Residential, on approximately 80.7 acres of land, and WHEREAS, the property is located on the east side of Highway 93 approximately 1 %z miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive, and WHEREAS, the petition of Gateway Properties, Inc. was the subject of a report compiled by the Kalispell Planning Department, Staff Report #KA-07-5, in which the Kalispell Planning Department evaluated the petition and recommended that the property as described above be zoned R-2, Single Family Residential, and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board held a Public Hearing on the matter on May 8, 2007, and recommended that the initial zoning be City R-2, Single Family Residential, upon annexation to the City of Kalispell, and WHEREAS, after considering all the evidence submitted on the proposal to zone the property as described R-2, Single Family Residential, the City Council finds such 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 County Commissioners, Etc. 590 P2d 602, the findings of fact of KPD as set forth in Staff Report No. KA-07-5. 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 above as R-2, Single Family Residential on approximately 80.7 acres. 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 take effect from and after 30 days of its passage by the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, MONTANA, THIS 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2007. Pamela B. Kennedy Mayor ATTEST: Theresa White City Clerk April 10, 2007 To: The Kalispell City Planning Board Please accept the following detailed comments on the proposed Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development being developed by Gateway Properties. In brief our concerns include the following: 1. Failure of the applicant to comply with Section 27.21.030 (5) page 66: Standards for Planned Unit Development District.(PUD), that requires specific information be submitted as part of a PUD application including subdivision documents and other essential information that has not been provided as required. Details comments on this are provided in the comments that are attached_ 2. Failure to comply with state law 76-2-303 MCA on annexation hearings which allows that a municipality may only conduct a hearing on the annexation in conjunction with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation when the proposed new zoning is comparable with the existing county zoning. The proposed zoning of R-2 with a PUD is not comparable with the current zoning of SAG 10. 3. Failure to demonstrate that the proposed density and relaxed R-2 standards proposed under the PUD provide, as is required, that there will be an improved overall site design or comparable public benefits in additional open space. In fact the relaxed PUD standards provide for an equivalent R-4' zoning with little to no public benefit. R-1 is the classification associated with the Suburban Residential classification called for in the Kalispell Growth Policy, which the public was led to believe was the future density for this area unless significant public benefit was to be provided for increased density under a PUD. A PUD under the R-1 classification would allow for 3 dwelling units/acre not the 4.5 proposed. A PUD for this proposed development should demonstrate the significant public benefits and improved site design should include elements that: • Create an increased buffer (100 ft) between lots for lots 170-189 which back into a steep ponderosa tree covered slope and lots 7-18 which are in an area of historic drainage problems and an area with existing trees that should be retained for buffering. • Consolidate internally (as opposed to highway frontage) public park facilities in excess of the minimum required of 10.59 to offset density increases requested; • Assure that trail systems are scaled compatible with proposed trails in adjoining subdivision and that they include and provide connectivity to parks and trail systems in adjoining developments, • Provide greater buffers to adjoining development in exchange for requested higher density internally, • Do not allow for storm water or lift station facilities to be considered as part of calculations for park facilities or to be sited so as to interfere with the optimal function of park areas, 1 See attached Exhibit A chart that compares zone classifications v Retain existing trees, Address areas of high ground water and seasonal flooding. 4. Inadequate transportation infrastructure or solutions are in place to address transportation issues identified in TAC committee discussions and in the current new draft Kalispell Transportation Plan. Conditioning this development on the future development of a full movement intersection is premature and allows for speculative development not consistent with the predictability and time lines that a PUD is clearly required to provide as part of the City of Kalispell Zoning Regulations. This application is premature until comprehensive transportation guidelines are in place for the development being proposed north of Reserve Street. For example, it is of concern that the Sliverbrook development at Church Drive was approved with the assumption that an over -pass would be built and yet now it has apparently been announced that no funding for this by-pass exists! S. Staff recommendations for a series of future amendments to the PUD are not allowed under Kalispell Zoning Regulations 27.21.020 (7) Limitation on Rezoning or under requirements under 27.21.030 (5) that require certain information to be part of a PUD application —not future amendments to a PUD. Missing information and issues proposed for future amendments include: phasing of the development under the PUD, a park improvement plan, location of parks, development of a proposed assisted living center, future parking and, signage plans, and a street connection for a future full movement intersection. Encouraging and allowing for a series of future amendments also opens the door for amendments for other uses than say a proposed assisted living center. Lack of deadlines for future amendments may result in the inability to make adjustment to lots, parks, buffers, and streets. 6. Potential inappropriate citing of the proposed future assisted living center in an area where height, noise, and high groundwater may create unacceptable problems should be addressed now, not by future amendments to the PUD. Each of these six points is addressed in greater detail below. We request that you deny the application before you tonight and direct the developers to address the incomplete information that is required to be provided as well as the issues raised within these comments. This application is speculative in nature given that road infrastructure is not in place to serve it and time should be taken to create a better and more complete plan for this development. 