06-27-786-27-78 A regular meeting of the Kalispell City -,County Planning
Board was `.held Tuesday, June 27, 1978 at 7:30 p.m. in the
Flathead County Courthouse East Community Room, 723
5th. Avenue East, Kalispell, Montana.
/;Members Present: Others Present:
/,Dale.W. Haarr 1 APO Staff Representative
James J. Thompson James E. Mohn
W. J. Lupton 34 Guests
%Dorothy Garvin
'Fran 011endike
Walter A. Griffin
:Ray Lybeck
>President Dale Haarr called the meeting of the Kalispell
:/.City -County Planning Board together at 7:45 p.m.
No Minutes for:. President Haarr advised that the Board would go right
Approval. into the meeting of the Planning Board, being that
there were no minutes to submit for approval.
President Haarr outlined the procedures for conducting
the public hearings, and proceeded to explain the
-formation of the Board along with the procedures
J involving Staff's involvement and then explained that
after the presentation of the proposal,testimony from
the proponents and then the opponents, and finally a
Ique-stion and answer period without, hopefully, too much
repetition.
Public Hearing::. Jim Mohn explained that the primary changes over the
Hartt Hill original submittal was overall density and the fact that
Estates. the development now proposed to connect with city sewer
services. The original development was for 71 lots of
approximately l acre in size and the development now
comprised 116 lots ranging from 14,000 to 22,000 sq. ft.,
with the balance of the development site being set
;aside either for park space or buffer, to separate the
individual residential lots from the highway from
adjacent parcels and as buffer along portions of the
Burlington Northern roadbed.
The overall density is approximately 2 d.u,p.a. park
space comprised 212 acres and the Park Board endorsed
the park concept earlier this month with the under-.
standing that the park and buffer strip would be deeded
to.the Park Dept. with the Homeowners Association being
formed within the sub division for administrative
purposes on thos park grounds.
The primary objections represented the instability of
the site as far as residential construction, roadways
and question of soil capability of handling onsite
sewage disposal.
Jim Mohn stated that the developers had reviewed the
overall plan and taken soil tests and that the soil
stability is capable of handling the sewage providing
that the sewage disposal would be handled by the City
of.Kalispell under a special sewer district.
1.
The question of highway access was also brought up and
the number of access points are the same, one at the
east end and one at the west end, which have been moved
to allow for more adequate sight distance. The eastern
most access has been moved approximately 500' and '"`
the western most access has been moved approximately
200' further west than it's original site.
Jim Mohn then.proceeded to read the Highway Department
comments which dealt with approach distance concerning
the intersection and indicated that it has 1,450' sight
distance to the west, 1,2.50' to the east and 1,150'
to the west. Also indicated was that the vertical curb
between the two approaches of 860' sight distance and noted
that 1,039' is a desirable distance at 50 m.p.h. They
estimated 696 vehicle trips per day in and out, which is
relatively more than the survey of a week ago. The
state uses approximately 6 v.t.p.d. as a base, whereas
the Staff uses 8. More traffic would raise traffic
accidents, which could be prevented by constructing four
lanes from the city and using a left hand turn lane.
They also indicated that there was not much likelihood of
monies being appropriated for reconstruction of Hwy 2
in the near future. Also indicated that acceleration
and decceleration lanes maybe necessary after completion
of the development.
Jim then proceeded to read the I. Design Evaluation from
the Staff Report. The Proposal would meet eit erthe
R-3 or R-2 PUD zoning. The existing Hartt Hill site
just north is equivalent to an R-2 Zone, The Staff
was willing to approve a higher overall density if
engineering characteristics permitted. Jim stated
that based on the land use history of the site and
the surrounding residential developments to the north
and west, the development is not out of character.
The Staff recommended approved based on:
1. That all water and sewer systems be approved by
the State Dept. of Health and Environmental Sciences
and the City of Kalispell,
2. that roads be built to a minimum of county standards
as directed by the'Board of County Commissioners
noting that the developers have indicated a desire
to build to city street standards,
3. that all road construction, cuts and fill be back
sloped and revegetated as outlined in Sec. f and g.
of the Protective Covenants of Hartt Hill Estates,
4. that the developer strongly consider zoning for
this area in accordance with Flathead County Zoning
Regulations as each Phase of the development is
submitted for formal approval.
Jim also discussed the letter from Alice Sowerwine,
copies of which had been transmitted to the Board
members and can be found in the proposal, Jim also
2.
stated that President Haarr had received a letter from
Mr. Frederick F. Sherwood of McGarvey, Lence and
Heberling, acting as Council for Ms. Sowerwine. There
was also an outlined from Mr. Heberling presented to the
Board of County Commissioners, and to the Planning Board,
which dealt with the fact no attempt had been made to
comply with the majority of the state statutes and
regulations, involving permission to be obtained prior
to considering attaching a sewer system, a discussion
of a feasibility of a hook-up with another sewer system,
does not discuss the cost or evidence of such tie, and
felt that it should be tabled till it met the require-
ments of the law.
Jim advised that the Board received a complete set of
Covenants, Environmental Assessment and other pertinent
data.
A correction to the Staff Report should indicate that
under E.l.g. - hook-up with the City of Kalispell sewer
system.
Dean Jellison represented the developer, called on
Bruce Lutz to present the design and reasons for changes,
and indicated that,he used -Mr. Heberling's outline as
a checklist. Went over the functional aspects and had
a soil survey done, whichfindings indicated that there
were some limitations, specially septic and specially
on Soils VI, with water table between 6 and 12'. Ph
level was about 7.8, and not that alkaline, and proceeded
to describe the soil compositions and capabilities,
which consisted of foundation limits and foundation
walls as per drainage, very compact with no slide
problems indicated: Plan increased by 40 units and
proposed a 38' curb and gutter, which open space can
handle 43 runoff on the street and the street can be
implemented without exceeding the 6.6% road grade by
traversing the slopes instead of running up and down
them. The houses were 1600 sq. ft. category with
400 sq. ft.. garage, a more cluster type plan. Implement
open space for the site to integrate additional
development and incorporate the park. The additional
lots will alleviate pressure on the outskirts of the
City.
Mr. Jellison, stated that the Highway Dept. indicated
concern that if the land was dedicated as a park, then
(there were legal problems with them taking that
property as r/w. Had no objection to deeding that
strip along the highway for r/w purposes and that way
was not locked in only to be undone by court process
and if they decided to extend the highway, they could
negotiate a trade or a cash -in -lieu -of.
Mr. Jellison also addressed the cost of the sewerage
systems as noted in Mr. Heberling's outline and the
City had indicated a willingness to accept the proposal
and therefore no necessity to address the cost versus
septic tanks.
President Haarr called on Mr. Sherwood to respond
3.
to the proponents of the proposal. Mr. Sherwood pointed
out some of the high points of his clients' concern
namely:
1. Mr. Sherwood asked that the Board consider
Mr. Heberling, Ms. Sowerwine and the Highway Dept.
input.
2.The wildlife will be effected not only on the site
but on adjacent parcels,
3. Need more information on the acquifer,
4. City sewer was not just merely a simple answer,
5. DCA required a commitment by the City to hook-up
prior to action by the Planning Board and/or Governing
Body,
6. Agricultural Soils with 50 Acres as #3 and 25 Acres
of #4 and fairly good agr-cultural land and will be
lost to that if the subdivision goes in,
7. Large.danger of erosion and steps should,be taken to
minimize it.
Mr. Sherwood feels that the Environmental Assessment is
incomplete and do feel that this submittal is an
improvement over the first submittal, but felt that the
present submittal.was still lacking in some categor-
ies, for example, Flathead County Subdivision
Regulations, Item 17. contain requirements for Covenants
and these Covenants do not meet the problems.
5.1.2.1 No flood hazards evaluations have been made,
and Ashley Creek is adjacent. Feels that it does' not
present information required to make an informed
decision, and until it is complete then the develop-
ment should be tabled, or to deny it for the original
reasons.
President Haarr opened the discussion to the public.
Rod Bozarth, 98 W. Springcreek Road, approximately
2 mile west of Ashley Creek, and present a statement
by the Homeowners Association with 32 signatures,
which included the following 6 objections:
11. It would result in the loss of almost 80 acres of
agricultural land that for more than 50 years has
helped sustain a major dairy farm.
2. The large well required to furnish water for 116
homes would threaten the water supply and water rights
of existing homes adjacent to the site.
3. The proposal for sewage disposal (connection to
the Kalispell system) we believe is premature, if
not a subterfuge, because the City has made no
commitment to allow such a hook-up. It appears to
us that the previous plan to utilize individual
4.
septic tanks would.have to be used, at least during
the first few years of development, with consequent
threat of pollution to nearby Ashley Creek and the area
along the creek proposed as a County Park.
4. The development would result in additional air
pollution from furnaces, fireplaces, barbeques and dust.
5. It would damage the wildlife habitat along Ashley
Creek, only about one -quarter mile downslope from the
subdivision. This area is now a natural refuge for
beavers, white -tail deer; foxes, Great Blue herons,
Mallard ducks, pheasants partridge, grouse and many
other species.
6. One hundred sixteen houses with the national average
of more than two automobiles per family would result in
serious traffic problems on US-2 at the access -exit
points. Eventually, this development probably would
require extension of the four -lane pavement on US-2
from the city limits past Hartt Hill. With necessary
right-of-way acquisition, such a project would cost
the State in the neighborhood of one million dollars,
an additional burden on already over -burdened taxpayers.'
Helen Lenish,.lives just across from where the
development is -proposed, but not quite adjacent. If
the project was to be built then all in the area wish
to have it done.right, specially since at the last
meeting they discussed the really bad soil problem
and now they've come in with a good soil report and
adding.more houses on the property. There are deer
on the property -.so when it is said there is no wildlife,
this is not true. Ashley Creek is from 20 - 30 yards
away, but the park is supposed to use it as a wildlife
and with that many people and dogs, there won't be
any wildlife and as far'as removing this ground from
the agricultural category, this has been a productive
dairy farm in years past. She felt that the Board
had already made up it's mind on the basis of all the
adjacent land to the City being turned into residential
homes. Also the septic systems were bad and if they
were to get city s.ewers,.then this should be put .in
writing prior to building. Concerned also with the
contour on the map. The area indicated for park was
to be on ground without more than 6% slope and this
seemed.to have more, and this should be checked over.
Dale Haarr indicated that at no time had the group
come in with a decision already made. It has been
discussed perhaps prior and yet this is the purpose
for all the testimony and questions and discussions at
the meeting. He stated that they had to make the
assumption that it was professionals who were preparing
all the material for them at these hearings, and the
Board was faced with -approving housing of some; sort in
a circle around Kalispell, and took this into
consideration, including all the points that are brought
up about the area, and of'course people do not want
development nextto them either.
5.
Mrs. Bozarth felt that the park area should be pro-
tected particularly around Ashley Creek, which should
be a nature park with animals protected. The homes
that were clustered will spoil the view of the Creek,
but Peterson's Slough is along there and it could
have a nice park walk for hiking and the view,
and she presented pictures of cows grazing on the
pastureland. She also indicated that if there were
adequate countryside within walking distance then a
high-rise complex would be the ideal thing.
Mrs. W. C. Peterson, resident on Hartt Hill, is
having sewer problems, after having the septic cleaned
because of drainage problems and high water table.
She said that the ground was rocks and stones and was
told that part of her problem was because of the heavy
snow during the winter, and of course the supply of
water, and some of the wells west of the site had
gone dry three years previously.
Norm Johnson was interested in this subdivision and
wondered where the storm runoff would be going.
Bruse Lutz indicated there would be a storm sewer along
the road, but not completely engineered yet.
Norm Johnson indicated that there was a storm drainage
run off down into the lower area, which is the park
area, and during periods of peak runoff, his backyard
floods, so he raised his property level to do away
with the problem.
President Haarr turned the meeting over to the Board
Members for questions.
Fran 011endike wished to know what type of contact
had been made with the City as to hook-up for the
sewage? Also said and questioned whether this was just
a vague assumption or had actual contact been made?
Paul Stokes, Stahly Engineering, Mr. Bitney, and
Mr. Claypool and developer had met with the Sewer and
Water Committee, along with councilmen and discussed
this at length and the Committee was receptive to the
idea and help control the urban sprawl, and by use of
the sewer could require utilities to be at city
standards and the property owners would waive the
right to protest annexation.
Fran questioned the contact and Mr. Stokes advised that
they had talked to the Sewer and Water Committee.
Fran did state that there was nothing specific about
the commitment though and Mr. Jellison indicated that
no contract had been signed, but had no objection to
have the approval conditioned on City hook-up and
he anticipated no problems. Jim Thompson stated
that first, the developer needed land use approval
and then came the technical problem solution.
Mr. Bitney indicated that this had happened before.