1.) Incomplete PUD Application due to failure to submit Subdivision documents required by the Kalispell zoning regulations for a PUD application Section 27.21.030 (5) page 66: Standards for Planned Unit Development District (PUD), of the Kalispell Zoning Regulations, require that "The property owner applying for a PUD district classification shall submit three copies of a PUD preliminary plan which shall contain the following information. If a PUD also involves a subdivision, the submittal shall also include the information and documents required for application stated in the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations." (Emphasis added) 2 PONDEROSA ESTATES Flathead Valley's Finest Sub -Division • 4 Miles North on Hwy 93 March 30, 2007 City of Kalispell Planning Department Attn: Mr. Sean Conrad 17 Second Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Gentlemen: KALISPELL, MT 59901 On Friday, March 16, 2007, I met with Mr. Sean Conrad regarding the PUD proposed by Gateway Properties. During our discussion I emphasized that in no way is the Ponderosa Estates Homeowners Board connected with Gateway Properties in the development and construction of the Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development. Last summer Gateway Properties briefly met with the Ponderosa Board and said that they "might" buy property adjacent to our development. They explained what they "might" build and then went on their way. Some individuals on our board did express some concern regarding water tables, lighting, streets, lot size, etc. But in no way did we make specific requests -regarding anything Gateway Properties was contemplating. Therefore, the sentence in Section Ea on page 1 of their PUD, i.e., "This complies with a request by the Ponderosa Homeowner's Board of Directors." does not apply. I have discussed this with Mr. Brent Card of Gateway Properties Inc. and he has agreed that the afore mentioned sentence was placed on their PUD in error. Please do not consider it in any of your future deliberations. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mrs. Elaine Crahan. President Ponderosa Estates Homeowners Board Copy to: Mrs. Sharon Demeester Mr. Brent Card April 5, 2007 W O L F O R D Gateway Properties Attn: Brent Card P.O. Box 8776 Kalispell, MT 59904 Dear Mr. Card, Thank you for meeting with us on your project located to the north of Glacier Town Center.. As we discussed, while I am not necessarily opposed to connecting to your development and providing some access there are some concerns that I have with the project. I am not willing to have two connections north of my property. Two access points will have a negative impact on my ability to sell these single family residential. lots. In addition, it would require an awkward configuration: within my development. I would also like to have you provide similar butler to my property that I am providing you. I have attached a current image of our planning effort to this letter that indicates the access point that we are willing to provide you. Since I am not planning to develop this section for some time, per our discussion, I will expect that you will install the access road to meet my extension of Rose Crossing to City standards. This should include a 60' ROW, curb and gutter, a 7' grass boulevard behind curb line and a 6' walk on each side. While I am not asking you to install the utilities in this section, I will wish to coordinate with your contractor to stub utilities in this location with the contractor working on our lifestyle center. We had not anticipated working in that area for a while but I do not wish to have a temporary road running through my property nor a road that I have to damage in the future to install utilities. Good luck on your project and should you have any questions, please feel free to contact either myself or Wayne Freeman with CTA. Best Regards, j Buckv rolford Cc: Tom Juentz, City of Kalispell, .Planning Four Squares Business Center 4 1200 Mountain Creek Road, Suite 102 ® Chattanooga, Tennessee 37405 423.874.0811 - FAX:423.874.07,18 MAR 2 2007 fiU i3L� ilitiiti3 Stephen and Cheryl Wilson 348 Blue Spruce Lane Kalispell, MT 59901 March 26, 2007 Kalisrll City Planning Board 17 2° Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development Dear Planning Board: We recently received your correspondence regarding the above mentioned development and are writing to express some of our concerns. We have enclosed photos we took of the property being proposed for the development, and you will find references to thephotos on the enclosed plot plan. Photo #1 shows 2 red flags - the one on the left is 100 feet from the north boundary of the property and the one on the right is 20 feet from the boundary. Photo #2 shows a red flag 20 feet from the north boundary, where you see the chain link fence. Note the yellow stake warning of a buried gas line. There is a 3-cable electric transmission line buried just north of the gas line. Photo #3 shows the weeds and ground cover growing on the old slough that used to run across the parcel. Most of this area is too wet to even farm. Photo 44 shows the ground water that came from the area in photo 43. In the mid 1990s water flowed across Ponderosa Lane at this point. There is an on going drainage problem in this area. We have many concerns about this proposed development, but the issues that immediately come to mind are as follows: 1. Is the 20 foot wide designated park area at the north side of the proposed development adequate to accommodate both the buried utilities and the walking path that the developers have indicated will be along this corridor? In addition, there is only a ten foot set back requirement on the back of the lots south of this corridor, which will add further congestion. 2. The "buffer zone" between the building lots on the north side of the proposed development and Ponderosa Estates should be a minimum of 100 feet. 3. A public walking path is being proposed along the northern edge of the development within the proposed 20 foot designated park area. How is this to be maintained? An area of public access in such close proximity to the wooded environment of Ponderosa Estates is of great concern to us, primarily because of the potential fire hazard this would create. 4. As shown in photos 43 and #4, there is a serious drainage problem that needs to be addressed. Is it prudent to put in a housing development over an area with such serious drainage issues? Your consideration of these concerns will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, -jq &erylandteve Wilson v M k 3 4.k, k L -�AN 14 Li110 f-0-f LJ --CCYr iT w-7 S- P P c::.2r FqP— Tt-k ?