The idea was to make it as nice an area as possible,
and if starting an area it should be started right and
6.
C)
and didn't feel it was necesary to spend a lot of time
on the sewage problem at this time but it should be
left as a condition to be explored.
Mr. Griffin indicated that this was a subject of
discussion and there were other councilmen who were not
aware of the request, but the general feelings were that
there wouldn't be any problems, but no guarantees were
made. It was a reasonable concept and there was a 201
study that would spell out some of the problems in
and around Kalispell, which should help.and pointed
out what steps to be taken in the future. He also
indicated that it had not been to a full meeting or
under full discussion.
Norm Johnson wished to know who paid the cost of the
sewer extension and.did the taxpayers pay, and Fran
indicated it would probably be done under an SID.
Walt Griffin stated that those fees would have to be
paid by the developer and once again, without expense
to the taxpayers and paying so much -per gallon as to
what is an -equitable charge. The.plant has a
considerable amount of capacity and can handle this
type of development and many more. The fees that would
be paid for the connection should cover whatever
improvements might be a problem.
Mrs. Lenish wished to know if they could build houses
with septics if the city hook-up didn't go through?
Fran indicated that she had asked that question
earlier and they stated that they would stop develop-
ment. The Board advised that the recommendation for
city hook-up for sewers would be contingent on the
condition for approval.
Bruce'Lutz indicated that the lots were sized to
1 Acres to take on individual septic systems and
were sized down because that space was no.longer
required for septic systems.
Dale Haarr indicated that in the Staff Report, the
first condition'under the Summary Remarks was that
approval of the proposal was contingent on the
condition that the approval of the sewer and water
systems was met.
Fran indicated that as long.as there was problems with
water, that perhaps they should also request city water
along with city sewer. Mr. Haarr asked Mr. Jellison
if this had.been considered and Mr. Jellison indicated
that it had been considered, but not seriously because
of the feasibility of cost and the fact that there is
adequate water on the property. In order to put in
a well:., he indicated, you had to comply with the
State Dept. of Health and Environmental Sciences, and
supply as well as use was all investigated too.
He then explained that the primary rule was that he
who is there first has the.first rights to the water
and then anyone who comes later, and that is the rule
that is applied as far as water systems was concerned.
7.
He also said that these technical problems had to be
solved with the State but basically under the law there
was a remedy. Dale Haarr advised that the Department of
Environmental Sciences would be involved with the
water portion and the City of Kalispell with the
sewer.
B. J. Lupton asked Jim Mohn for some technical data
to be submitted strictly for the audience information as
to the date of the Flathead County Comprehensive Plan,
which was adopted in March, 1978 and the Kalispell
Plan which was adopted in September, 1975, and he
wished to know whether it was directed to this
particular area and Jim indicated that only wherein it
included the Kalispell section of the plan. The
recommended use for the area was agricultural or silvi-
cultural.
President Haarr indicated that Mr. Bozarth had listed
6 specific areas, which he felt should be addressed,
two of which were the wells and sewage, and should look
at the agricultural loss of so much area. Mr. Jellison
indicated that Mr. Claypool was present to answer any
questions involving the proposal. Mr.Jellison
indicated that there was only a small portion that had
ever been cultivated and the balance had been in
pastureland, which has not been particularly productive
and the soil probably would be, if it were flat instead
of being on the side of a hill. Mrs. Lenish
indicated that property next to hers was being
cultivated and it was the same type of land, and
was now planted with barley.
Mr. Lutz indicated that he traversed that slope area
and it was full of rocks.
The Board was advised that it had not been cultivated
in 50 years due to rocks.
Mr. Bozarth indicated that he had a friend on the AG
Board who asked him to ask the Board why they were
even considering this for a subdivision because it was
good productive agricultural ground. President Haarr
indicated that what they were trying to do was
eliminate the spot developments throughout the county
and the idea was to fill up.,the 32 mile area around
the city with residential and with the present demand,
some: of ..them ,do have'to go';on .s:ome agricultural land
and even if it falls within the 32 miles of the
Kalispell jurisdiction, and in a few years possibly
another 32 mile limit will be set.
Walt Griffin stated that the agricultural capabilities
were rated on a scale of 1 -. 8C1ass 1 being the best
and Class 8 the poorest. The Staff Report stated
that 26 Acres were Class VI, 41 Acres was in
the Class IV and 9 Acres were Class II, and he
questioned where those might fall and wished to know
where the 9 Acres of Class II soil lay, to which
Mr. Claypool responded by sa ing down in the bottom in
8.
the park area.
President Haarr said when you make a proposal that is
near the city and you really want to save agricultural
land, it should really be further out from the city.
\ Ray Lyb eck was questioned after a meeting, he said,
why a development was turned down out in Evergreen
and it should be to get the people in first and then
put in the facilities and he said a lot of the
agriculture,.in the valley is going on the occasional
sale and the breaking up of agricultural ground
into. twenties via the occasional sale.
Mrs. Peterson wished to know if any of the ground was
in alfalfa and was advised that it was only in native
grass.
Mr. Bozarth wished to know if the Board intended to
turn down any proposed subdivisions which fell within
the agricultural areas of.the 32 miles of the Kalispell
jurisdiction? President Haarr advised that they have
turned some down within the last four or five years.
Mr. Bozarth's point as to air pollution was responded
to by Deana Jellison who indicated that dust, driveways
fire places, etc. was natural but indicated that the
'dust due to unpaved streets,
largest air pollutant was
so the only ones to not be paved would be the driveways.
Jim advised that nothing had been received from the
Fishand Game and that he had requested additional
data from Jim Cross and someone had been expected to
attend this -meeting. He also indicated that there
were pheasant, grouse, etc. and this was all in the
areas designated as the park area and the preservation
of the creek would be addressed through the
Conservation District.
President Haarr stated that traffic as far as v.t.p.d.
might possibly require four lanes and may wish to
have the developer leave the right-of-way for
highway expansion. The highway department would
issue the approach -permits for this area.
Walt questioned the preliminary stage of storm
drainage, which had been previously discussed and the
outfall would be' an expensive venture particularly
with the disposition of the excess water from such a
large area. He also discussed zoning and what the
developer was strongly considering, as each phase
was submitted, and it all had conflicts with
regards to.lot sizes and utilities and didn't fit
the P.U.D., but perhaps in the final stage it would.
For single family in the current R-1-2-3-4 by. lot
sizes it would have to be an R-3 and it would have
to have water and this development wouldn't, and if
you.put it into a higher zone then you run into lot
size, whichis beyond sewer and water of 20,000 sq.
ft. minimum. Walt also said that when you to to a
P.U.D. you have to present a proposal that denotes
9.
type, physical features, etc. so perhaps should
recommend that it be in the P.U.D., but make sure that
all the requirements are met, before final approval.
Jim Thompson said it would either be that or a
community system. He believed that what was being
proposed is a central water and sewer system rather than
individual systems. Walt then defined public services
as interpeted by law, as well as defined public service
water commission. Discussed was the number of
individuals that could use a community water system,
charge of a fee and utility maintenance, with the
understanding that only ten can be on this type of
system, or it falls within the jurisdiction of the
public service water commission and was a marginal
system as set up for approval by the State Department
of Health, and required a rate structure, consumers
participation, etc.
No. 4 condition, Walt Griffin, felt that it should
specify the zoning and a recommended R-4 because of the
conflicts of the utilities and lot size. Also that
R-2 was what the district was north of the highway.
Jim Thompson questioned as to whether R-3 would not be
a better zone as it met the minimum requirements and
the only thing that would have to be satisfied with
this would be the water system. R-3 without the PUD.
Jim Thompson didn't believe that the PUD would be right
for a single family. The Board then completely
discussed the pros and cons and the fact that
R-3 was 9,600 sq. ft. with the normal requirement
for public utilities. Jim Thompson didn't feel it
was laid out to be a PUD. Questioned also was whether
it should be left at R-3 for the time being, to which
the rest of the Board agreed it should remain so.
The Board felt that perhaps one should strike the
condition pertaining to City of Kalispell water and
sewer system, at least at the present time, because the
city would like to look at the water system at the
anticipation of possibly annexing at some time in the
future to make sure the water system was up to city
standards. Notations should be made for fire protection,
included in the water sytem approval, including standard
fire hydrants and questioned was the compatibility of
the Smith Valley Fire Departments adaptibility to the
city's utilities, and vice versa.
The Board questioned Mr. Sherwood with regards to the
Covenants.
Walt Griffin wished to know if the park would be a
homeowners association park. Walt was advised that the
park would be at least deeded to the County Park Dept.
including the greenbelt area, and the association
would maintain it so long as it did not conflict
with the provisions of thePark Board, default in
payment to the association would act as liens against
the property involved.. The Board was adivsed there
was no common property., but all park. 3.2.17 of the
Covenants was deemed as not applicable, as the ownership
10.
will be the County Park Board and Homeowners Assoc.
funding will be the maintenance, with the idea of
tying into the Ashley Creek Master Plan and this is
the purpose for the control.
Mrs. Bozarth wondered whether the park could be traded
for other ground and then people could build houses
on that piece but was advised that wasn't possible, and
a right-of-way was what was being considered as part
of this. Questioned also was if the property were
annexed would it be city park land or stay county
park land? Legal title would be in the County,
surrouneded by the city, unzoned open space owned by
the County and Jim Mohn used the Courthouse as an
example, and it could be exchanged.
Walt Griffin.stated that the park land be deeded to the
County Park Board with a maintenance agreemtn with the
park board and homeowners association for mowing, weed
control, etc., so this would be Condition No. 7
explaining what is happening to the park including
the greenbelt area, etc.
Walt Griffin stated that No. 6 should show that the
fire protection should be approved by the City of
Kalispell anal Smith Valley Fire District to insure that
both area aware that the facilities are available for
use by both.
Walt Griffin.changed No. 4 to read that the developers
consider zoning this atea.R-3.
'Dorothy Garvin felt that the developer should deed
instead of dedicate that property by the highway.
Walt said it was all parkland and he did say deed.
Dorothy Garvin felt that No. 2 Condition was sort of a
conflict and Walt Griffin stated that they were
going to build to the minimum city standards so
therefore this could be a conflict as the county
standards did not include curbs and gutters. Walt
wished to know if they wanted to enforce that. Fran
011endike felt that if they were going to get city
sewer and water they would be annexing someday and
then.No. 2 should be 'changed that all roads be built
according to city standards which are 38' curb to
curb, paved with curb and gutters.
Walt Griffin moved that the Kalispell City -County
Planning Board recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners of Flathead County that the preliminary
plat of Hartt Hill Estates be approved with the
following conditions:
1. That all water, sewer and storm drainage be
approved by the State Dept. of Health and Environmental
Sciences and the:City of Kalispell,
2. that all roads be built to city standards as
directed by the City of Kalispell which are 38' paved
surfaces,
11.
3. that all road construction cuts and fill be back
sloped and revegetated, as outlined in Sec. f and g.
of the Covenants for Hartt Hill Estates
4. that developers consider this area for R-3
zoning,
5. that the final approval be contingent upon
agreement with the city for connection with municipal
sewer systems
6. that the fire protection facilities be approved by
the City of Kalispell and the Smith Valley VolunteerFire
Dept., and
7. that the park land be deeded to the County Park
Board with a maintenance agreement with the Park Board
and Homeowners Association jointly control weed
control, etc.
Fran 011endike seconded the motion;
Walt Griffin called attention to the fact that the
Board should include the Covenants; Fran 011endike
withdrew her seconding of the motion,
and yalt Griffin added:
8. that the Covenants are filed along with the propertyi
to reinforce the above mentioned conditions for the
protection and endorsement of the Homeowners
Association as outlined in the Covenants, or that
8. the Protective Covenants, as presented, be filed
along with the final plat, and that the Homeowners
Association responsibilities are clearly outlined,
within the Covenants.
The Attorney stated that they could make changes in
them if it were not stated that as submitted for Jim
and the Board's approval, but Walt Griffin said
perhaps changes should be made and these then should
be made to the City and then filed with the plat and
if there were any changes it should be so noted at
the Commissioners' Office.
Fran 011endike seconded the motion.
President Haarr called on Mrs. Peterson who questioned
whether they would include any provision that the
Commissioners would not accept. The City of Kalispell
currently was currently wishing to be a part of the
Covenants so as that there was no problems with the
owners or developers changing the Covenants at will
and making different changes in these Covenants that
would change the development of the land.
Walt Griffin said that the Commissioners did not i
wish to be a part and party to the changes in the
conditions of the Covenants and that any amendment
should be 60% of the property owners and the County
did not want to be a part of that group. The
Commissioners say if 60% want the change OK and the
12.
i
City says no way they want the opportunity to look
at it to be: sure that there is no conflicts. Walt
Griffin restated No. 8.