(Z-O\4RUUG `t f-ANCc -+. - itry--tur�r '� `D,,LJE�7 7- , w\`t SPcNk&e- A, .y -z uU" L-E- tis0 To rs� G riTS �v�T! rsc- ;,o 6, lDo t'CePlC---7irT R-`� F t- � CrS Owl V t G1 J S {g ;� !y S (L Tc G P� � tt,t G—K- \ S S u C � A r4 ti V:o-e -TK;_: ZiLTk . N [A L-ZT Utk� a P t,s o rs S 6 i=, iL[, Q (-J tij . S �L a�►O::2-S[ANll iT-, �,ccre Cc) [TK S�ftA�t✓ tss��eS (�cGAf�-Dc�fG �rii$ SuL�i�iiSi4N ,. wE mPcw, E �s ci✓ R ��L`L� v� cn-2 -T t-t c c c [ A G t-tr� tit G NEW N� 1G� tP> NE9rR�� _ CiTH -S AT-e Co ' cE� (-so A&Dl&r Er.�U �Rc N WtE �.sTltl� ASS [cES S o- -t. AS q,-,, A,,-- t T t S NQ X ?'-t G hG t� L A Nb S C kp E , 07k-k Z�R-- S /\SLE e%o R �C vhi.v9 , 8u-r =C3����t�-��t�`-f y (3r-��.sG Ln p A..V C-,i,EhT 9-ECE>s�`i c��,n�[-e� b,lw,e (N 7"C PAS,i,�� �.SCw cnr- l_cnn[7�p v E't't a is S ��-C�-� �C� • �,�`i � u r� t3 Gam- �' � � {-ta`MES W � t_.1.. 6, �i ��.� 1�$� 1-0 v �l,l�, w �u�.6 E�E�'EP 1�'" �Ca NL� lCA i.,t,Y F�r� A N�� S c�+3 `� t\S i st �; i�.► FVIZ_ c,,3 4uA-L-("lit A- N3 i P-AP- .C- c:.o CCV-r-s S ,'� r-. c t^) +rt,-,\J£ 4'� �ECz t�(c:. tn'EAJLa-ES ccv w i Lulu - -Tt-L Lc t� wt� t t E[ 2 Pe z-�E Gr�.� r S G v cS �1 r► Pcl u-f , ZVV GlY4 ln) � �'� e��2rt to S' SAS PVN &XCCL -G tlo SkvE AS Vr\[A" NKUC-Pc— 1 PIN �—CAP( SS {v�- , f4 S xG�7E5?C`�� Grp .�S CUB S�Si'h(�,SiCt.i yr�Si'f SCt�E Lt�tN�CPIN ilk' ci11G T� uSt �, P� 0� �,lkG LA P G S r S S lk� Ut _ W� t (^ t t_ �- S,W ;�c(LC� -to vSTcl {° C m tN G rc, vtit u tTt; April 10, 2007 To: The Kalispell City Planning Board Please accept the following detailed comments on the proposed Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development being developed by Gateway Properties. In brief our concerns include the following: 1. Failure of the applicant to comply with Section 27.21.030 (5) page 66: Standards for Planned Unit Development District (PUD), that requires specific information be submitted as part of a PUD application including subdivision documents and other essential information that has not been provided as required. Details comments on this are provided in the comments that are attached. 2. Failure to comply with state law 76-2-303 MCA on annexation hearings which allows that a municipality may only conduct a hearing on the annexation in conjunction with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation when the proposed new zoning is comparable with the existing county zoning. The proposed zoning of R-2 with a PUD is not comparable with the current zoning of SAG 10. 3. Failure to demonstrate that the proposed density and relaxed R-2 standards proposed under the PUD provide, as is required, that there will be an improved overall site design or comparable public benefits in additional open space. In fact the relaxed PUD standards provide for an equivalent R-4' zoning with little to no public benefit. R-1 is the classification associated with the Suburban Residential classification called for in the Kalispell Growth Policy, which the public was led to believe was the future density for this area unless significant public benefit was to be provided for increased density under a PUD. A PUD under the R-1 classification would allow for 3 dwelling units/acre not the 4.5 proposed. A PUD for this proposed development should demonstrate the significant public benefits and improved site design should include elements that: • Create an increased buffer (100 ft) between lots for lots 170-189 which back into a steep ponderosa tree covered slope and lots 7-18 which are in an area of historic drainage problems and an area with existing trees that should be retained for buffering. • Consolidate internally (as opposed to highway frontage) public park facilities in excess of the minimum required of 10.59 to offset density increases requested; • Assure that trail systems are scaled compatible with proposed trails in adjoining subdivision and that they include and provide connectivity to parks and trail systems in adjoining developments, • Provide greater buffers to adjoining development in exchange for requested higher density internally, • Do not allow for storm water or lift station facilities to be considered as part of calculations for park facilities or to be sited so as to interfere with the optimal function of park areas, 1 See attached Exhibit A chart that compares zone classifications Retain existing trees, Address areas of high ground water and seasonal flooding. 4. Inadequate transportation infrastructure or solutions are in place to address transportation issues identified in TAC committee discussions and in the current new draft Kalispell Transportation Plan. Conditioning this development on the future development of a full movement intersection is premature and allows for speculative development not consistent with the predictability and time lines that a PUD is clearly required to provide as part of the City of Kalispell Zoning Regulations. This application is premature until comprehensive transportation guidelines are in place for the development being proposed north of Reserve Street. For example, it is of concern that the Sliverbrook development at Church Drive was approved with the assumption that an over -pass would be built and yet now it has apparently been announced that no funding for this by-pass exists! 5. Staff recommendations for a series of future amendments to the PUD are not allowed under Kalispell Zoning Regulations 27.21.020 (7) Limitation on Rezoning or under requirements under 27.21.030 (5) that require certain information to be part of a PUD application —not future amendments to a PUD. Missing information and issues proposed for future amendments include: phasing of the development under the PUD, a park improvement plan, location of parks, development of a proposed assisted living center, future parking and signage plans, and a street connection for a future full movement intersection. Encouraging and allowing for a series of future amendments also opens the door for amendments for other uses than say a proposed assisted living center. Lack of deadlines for future amendments may result in the inability to make adjustment to lots, parks, buffers, and streets. 6. Potential inappropriate citing of the proposed future assisted living center in an area where height, noise, and high groundwater may create unacceptable problems should be addressed now, not by future amendments to the PUD. Each of these six points is addressed in greater detail below. We request that you deny the application before you tonight and direct the developers to address the incomplete information that is required to be provided as well as the issues raised within these comments. This application is speculative in nature given that road infrastructure is not in place to serve it and time should be taken to create a better and more complete plan for this development. 