President Haarr called for the question and the motion
was ,carried, with one abstention.
Public Hearing: President.,Haarr stated that the public hearing for
Buffalo Head Addn. Buffalo Head Addn to Kalispell was now open and once
to Kalispell. again repeated his request that comments be kept to
a minimum without repetition and that the same
procedures would hold for this hearing.
Jim Mohn indicated that the Parkview Terrace Home-
owners Association architectural Staff had one meeting
and Jim did send out a copy of the major portion of
the report to one of the members of that Committee.
Jim pointed out that one of the things that this
proposal did do was meet the density for the area,
inclusive of the church and park site it was 4.6
d.u.p.a.,`which was well under the recommended maximum
of 6 d.u.p.a.
Jim made a statement with respects to density in the
Parkview Terrace and pointed out that the 4.4 d.u.p.a.
was assuming that the current vacant lots in Parkview
Terrace would be single family.
Jim then reiterated the design evaluation and then
proceeded to read that portion that dealt with the
concept approaches in that the Planned Unit.Development
provided for the single family and multi -family
st-xuctIure� incorporating a minimum amount of hard
surface area but provided through street and four loop
access streets. He defined the approaches and
widths, fire protection, turning radius, potential
walkways, pedestrian access to park and then went on
to read the J. Land Use Evaluation.
%\ Jim Mohn indicated that under III.. UMMARY REMARKS
he would like to note one conflict that dealt primarily
with local access -streets that were being proposed for
the development and the fact that these access streets
and their surface widths are not accommodated in the
Street Design Section .of the Subdivision Regulations
and in SEc. 5.2.9. This Board would have to consider
a variance from these regulations before acting on
the project. Jim indicated that the Staff recommended
approval of the Buffalo Head Subdivision subject to
the following conditions: (as applied to the plan
presented);
1. that all water and sewer systems be approved by
the State Dept. of Health and City of Kalispell,
2. that the developer limit the units within the
existing plan to single,family detached and single
family townhouse units in the design concept as
submitted, and petition the City for an R-4 PUD .
zone in accordance with the new city ordinance,
13.
3. that in addition to the Covenants submitted, the
developer prepare for recording homeowners documents
to provide for exterior maintenance of grounds, open
space, structures, private roadways and garbage
collection, and
4. that the design of intersections and turning
radius on private roadways be coordinated with the
Kalispell Fire Dept. to facilitate equipment.
Jim Mohn stated that there were a couple of other items
which were given to him verbally during the evening.
with regards to storm drainage and also received the
Hartt Hill letter from the Highway Dept., a supplement
with respects to this one stating; - The proposed
access being Grandview Drive or Grandview Lane, which
approaches Hwy 93 North, indicates that sight distance
itself back toward town is 2,100' and of course.sight
distance to the north is unlimited. They estimate
552 v.t.p.d. to be generated from the development
and note that a four lane roadway ends at the entrance
to Parkview Terrace and indicate that more traffic
will increase the accident frequency. Although sight
distance is good, accidentfrequency is high when
no left turn bays exist. To lower the accident
frequency the four lanes should be extended north
past the county road; the(kandview Lane or 4 Mile
Drive for a deccleration lane should be provided to
the Grandview approach. This site is in a fill
area and no r/w would be required, it would mean
requiring land from Parkview Terrace where new
building is now in progress. Access to Buffalo
Head is 1,200' north of the access to Parkview
Terrace, where a similar number of trips per day
exist. Again it is doubtful that funds will be avail-
able in the near future for a four lane in this area.
Jim pointed out that in 1969 this Board recorded that
the four lane be extended beyond Grandview and
4 Mile Drive intersection.
President Haarr asked for a representative for the
developer.
Bruce Lutze spoke on a land use concept for the future,
closely at fringe development, capabilities,
efficiency, and land use fit. He indicated it was
similar to Hartt Hill, looking at the land layout,
included the soil data from SCS and soils limitations
would be Kg area, and has some restraints on frost-.
heave potential, and road bed would be critical
factor and could be -adjusted accordingly. The site
has a very good slope, side and grade wise and does
not exceed 10%. Surface drainage has natural outfall
into the lowland or riverbed. Existing land uses
are Parkview Terrace basic single interspersed
with multi -family, 2 acre lot is pastureland and
agricultural land, whole site being used as
pastureland. Felt that the site had a high capability
for development. Density would be no constraint
comparing both uses, and using the book "Cost of `Sprawl"
14.
as.a basis of efficiency, cost and what kinds of
developments for different sites.... weighing single
family against multi -family, single family means more
roads and serve less units, more utilities, lengthy
): hook-ups, site coverage is greater, etc. more energy
consumption, and indicated that multi -family was more
units using up less land, less roads, less driveways
less utilities, less hook-ups, less energy consumption
and because you are concentrating more units on less
area have more availability of open space. Single
family ismorespread, and containing the fringe to a
greater.degree, interested in a cluster type develop
ment and multi -family type plan, describing cluster
development. On land use it fit for the future and
Parkview Terrace takes up a lot of land and explained
figures in Kalispell with 99 units covering 27 acres,
and 6.5 acres of roadway and also compared several
other subdivisions. This proposed development has 92
units. and covered 19 'acres and 7.2 acres of open space
with 2 acres of roads. He also indicated that they
wanted to conform to some of the land uses of Parkview
Terrace.
A member of the audience interrupted by stating that
there were only one 6 plex and one four plex and the
rest was single family.
Bruce Lutz asked to continue his presentation before
additional comments were made and then he proceeded to
1 explain the layout in detail. He also stated that the
J park would be lowland that was not suitable for any
type of housing development and which would or could
beconnected to other lowland parks such as Lawrence
Park. This park.could be rehabilitated with minor
investment from the city, similar to Woodland Park.
President Haarr asked if the Board had any questions to
ask of Mr. Lutz and then opened the hearing up to the
rest of the audience.
Landowner Pieter Drent, from Parkview Terrace,
complimented Mr. Lutz on his presentation, but indicated
that one thing remained in his mind and that was that
individuals did want single residences, as originally
intended, and indicated various single family
residences on the map and stated that the City Council
changed the single family residence zoning and 300-400
building unitpermits had been issued and rental lists
were getting longer every day, but one could not close
ones eyes to four plexes and just protect one's
interest. Felt that undoubtedly the man who owned the
wo acres probably would want.four-plexes in on it too.
He did not want to condemn the project, but what about
the view of the people living in Parkview and who
will maintain the strip of ground, with no money
)< available to plan trees and anything. Felt that the
four plexes should be looking at single family and
therefore it would protect the individual property.
Indicated it was hard to sell a single family with
four plexes behind it.
15.
Questioned to the compatibility of the zone with
Parkview Terrace,'indicating that Parkview Terrace
should remain the way it was and Mr. Drent also
indicated that the schools were none of their
concern, but the heavy traffic was and that would
affect th ose youngsters attending school who
cross through these developments and were also
concerned about the lack of access with all traffic
funneling through Parkview Terrace. Like the Park
but with the backlog in the city, it's development
would be a long range thing and in his experience
people with small children will not let their
youngsters go so far and this park certainly wouldn't
help the preschool and school grade children at all.
Mr. Drent stated that the greenbelts were beautiful
but with no one to maintain them unless the
homeowners association did. He was also concerned
that if the plan was approved and the church was
unable to secure money to build then what happened
to that land, it could be all four and six plexes.
He stated that the covenants were no more binding
than those in Parkview Terrace. He also said that
there definitely was a problem with the drainage
field and sewers and if you were going to put in 92
units, the city better take a good look at it.
President Haarr indicated that better than 50% of the
objections were now lined up.
Stan Pine,representing the developers, responded
to some of the comments made by Mr. Drent and
indicated facts, showing those port!'ons on the
map next to the four plex and indicated that those
properties were also owned and so therefore they could
control what went in there. He said the entire
purpose for the lots was to provide a buffer .for the
subdivision and they would be the ones that would be
vastly affected because they owned them. As for
rentals and no demand, these homes were not designed
to be rental units, but were for sale. He said they
were priced within the range for a single family
ownership. As for the view, according to the contour
relatively flat, which are single family single story
houses there wasn't much of anything that won't block
the view.
Mr. Pine indicated that one of the major reasons with
going for cluster was to provide more open space. He
then addressed the traffic and accesses and stated
that there was a strong desire to have Evergreen
Drive go on through and of course this is determined
by priorities. With respect to parks, the Covenants
show that the greenbelt will be maintained by the
homeowners association, a legal entity corporation,
and through monthly dues and presently the city
regulations do not take in densities of 25 d.u.p.a,
and park requirement is still to dedicate 1/9th
and you still have the same amount,of land with a
higher density and that is why they dedicated more
land and it should be an asset, as it is'a natural,park
site. 16.
Mr. Pine wished to know whether Mr. Drent meant
that the city would consider taking money in place
of the land, but doubted it, and of course didn't
know about the development of the park.
Mr. Pine felt that the people in Parkview Terrace
were justified in questioning the Covenants because
theirs were all amended, showing the natural
financial flow. To protect individuals and the
Covenants they would be made a part and parcel with
all the landowners and an attorney. As to the sewer
and water, have been advised that the capabilities
are there and the city engineers will work this out
as it gets past the preliminary stage.
Dale Haarr said that Mr. Pine addressed the things
that Mr. Drent had stressed but wished a comment on
the church site. Mr. Pine said that he was on the
board of,elders of one of the churches that was
interested, as other sites were very expensive.
He indicated he was hoping to provide a buffer for
Dr. Wilgen on the other side, not the original intent
but the way it worked. -out. The R-4 district, which
is now a R-1 district but couldn't guarantee a sale
till it was consummated.
Edward Zeikal, Parkview Terrace, said he understood
that the original developer had several who were
interested in buying that church site. As for the
park, if it were going to be like Woodland, then .
they would have all the traffic. Mr. Pine.said
the park was for people, not for cars and when asked
how you get there, Mr. Pine said you walk. Mr. Pine
said he.used the example of Woodland Park because
of the atmosphere and similarity. Conversations
bantered back and -forth and included the fact that
the loopers were not considered as thoroughfare
streets, but as access to this park area. All
the .loops have separate type parking stalls instead
of messing it up with street parking, and the park
area has more spaces to accommodate the cars. When
the landowner questioned this again, Mr. Pine said
each park can only accommodate so many people. It
was suggested that perhaps the park parking be
eliminated and that way no cars would come into it.
President Haarr indicated that they could address
the traffic as it related to the park as well as
the 'development'.
Dr. Wildgen said he would have to answer, as his
buffer was .alluded to, and that he lives on a piece
the size.of the park with a tennis court and
couldn't get Kalispell to even maintain the courts
in town. Says he has lived there 17 years and seen
it under water about 4 times and would hate to see
the courts under water and had an agreement to buy
it and has a first option on it and the developer
indicated that if so they'd have to work around it
as it was a 17 year old document and have their
17.
attorney look at it because it was not stated by the
individual that they had.bought the land ,from.
Obviously they can't annex property they don't own,
so will have to resolve that. Apologized for not
knowing this, as perhaps he would have a response
The Doctor said he was not necessarily against the
proposal, and loved it if he has to buy it and make
sure things are done right by it, but didn't want to
obstruct it, but did think that was an awful lot of
people just across the road from him.
Dan. Bagman, 323 Harrison Blvd, questioned the lots
numbered single or one unit designation, Lot 22,
and set for one of the four plexes and said last year
when they annexed this piece and proposed multi-
family the balance was to be low level housing and
would like to see single family housing and Mr. Pine
stated that they owned additional lots in the No. 1
District, so unless they get a variance, that will
also be single family, and today they can say it is
fine and sometime later someone else can change it.
He also questioned the grade as being too flat to
see over.
Pieter Drent called the Board's attention to Sec. 5,
Article 2, and quoted: "All lots designed as one
dwelling unit shall have no more than one dwelling
house located upon it and no lot shall be divided.
However, the Architectural Control Committee is
authorized to approve exceptions to this section,
when in its discretion, such action is considered
in the interests of the Owners of the Properties".
The way he read it, Mr. Drent said, they are a
control board and they can change that any time.
He also wished to know why Dr. Wildgen needed a
buffer zone. Mr. Pine said he didn't believe it was
favoritism, siting the church site, and using it
as more of an estate development.
Linda Johnson, 310 Harrison Blvd, pointed out in the
Covenants, they could change the single family, and
they are fine now,to get a variance for a duplex be-
cause it is inconceivable for them to resell a single
family, so there may never be a single family dwelling
out there.
Mr. Lutz stated that if you can look at it as a park
type development, you then have something totally
compatible with this development which is more open
space.
One of the landowners stated that any duplex on these
lots would have to go two stories high, and anyone in
a single family couldn't sunbath behind a fence or
they could look right down on you.