1.) Incomplete PUD Application due to failure to submit Subdivision documents required by the Kalispell zoning regulations for a PUD application Section 27.21.030 (5) page 66: Standards for Planned Unit Development District (PUD), of the Kalispell Zoning Regulations, require that "The property owner applying for a PUD district classification shall submit three copies of a PUD preliminary plan which shall contain the following information. If a PUD also involves a subdivision, the submittal shall also include the information and documents required for application stated in the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations." (Emphasis added) 2 The Valley Ranch PUD clearly involves a subdivision and yet the application submittal file does not include the subdivision documents required for application under Section 27.21.030 (5) page 66. A list of issues that should have been more clearly addressed as part of required subdivision documents like an environmental assessment include: identification of historic areas of seasonal high groundwater, groundwater mapping, clarification of proposed ( but vague) "underground" storm water detention facilities and issues of high ground water, lot and parkland layout that could be problematic given areas of high groundwater, and lack of information regarding the source of city wells that will provide water. The well issue is of concern given the potential for problems under recent court rulings that may result in the lack of approval for new appropriations in the basin. New city wells are proposed at the recently approved Church Drive subdivision but it is not clear if the city has water rights for this development. Subdivision documents are needed to inform a decision by the planning board, the city council or to inform the public wishing to continent on this proposal. An environmental assessment is an important subdivision document needed given significant ground water issues in this area. This application should be rejected because the PUD application is incomplete and informed public comment and decision making, can not take place without this information piovided. Incomplete PUD Application due to failure to submit other documents required under City of Kalispell PUD Regulations including the following required under Section 27.21.030 (5)2 page 66: Standards for Planned Unit Development District (PUD): "(a). Proposed dimensional layout plan super -imposed on a two to five foot interval topographic -,map of the area drawn to a scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet showing all streets, buildings, open space, lots and other elements basic to the development;" Comment. THE SUBMITTED TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IS DIFFICULT TO READ AND, DOES NOT PROVIDE IMPORTANT SLOPE INFORMATION NEEDED INCLUDING SLOPE INFORMATIONFOR LOTS 170-189 WHICHBACK INTO A STEEP PONDEROSA TREE COVERED SLOPE AND LOTS 7-18 WHCH ARE INANAREA OF HISTORIC DRAINAGE PROBLEMS. THE B UIDABLE AREA OF THESE LOTS IN CONFORMANCE WITH SLOPE REGULATIONS AND NATURAL DRAINAGE AREAS 2 It is important to note that such information is not optional, but that the code say this information "shall be" provided. 27.21.020: General. The following application and review procedures shall apply to designation and approval of all planned unit developments in the city. (1). Initiation of Application: The land owner shall submit an application to the zoning commission for a change of zoning from the existing district to a proposed PUD district or for creation of a PUD district on annexation of the property into the city. The application shall be accompanied by a preliminary clan containing the information required in Section 27.21.030(5). In cases where the development will be executed in increments, a schedule showing the time within each part will be filed and completed, shall also be included in the application. SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH MISSING SUBDIVISION ANALYSIS FOR THESE LOTS. SINCE BOTH AREAS ARE TRANSITIONAREAS BETWEEN VALLEY RANCHAND PONDEROSA ESTATES THEYSHOULD BE REDESIGNED TO PROVIDE LARGER BUFFER FROM THIS EXISTING SUBDIVISIONAND OF THESE SENSITIVE AREAS. THE PROPOSED BUFFER AREA SHOULD BE INCREASED FROM 20 FEET TO 100 FEET. -(SEE MORE DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED BUFFER AREA BELOW) (b). Proposed locations, areas, densities and types of residential and nonresidential uses and structures within the area proposed to be developed and maximum height of ` buildings or structure; Comment. WHILE THE APPLICATION NOTES THAT IT WILL ALLOW FOR A MAXIMUM OF 35FEET IN BUILDING HEIGHT IT DOES NOT ADDRESS AREAS WHERE USE OF THIS FULL HEIGHT WOULD IMPACT VIEW SHEDS. THE STAFF REPORT REFERENCES "EXCELLENT VIEWS OF THE VALLEY FLOOR AND BEYOND" YET THE APPLICATION AND STAFF REPORT FAIL TO IDENTIFY AREAS WHERE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS MAYBE NEEDED TO RETAIN IMPOR TANT VIE WSHEDS JUST SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE INITIAL PROPOSAL BYBUCKY WOLFORD LIMITS BUILDINGS ALONG HIGHWAY93 TO ONE STORY HA VE BEEN PROPOSED. A SIMILAR HEIGHT LIMITATION SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE PROPOSED ASSISTED LIVIING CENTER THAT IS PROPOSED TO FROUNT HIGHWAY 93. (c). Proposed plans for handling vehicular traffic, parking, sewage disposal; drainage, water supply; site perimeter trea#ment`and other pertinent site development.%atiues Comment: THE APPLICATION IS LACKING IN NECESSARY DETAIL FOR ALL OF THESE ISSUES. PARKING —THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRE NO ON STREET OVERNIGHT PARKING AND REQUIRE TWO CAR GARAGES AND TWO GUEST VEHICLE PARKING SPACES ONEACH LOT. NO DOCUMENTATIONIS PROVIDED TO SHOW IF THIS IS DOABLE. SEWAGE DISPOSAL ---A LIFT STATION IS IDENTIFIED AS NEEDED AND SITED WITHINA PARKAREA. CREDIT FOR PARKLAND SHOULD NOT BE PROVIDED FOR THE AREA USED FOR THE LIFTSTATION. DRAINAGE NO INFORMATIONIS PROVIDED TO ALLOW FOR EVALUATION THE PROPOSED STORMWATER SYSTEM OF "UNDERGROUND TANKS". NO INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO DEMONSTRATE HOW STORMWATER GENRATED BY STREETS WILL BE HANDELED AND IF CURB AND GUTTER WILL BE USED TO DIRECT THIS WATER. WATER SUPPLY. NO INFORMA TION IS PR 0 VIDED AS TO HOWA WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM WILL BE DEVELOPED AND IF THIS INCL UDES THE DEVELOPMENT OF 7VE W WELLS THAT HA VE EXISTING WATER RIGHTS A VAILABLE IN THE AREA 0 AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO EXISTING WELLS IN THE AREA FROM THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LARGE CAPASITY WELL.. SITE PERIMER TER TREATMENT AND OTHER PERTINENT SITE DEVELOPMENT FEATURES —NO DETAIL PLANS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. ALL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PROPOSED ARE LEFT TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE DEVELOPER AND A DEVELOPER APPOINTED COMMITTEE. THE PUD SHOULD SET BASE STANDARDS THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED. THE RETENTION OF EXISTING TREES THAT BORDER, BUFFER, AND PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT CHARACTER FOR THE PONDEROSA SUBDIVISION HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. (d). Elevation drawings which demonstrate visually the general architectural features of each proposed building or architecturally distinct group or type of buildings and the site perimeter treatment; Comment: NO DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. (e). The plan shall show the boundary lines of adjacent subdivided or unsubdivided land and the existing zoning of the area proposed to be changed to PUD as well as the land adjacent thereto; (f). An enumeration of covenants in detail proposed to be made a part of the PUD and shall be enforceable by the city council; Comment: THE STAFF REPORT PROVIDES NO REVIEW OF THESE COVENANTS AND THEIR ADEQUACY OR ENFORCABILITY BY THE CITY. ANALYSIS IS NEEDED TO DETERMINE IF THESE COVENENANTS COMPLY WITH 27.22.030 Design Standards for Single Family Dwellings OF THE KALISPELL ZONING REGULATIONS. THESE COVENANTS OR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS THEY ARE CALLED BY THE APPLICANT DO NOT PROVIDE ASSURANCES OR DETAIL ABOUT THE MAINTAINCE OF COMMON AREAS AS REQUIRED. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHAT PARK AREAS WILL BE CITYPARKS AND WHAT WILL BE COMMONAREAS MAINTAINED BYA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. IT IS NOT CLEAR IF A HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION WILL EVER BE CREATED AND IF IT COULD HAVE ANY VOTING POWER. (g). A statement expressing the order in_ which the development shall occur and estimated time for completing the development. In case of a phased development, estimated time schedule for starting and completing each phase of the development shall be provided (emphasis added); Comment: NO PHASING PLANIS PROVIDED AS IS REQUIRED. IT IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH THESE REGULATIONS TO SUGGEST, AS THE APPLICANT HAS, THAT AT SOME UNKNOWN FUTURE DATE AFTER ADEQUATE TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE HAS BEEN BUILT B Y DE VEL OPMENTS TO THE SOUTH, THAT 5 THEN THEY WILL PROVIDE A PHASING SCHEDULE. CITYREGULATIONS CLEARL Y REQ UIRE THAT THIS SCHEDULE BE PROVIDED AND COMMITTED TO AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION. (h). Adequate provisions shall be made for a private organization with direct responsibility to, and control by, the property owners involved to provide for the operation and maintenance of all common facilities, including private streets jointly shared by each property owner, if such facilities are a part of the PIanned Unit Development, and in such instance, legal assurances shall.be provided which.showthat the private organization is self-perpetuating and adequately funded to accomplish its purposes: Real property taxes of the private streets and common areas shall be assessed as levied pro rata to all privately owned parcels within the district; Comment: SEE COMMENT ON (f) ABOVE. THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PROVIDED TO NOT PROVIDE FOR DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY TO OR CONTROL BY PROPERTY OWNERS LEGAL ASSURANCES ARE NOT CLEAR. (i). Adequate provisions shall be made for common facilities which are not`dedicated to the public to be maintained to standards assuring continuous and adequate maintenance at a reasonable and nondiscriminatory rate of charge to be beneficiaries thereof. Coimon facilities not dedicated to the public shall be operated and maintained by the private organization and at no expense to any governmental unit; Comment: SEE COMMENT ON (1) AND (h) above. THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO IDENTIFY WHICH FACILIES WILL BE COMMON AND WHICH WILL BE DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC THUS THIS REQ UIREMENT HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. 0). All private streets shall be maintained by the aforesaid private organization in such a manner that adequate and safe access is provided at all times to vehicular traffic so that fire, police, health, sanitation and public utility vehicles can serve the properties contiguous or adjacent thereto and so that said vehicles will have adequate turning area; Comment: IT IS NOT CLEAR WHAT STREETS WILL BE PRIVATE AND WHAT WILL BE ASSUMED BY THE CITY. (k). The off-street pa king ta,. a provided shall meet` the minimum standards for off-street parking;as per Chapter 2%26 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance; Comment: THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRE NO ON STREET OVERNIGHTPARKINGAND REQUIRE TWO CAR GARAGESAND TWO GUEST VEHICLE PARKING SPACES ONEACHLOT. NO DOCUMENTATIONIS PROVIDED TO SHOW IF THIS IS DOABLE OR IF IT COMPLIES WITH KALISPELL ZONING ORDIANCES. THE STAFF REPORT NOTES POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH PARKING UNDER ITS REVIEW OF THE PUD EVAL UATION CRITERIA #5 NOTING PROBLEMS WITH SETBACKS FOR GARAGES AND PARKING BLOCKING n SIDEWALKS OR ALLEY AREAS. IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THE RECOMMENDED "SIDE LOADED "GARAGE DESIGNADDRESSES ALL THESE ISSUES. (1). Where a PUD also involves a subdivision of land, it shall also meet the requirements of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations and the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act; Comment: AS NOTED EARLIER REQUIRED SUBDIVISION DOCUMENTATION WAS NOT PROVIDED. (m). The city council shall require bonding or any other appropriate collateral to ensure that all required improvements shall be satisfactorily completed in accordance to the approved plans, specifications and time schedule; and, Comment: NO CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED TO ESTABLISH THE REQUIRED BONDING. (n). Any other information, plans and details which the planning board and/or city council may desire to fully evaluate the development proposal and its impacts. Comment: GVEN THE RECENT REPORT ON THE KALISPELL TRANSPORTATION PLAN THAT INDICATES SIGNIFICANT FUTURE TRANSPORTATIONISSUES IN THIS AREA GIVEN THE DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED IN THIS AREA, THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE TABLED UNTIL FINIAL RECOMMENDATIONS ARE MADE BY THIS STUDY AND THESE RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE CONSIDERED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROPOSED PUD. 2.) Annexation hearing method is not consistent with state law. The proposed method of annexation for Valley Ranch is not in conformance with state law. 76-2-303 MCA3 which only allows that a municipality may conduct a hearing on the annexation in 3 76-2-303. Procedure to administer certain annexations and zoning laws - hearing and notice. (1) The city or town council or other legislative body of a municipality shall provide for the manner in which regulations and restrictions and the boundaries of districts are determined, established, enforced, and changed, subject to the requirements of subsection (2). (2) A regulation, restriction, or boundary may not become effective until after a public hearing in relation to the regulation, restriction, or boundary at which parties in interest and citizens have an opportunity to be heard has been held. At least 15 days' notice of the time and place of the hearing must be published in an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the municipality. (3) (a) For municipal annexations, a municipality may conduct a hearing on the annexation in conjunction with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation, provided that the proposed municipal zoning regulations for the annexed property: (i) authorize land uses comparable to the land uses authorized by county zoning; (ii) authorize land uses that are consistent with land uses approved by the board of county commissioners or the board of adjustment pursuant to part 1 or 2 of this chapter; or (iii) are consistent with zoning requirements recommended in a growth policy adopted pursuant to chapter 1 of this title or in a master plan, as provided for in 76-2-304(3), for the annexed property. 7 conjunction with a hearing on the zoning of the proposed annexation, provided that the proposed municipal zoning regulations for the annexed property: (i) authorize land uses comparable to the land uses authorized by county zoning;" The proposed land uses (R-2 with a PUD overlay allowing for smaller lot sizes) are not comparable with the existing county zoning of SAG-10. Under state law a separate hearing on annexation must be held prior to consideration of rezoning. This request for initial zoning and annexation should be rejected and the legally required separate hearing on annexation should be held first. 3.) Failure to demonstrate that the proposed density and relaxed R-2 standards proposed under the PUD provide, as is required, that there will be an improved overall site design or comparable public benefits in additional open space. The following definitions give guidance on the public benefit that should result from relaxed standards or increased density. 76-3-103. Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the context or subject matter clearly requires otherwise, the following definitions apply: (10) "Planned unit development" means a land development project consisting of residential clusters, industrial parks, shopping centers, or office building parks that compose a planned mixture of land uses built in a prearranged relationship to each other and having open space and community facilities in common ownership or use. From the Kalispell Zoning Regulations, Definitions'- Page 193, (169). Planned Unit Development. A tract of land developed as an integrated unit. The development is unique and is based on a plan which allows for flexibility of design, setting and density not otherwise possible under the prevailing zoning district regulations. From the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations 9.45 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD): A land development project consisting of residential clusters, industrial parks, shopping centers, or office building parks that compose a planned mixture of land uses built in a prearranged relationship to each other and having open space and community facilities in common ownership or use. A PUD allows for flexibility of design, setting or density, in exchange for improved overall site design. Public benefits for increased density should be the cornerstone of developments that request annexation into the city if Kalispell is to retain a former reputation for having great neighborhood. Given the significant density and relaxed standards be requested (b) A joint hearing authorized under this subsection fulfills a municipality's obligation regarding zoning notice and public hearing for a proposed annexation. History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. 136, L. 1929; re -en. Sec. 5305.4, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 11-2704; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 217, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 355, L. 1999; Sec. 34, Ch. 582, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 87, L. 2003. here public benefits should be demonstrated and required. We are proposing that the following public benefits be assured: • Create an increased buffer (100 ft) between lots for lots 170-189 which back into a steep ponderosa tree covered slope and lots 7-18 which are in an area of historic drainage problems and an area with existing trees that should be retained for buffering. • Consolidate internally (as opposed to highway frontage) public park facilities in excess of the minimum required of 10.59 to offset density increases requested; • Assure that trail systems are scaled compatible with proposed trails in adjoining subdivision and that they include and provide connectivity to parks and trail systems in adjoining developments, • Provide greater buffers to adjoining development in exchange for requested higher density internally, • Do not allow for storm water or lift station facilities to be considered as part of calculations for park facilities or to be sited so as to interfere with the optimal function of park areas, • Retain existing trees, • Address areas of high ground water and seasonal flooding. 4. Inadequate transportation infrastructure or solutions are in place to address transportation issues identified in TAC committee discussions and in the current new draft Kalispell Transportation Plan. Conditioning this development on the future development of a full movement intersection is premature and allows for speculative development not consistent with the predictability and time lines that a PUD is clearly required to provide as part of the City of Kalispell Zoning Regulations. The PUD application is premature and should be denied as demonstrated by it failure to meet the following PUD requirements: A) 27.21.030: Standards for Planned Unit Development District (PUD). (1). Location of PUD. A PUD district shall be located in an area where public and private facilities and services are available or are to become available by the time the development reaches the stage where they will be required. There is no know date for the development of a full movement intersection to the south and thus this PUD is premature and speculative and should be denied until certainty is available assure adequate public