Then discussed was the various places where there
was single family and multi -family developments.
18. 1
President Haarr interrupted the discourse and
acknowledged the fact that there was a problem with
the multi family adjoining the single family, so
requested that something else be discussed.
� 1
One other landowner questioned if it goes R-4 and
the Covenants do not restrict those duplex to less
than two stories, and that perhaps there are only a
couple providing height requirements, then even if
it .is a duplex sprawl it still couldn't protect the
view.
Jeanne Valanengan, 302 Harrison, had some comments on
the park and did see a pheasant and heron and also
wished to know what church was interested, and would
they buy it or would it be donated? Mr. Pine said
it was the Glacier Baptist Church and the second
hasn't been decided. She also then wanted to know
what Bruce Lutz's position was, and was advised he
was Land Planner for Taylor, Thon and Assoc. with a
Bachelor and Master's.Degree in Landscape Archi-
tecture. Also questioned was the density and Mr.
Lutz indicated that he had also spoken on behalf of
Hartt Hill and that 1/3 anal 1/2 acre property was
the most sought after size.
Marilyn Aashim, 274 Farview Drive, questioned the
Covenants, too and stated that their Architectural
Control Board had not attended a meeting since
June 1977 (Parkview Terrace.. Board) , and that they
can't meet with the landowners and that their
Covenants had been changed.
A landowner wished to know if the lots would be sold
individually and up to that lot owner to build on
them, or was it going to be built on like a look -
alike complex? Mr. Pine indicated that the buildings
would all have the same uniformity to blend, color,
shingles, all natural. The landowner wished to know
if he would be building them himself and Mr. Pine
advised he had not said that. Someone else might not
want it in the syle and color and Mr. Pine said it
couldn't be done if he did not approve their plans,
and that was the entire purpose of the Covenants.
Another landowner wondered whether there was any
.solution to catch the storm drainage that periodica115
floods them out and the developer was questioned as
to storm water collection and he advised that it was
graded to catch that but not,equipped yet to state
just what would happen.
Jerry Badger, 311 Harrison, formerly lived in a
multi -family area and questioned the controls for
upkeep, usually rundown and deteriorated. President
Haarr advised that they would be individually owned
and they'll probably keep them up and advised that
the zoning and covenants should control this.
Karol Keller stated she didn't get a buffer'
and
was concerned that the multi -family would turn into
19.
rentals and become disasterious.. She indicated that
there was nothing legally to control this as they
could be bought and rented and was assured they would
not be economically feasible to rent.
President Haarr requested that the Board start
deliberating on some of the items.
Fran 011endike said she felt that the chief concern
was whether they were going to donate this park or
not, and if they don't own it or can attain it.
She was advised by Jim Thompson that they own the
land but that Mr. Wildgen has the first rights to
buy it and that can be resolved he thinks. Walt
Griffin felt that it could be set forth as a condition
that until the title is clear this ground can't be
dedicated. Jim advised that he couldn't even file a
subdivision plat without a clear title to any of it.
Mr. Griffin reiterated the park problems that had
occurred in Parkview Terrace, and he defined the
fact that a park requirement was necessary and yet
could not put improvements on it. There was some
clarification made by Mr. Pine of the park require-
ments of the Parkview Terrace and the fact that there
was no promise or guarantee that a park would be
furnished for the Parkview Terrace. Mr. Pine
indicated that the Staff as well as others thought
it was an excellent spot for a park and this would
have to be resolved by the Park Board. Walt Griffin
indicated that should this Park be developed,
there wasn't enough parking spaces and Walt also
stated that most of the parks are just for the
immediate vicinity and unsafe for various reasons.
Most parks are not walk in parks, but are geared
to the public who drive to for some particular
service. Walt agrees that it can be quite an entity
as a park, because it is secluded and attractive.
President Haarr wished to know if this Park condition
should be worked out and be accepted and Walt agreed
that you would have to have a condition that the
park land be dedicated and all other aspects would
have to be worked out because it was not within
the Board's expertise. A woman in the audience wished
to know how many members of the Board had visited
that park site? - and was advised that most of them
were aware of it, and that there were some water
rights that went along with it.
President Haarr wished to know what zone was proposed
for the area. Jim Mohn indicated that it should be
R-4 PUD, as presented, and the plan would have to
follow completely, although Jim indicated that you
.would not be able to hold it to a definite concept
throughout the project. Walt Griffin d:idn't feel
that unless they have a total proposal for a PUD
he didn't see how they could recommend this.
Jim Mohn indicated that at the final plat stage
when zoning would commence a plan could be followed.
Walt stated that a PUD has never been presented to
the city. Jim•Thompson felt that one would be
20.
encumbering the developer and it would be better to
zone. it RA-1 and -.stipulate that within that RA-1 the
density proposed on each lot, in that you can do the
same thing with .an RA-1 as you can with a R-4 PUD,
attaching housing,..condominium type to be sold
individually, and if sold as townhouses you would
have to come in with a division for each lot, to
resubdivide each lot into five, seven, whatever.
Jim Mohn indicated that he did not believe so, as the
drawing indicated the number of units on each parcel,
and you couldn't.survey the townhouse till you have
the foundation in the ground. Jim Thompson felt
that if you could get everyone to accept it, by
approving each individual site four-plex building
and the.lot that it is actually on, you are approving
five parcels, a parcel for each unit and one common
parcel, and if this is understood, see no problem
with PUD. The city would need a copy of the plat at
the time that building permits were issued in order
that it conform to the four units and common area
on each site.
Walt -Griffin disagreed because there was never a
PUD presented to the city, but would like to see a
good PUD concept, because it requires a proposed
layout with a certain scale and densities, plus
residential, non-residential, parking, etc.,
elevation, etc. and hasn't seen one yet and it would
.have to be R-2 through R-5 and RA-1 through RA-3
and that is supposed to be all prepared and who will
guarantee that.. The Board then discussed the various
.conflicts with townhouse concept, densities, etc.
with the Covenants not protecting it, and.that the
new area would come in R-4.single family and that
would protect -it and the zoning designation could not
be changed unless you came in for a variance.
Walt Griffin stated that the existing other areas
can vary. Parkview Terrace was zoned as existing for
what land use was there. Jim Mohn indicated that
.the R-4 PUD granted moreflexx.ibility. One lot could
be dropped and make all the lots 7,200 sq. ft. in
order to meet requirements.
President Haarr stated that on those lots adjacent
to the single family lots there is a willingness of
the.developer to make those lots single family and
that placing a four.plex adjacent to a single family
was not right.