facilities. B) 27.21.020: General. The following application and review procedures shall apply to designation and approval of all planned unit developments in the city. (1). Initiation of Application: The land owner shall submit an application to the zoning commission for a change of zoning from the existing district to a proposed PUD district or for creation of a PUD district on annexation of the property into the city. The application shall be accompanied by a preliminary plan containing the information 6 required in Section 27.21.030(5). In cases where the development will be executed in increments, a schedule showing the time within each part will be filed and completed, shall also be included in the application. (emphasis added) Phasing can not be addressed until adequate public facilities are in place and thus this PUD is premature and speculative and should be denied until certainty is available assure adequate public facilities 5. Staff recommendations for a series of future amendments to the PUD are not allowed under Kalispell Zoning Regulations 27.21.020 (7) Limitation on Rezoning or under requirements under 27.21.030 (5) that require certain information to be part of a PUD application —not future amendments to a PUD. Missing information and issues proposed for future amendments include: phasing of the development under the PUD, a park improvement plan, location of parks, development of a proposed assisted living center, future parking and signage plans, and a street connection for a future full movement intersection. Encouraging and allowing for a series of future amendments also opens the door for amendments for other uses than say a proposed assisted living center. Lack of deadlines for future amendments may result in the inability to make adjustment to lots, parks, buffers, and streets. See regulation below. 27.21.020 (7). Limitation on Rezoning. The zoning commission shall not initiate any amendment to the zoning ordinance or Official Map concerning the property involved in a Planned Unit Development before the completion of the development as long as development is in conformity with the approved detailed Planned Unit Development and proceeding in accordance with the time requirements imposed therein. From and after approval of the Planned Unit Development by the city council under Sections 27.21.020(4) and 27.21.020(5) the building official is authorized to issue appropriate permits complying with approved plan. 6. Potential inappropriate citing of the proposed future assisted living center in an area where height, noise, and high groundwater may create unacceptable problems should be addressed now, not by future amendments to the PUD. This issue should not be the subject of a future amendment. In accordance with city PUD regulations such issues should be resolved as part of the original PUD approval. 10 y1..} R-3 R-2 Proposed Valley Ranch Underlying Zoning for PUD R-1 Suburan Residential (Growth Policy Designation for Valley Ranch) Valley Ranch (Proposed as a R-2 with a PUD Overlay with reduced lot sizes) I3cruity per acre-43,560 sq ft per Density per acre=43,560 sq Density per acre=43,560 sq ft per Density per acre=43,560 sq ft per Density per acre=43,560 sq it acre it \ ,U by 0000 sq ft ft per acre divded by 7000 sq acre divded by 9600 sq ft acre divded by 43,560 sq ft per acre divded by 7000 sq 11 minimum. hod size- 7.26 units of ft minimum lot size= 6.2 minimum lot size= 4.5 units of minimum lot size= Iunit of minimum lot size= 716 nuifs averuhc comparable density units of average average comparable density average comparable density of average comparable comparable density density 27A7.01(1: Intcul. A residential 27.06.010: Intent. A 27.05.010: Intent. A district to 27.04.010. Intent. A transitional PUD Intent: 27.21.010: Intent. district v"ith minirnunr Jul areas. residential district to provide provide adequate lot areas for district to provide for estate -type It is the intent of this chapter to Dcvc1opmcat within the lot areas for urban urban residential development; residential development and for the provide a zoning district district will rcquiri; all public development. This should have good thoroughfare performance of limited agricultural classification utilities, and all connnunity development must be served access, and be in proximity to activities. This district would which may provide flexibility 1=aciiitics. I wo 1'aomly by all public utilities, camnunity and neighborhood normally be located in rural areas of architectural design and dweliiugs Lire pernritred in this facilities, i.e., schools, parks, and serve as a buffer between urban mixing of land uses district. shopping areas, etc. This and unlimited agricultural uses, while preserving and enhancing development will normally These areas are generally beyond integrity and environmental require all public utilities. the service area of city municipal values of an area. 27.I17.046: Property sewer and water facilities. Dcrelopulent Staaulards. 27.tW040; Property 27.05.040: Property 27.04.040: Property Development Proposed Valley Ranch Development Standards. Development Standards. Standards. Development Standards. (I i. Aliirirnum I_ot ,'1rca: 6000 (I). Mininnun Lot Area; (1). Minimum Lot Area: 9600 (1). Minimum Lot Area: One Acre. (1). Minimum Lot Area: 6000 -quurc lcc[ 7000 square feet - square feet square feet ('t. t.liuioun, Lot 'Xiddt (F7'): 50 (2'). Minimum Lot Width .... __._ ., ........ ' (2). Mini num Lot Width (FT): 150. (2). Minimum Lot Width (FT): 13). Hininuuu Yards (FT); (FT): 60 (3). Milli muorYards (FT): (3). Minimum Yards (FT): 48 S-F Lots, 25LF (Tll Lots) (3). Minimum Yards (FT): (3). Minimum Yards (FT): Front Yard - 15 Front Yard - 20 Front Yard - 20 Front Yard- 30 Front Yard - 20 Sidi ', tud Side Yard - 5 Side Yard -10 Side Yard - 20 Side Yard - 5 or I Oil (lots 179- 204) Rcar Yard - 10 Rear Yard - 20 Rear Yard - 20 Rear Yard - 5whtlley, SILJI� Corner - 15 Side Corner - 20 I0wo/alley (a i. klaxinnuo Building I]eight (4). Maximo Building (4). Maximum Building Height Side Corner -30 Side Corner - 10 ( F'i'): 35 height (FT): 35 (FT): 35 (4). Maximum Building Height (4). Maximum Building Height (5). I'ermiuc.l Lan Cu crags ("/"): (5). Permitted Lot Coverage f5). Permitted Lot Coverage (90): (FT): 35 (FT): 35 0 (4/"): 40 35 (5). Pernitted Lot Coverage (%): 35 (5). Permitted Lot Coverage (6). 01 f Street I'm k oig: Ruler to (6). Off-Streer Parking: Refer (6). Off -Street Parking: Refer to (6). Off' Street Parking: Refer to (%"): 35 Chapicr 2726. to Chapter 27.26. Chapter 27.26, Chapter 27.26. (6). Off -Street Parking: Refer to (7), Niaxinrnnr Fmm:c l lcights (7). Maximum Fence Heights (7). Maximum Fence Heights (7). Maximum Fence Heights (FT): Chapter 27,26. (I T): (FT): (FT): As per Section 27.22.090 (7). Maximum Fence Ileights .