Mr. Pine indicated that if one put a single family in
there you wouldn't have as much open space for view
as you would with the duplex. President Haarr indica-
ted that those people who lived on that boundary wished
to have a single family home on that boundary. One
man from the audience wished to know if Mr. Pine
wished to buy.his`house and Pieter Drent's because
it couldn't be sold because of the multi -family, and
he.was being.transferred and no one would buy it
because it -has a multi -family adjacent.
President Haarr indicated that was off the subject,
21.
and this would need to be considered.
Walt Griffin indicated that Mr. Pine would have to
get a waiver from a hauler, otherwise you have a pri-
vate hauler inside the city, because the
subdivisions now need garbage pick-up. Also the
fire district would be requiring a waiver should
it be annexed to the city, fire accesses from
Grandview and Hwy 93, and if there is a fire., the
department is going to have to.go a long way to get
these, up the highway and turn in at Sunnyview Lane
past the hospital or come into Parkview Terrace down
Indian Trail -Harrison onto Grandview or onto
Grandview past Wildgens to get into the subdivision.
It would be hard to make it with no access from
Parkview Terrace.
Mr. Pine indicated that should Grandview be extended,
and with the granting of some land by the Schultz's
in the future, and this would be in the Evergreen
Fire District.
The city fire department would have to address what
is the intent for the dead-end property on Harrison
Blvd and could resubdivide the other lots, but Walt
Griffin reaffirmed that that would be a fire problem.
Then completely discussed was various routes.
Walt Griffin questioned whether the streets, which
are 24' are to be private and was advised they were.
Walt wished to know who was to repair them as it
was not in the Covenants. Mr. Pine indicated
that it was part of the Homeowners Association and
was advised that the Covenants did not show this.
Walt Griffin felt that Mr. Pine should get ahold of
Duane Bitney's Homeowners Association Policy and
apply some of those restrictions and specifications.
Mr. Pine felt that he had no problems with putting
in Covenants and could accommodate this. The
conditions for Covenants concerning the park,
maintenance, restrictions, etc. was thoroughly
discussed, spelling out all these things.
Walt Griffin also stressed that perhaps these
street widths were totally unacceptable and should
really be considered by the city because of the
annexation prospects,. Walt stated that it was very
difficult to sell private streets to the city council.
Jim Thompson indicated that after talking to John
Kain, by the time you got all your curb cuts and
ensities anyway there was nothing left of the 38'
street anyway, so you really need only the 12'
driving lanes and felt the city would accept a 24'
street with curb and gutter, so that the fire
trucks could get through and the developers should
be happy to dedicate that type of street, in a
multi -family cluster development where there was
no place to park anyway. Walt felt' that the
multi -family should have more than 6 spaces and
those would yet to be provided on the site, and
Mr. Pine indicated there should be more than
enough and Walt Griffin said there should be a
22.
restriction in the Covenants against parking boats,
mobile homes, etc.
Pieter Drent indicated that the snow that was had
last winter was a big problem, specially on the narrow
streets. Mr. Pine said under the homeowners
association that front end loaders would be used and
if`the streets are dedicated then the city would have
to take care of snow removal and maintenance. One
of the landowners felt that if the 38' streets were
cut down, it would be hazardous because youngsters do
play on them and Jim Thompson indicated that there
would be more open space.. Mr. Pine said that the
basic concept was to have streets that did not
entice people to°drive up through them and that there
was no guarantee in any subdivision that children
won't play in the streets, but that this could be
put into the homeowners association rules.
Walt Griffin indicated that he liked the Hartt Hill
Covenants, which completely spelled out all the
responsibilities... Walt also felt that there is
always something missing or something that is changed
when it comes up before the city council unless it
is,really spelled out.
President Haarr indicated that based on what he had
heard so far he would entertain a motion to -table
the proposal, with regards to problems involving the
park,°sewer and water,.'streets, row of single family
adjoining multi -family, garbage, fire protection,
and snow removal and,felt that Jim and the developer
should have some time to address some of the problems
Mr. Pine said that they had spent several thousand
dollars even going to experts and it seemed ironic
that when a person mentioned the word multi, it
brought down the wrath, because of things done in
the past and all these points brought up were
important and he would attempt to resolve them, but
the only that really was of importance was addressed
and that was the homeowners association which was
not noted in the Covenants. Didn't know what could
be accomplished within the next few weeks that
could change any of this.
Walt Griffin restated some of the points that he
made previously, and felt the proposal needed work,
on such things as the park, the streets as they
related to annexation, and the new concepts which
have to be sold to the city council, who are the
people who have to look at it. He indicated that the
Covenants were wide open, specially if you came
to the PUD, which would hold you to the amount of
units, whereas this does not, and have the homeowners
association spell out specific things and the three
main areas involving drainage, sewers, etc. can be
taken care of. Walt indicated that they did use
the Subdivision Checklist and prepared his own
comments and questions and did not feel that the
article which had come out.in the newspaper was what
23,
ee/8-28-78
was intended nor did it bias any decisions, made
by the Board. Walt indicated that he was upset by
the fact that he had been misquoted in saying he
denied this proposal and felt no feelings about
the general comments from the people at the
meeting, and didn't feel that they had done any
damage although Mr. Lutz felt that the damage
had already been done.
Ray Lybeck moved that the proposal be tabled until
the items, which have been mentioned, are
considered and presented back to the Board in two
weeks on July 11, 1978, as he didn't feel prepared
to make a decision on what he had heard this
evening. Dorothy Garvin seconded the motion;
motion was carried with one abstention and one
opposed.
President Haarr did not feel that the Board was
biased because he didn't feel that the newspaper
articles in anyway colored the situation. President
Haarr felt that most of the comments were in favor
of the concept except for some small concessions,
which he did not feel were unreasonable.
One of the individuals from the audience, Mr. Johnson,
felt that with all these types of comments, perhaps
the Staff should take into consideration how to help
the developers overcome the problems from the
various areas. Mr. Johnson was advised that there. -
was hardly a meeting that came up that something
didn't come up and if it were all cut and dried
there wouldn't be any need for the Board or
their decisions.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
President, Dale W. Haarr Secr.
24.
We, the undersigned, members of the Kalispell City County Planning
Board, do hereby waive notice of meeting and consent that a meeting
of the Baord be held on Tuesday, June 27, 1978 at 7:30 PM at the
- Courthouse East, 723 5th. Ave. East, Kalispell, Montana.