=1s per Sceliou 27- 2_090, As per Section 27.22.090. As per Section 27.22.090. (8). Signs: Refer to Chapter 27.24. (1,T): (8) Signs: IMcr to (.hapter 27.24. (8). Signs: Refer to Chapter (8). Signs: Refer to Chapter 27.24. As per Section 27.22.090. 27.24. (8). Signs: Refer to Chapter 27.24. April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 213C in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots within 150 feet. Please refer to Montana Code Annotated 2005 as follows: 76-2-305. Alteration of zoning regulations - protest. (1) A regulation, restriction, and boundary may be amended, supplemented, changed, modified, or repealed. The provisions of 76-2-303 relative to public hearings and official notice apply equally to all changes or amendments. (2) An amendment may not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and voting members of the city or town council or legislative body of the municipality if a protest against a change pursuant to subsection (1) is signed by the owners of 25% or more of. (a) the area of the lots included in any proposed change; or (b) those lots 150 feet from a lot included in a proposed change. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE -5 U01 �5- �7'7S� c �a�flcfi LIVA� SPA. ►.� � 9v/ �& `7 5 ; -' 5 y p-�/1 T- � K rv�A%bE K0 5A LA r k�� s � F L z 3 96 7.5"6 3 ysc 7 April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 213C in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots within 150 feet. Please refer to Montana Code Annotated 2005 as follows: 76-2-305. Alteration of zoning regulations protest. (1) A regulation, restriction, and boundary may be amended, supplemented, changed, modified, or repealed. The provisions of 76-2-303 relative to public hearings and official notice apply equally to all changes or amendments. (2) An amendment may not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and voting members of the city or town council or legislative body of the municipality if a protest against a change pursuant to subsection (1) is signed by the owners of 25% or more of (a) the area of the lots included in any proposed change; or (b) those lots 150 feet from a lot included in a proposed change. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE t.. ,- ,--� - �.� C W ROMP5 April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 213C in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots within 150 feet. Please refer to Montana Code Annotated 2005 as follows: 76-2-305. Alteration of zoning regulations - protest. (1) A regulation, restriction, and boundary may be amended, supplemented, changed, modified, or repealed. The provisions of 76-2-303 relative to public hearings and official notice apply equally to all changes or amendments. (2) An amendment may not become effective except upon a favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and voting members of the city or town council or legislative body of the municipality if a protest against a change pursuant to subsection (1) is signed by the owners of 25% or more of. (a) the area of the lots included in any proposed change; or (b) those lots 150 feet from a lot included in a proposed change. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE ZA �- ►46— Z_.... _ �� 5q a/ April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 213C in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LO`T�# NAME ADDRESS y 3 tee/ PHONE -1 7Ss- (,©7/ April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 213C in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE 7 75 z -- -e_5 2 Ir ors P �t -b vas IN 10 112 ION 2��l t, 1,, d 7U '` April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 213C in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE i t% a.641) ZZ/tl 2 l �J 7-52-23317 8 - � Z' Z'Z 7�/cp-c� l..�J 1�3 UU�SfPOCJ7 L - 1 I SV �J pN , L 6�� b-ey, t--t 2 L April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA -I County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 213C in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE q'1V . .. . ............... -25 -7 ELICC ALI, �s 20 ` OX VZ" J, 1'�yc 1--2 fS�CJ-�La Zv �ss`i,! a -- / FA f6 61 April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 213C in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE S JTe c�+2 QJISo .3 �gtnG OlSo H t� 3 7� �,,,,,,�.�..�- .�•-� 7S 6� 6 o S 9 April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-I in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 213C in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this developmente. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE April 1, 007 r `GO pv SI � Kalispell Department 17 2nd t " `'' k ast, Suite 211 Kalispell, M'l59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-'1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 213C in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME ADDRESS PHONE �V `z'�0?1 �-F% s -- `ems a4'`� I YY4. 44, `7 f b ch ei t bb-� C)1 -7 c j April 5, 2007 Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any chase in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the-prop- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side oF Ifi— way 93 approximately l+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive WC lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. April 5, 2007 I I Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any chuigc 11 1',e current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the pry,=p eluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, any? T n Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east si&€ oi- 3-_=h- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive.�J= lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # NAME ADDRESS Pi-'._ ^1`>• r y-C -'-+ yA& J� ��, Arnbv'vs c-H q 4/ S jCct`�s �L1 Ali 9�ot © -St "7 a E" 6�- Q, 111�)t I- k-4 1—) c, April 5, 2007 7 i Kalispell Planning Department 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211 Kalispell, MT 59901 Attention: Tom Jentz We the undersigned, given the rural character of our neighborhood, wish to officially protest any change in the current zoning density of SA-1 County and R-1 in Kalispell City Growth Proposal Area of the properties in- cluded in the proposed project known as Valley Ranch. It can be described as Tract 2, Tract 3, and Tract 213C in Section 19, Township 29 North, Range 21 West. The 80.7 acre project site is located on the east side of High- way 93 approximately 1+ miles north of the intersection of Highway 93 and West Reserve Drive. We all own lots in Ponderosa or in close proximity to this development. LOT # /] NAME ADDRESS PHONE V'Gut- A FA /-fie �,vt, f (? <S�I /-tc 75 t Cs ct I-r l�C rZ r-4 c e -i A 1-1 iav Z I `f (r Iffiq1,14 J 4 lz+o )!2!2L arA- 9A!' �i (` Cr-a 'i" nt'� y5 rt�eeY 4� � � qr 'T- 5' `2? g 01 0s-'7-C)�7� f