North Meadows Variance Applications - Opposed Public Comment from Micah and Sage Drury Aimee Brunckhorst
From: Sage Drury <slenwa1194@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 8:16 PM
To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment
Subject: EXTERNAL North Meadows Variance Applications - Opposed
[NOTICE: This message includes an attachment -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you
know the content is safe.]
Kalispell City Council and City Planning Department
201 First Avenue East
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Dear Members of the Kalispell City Council and Planning Department,
We're writing as South Meadow's residents to formally oppose the North Meadows subdivision's
multiple variance applications.This request, along with other aspects of the proposal, conflicts
with multiple sections of the City of Kalispell's Subdivision Regulations and raises serious
concerns regarding access, land use, and regulatory precedent.
1.Violation of Section 28.3.14(C)(1)-Maximum Dead-End Street Length, "Dead-end streets shall
not exceed 600 feet as measured from centerline intersection to center of cul-de-sac or center of
approved turn-around."
The applicant is requesting a 45% increase over the established maximum,from 600 feet to 870
feet.This regulation is not a suggestion; it is a safety-based standard established to ensure
efficient emergency access, circulation, and connectivity.
In the applicant's own justification,they state that "a maximum street length of 600 feet limits the
number of lots to where the project is not financially feasible." However,financial feasibility is not
a recognized hardship under the subdivision or variance criteria. It is not the City's nor the
community's responsibility to ensure a private project's profitability by relaxing standards that
exist to protect public safety and maintain infrastructure integrity.
2. Undermining of Section 28.3.14(C)-Use of Dead-End Streets, "Permanent dead-end streets are
discouraged and used sparingly when all other design alternatives fail due to topography or existing
improvements."
i
The developer's reasoning cites adjacent property development and Ashley Creek as constraints,
but these are common planning challenges, not conditions that make compliance impossible.The
regulation clearly establishes that dead-end streets should be a last resort, used "sparingly" and
only when all other design alternatives fail.
Allowing a variance on an already discouraged practice would set a troubling precedent that
undermines the City's development standards and invites future exceptions based on profit
motives rather than legitimate site constraints, encouraging future developers to design around the
rules rather than within them.
3. Noncompliance with Section 28.3.13(B)-Access Road Standards (South Meadows Drive), "Any
public or private street or road providing ingress and egress to a subdivision shall meet the street
design standards and specifications stated in Section 28.3.14 of these Regulations."
South Meadows Drive,which serves as the sole access point for this subdivision, lacks sidewalks
on both sides.This is a clear violation of Section and 28.3.16(B)and 28.3.14(A)(4)Table 1,
respectively.
"Sidewalks shall be required on both sides of the street.The exception would be an exterior road to
the subdivision in which the developer would only be required to construct the sidewalk on his side
of the street."
2
IIABLE I
STANDARDS FOR SIJBDIVISION STREETS
stireet RAN` WN'81 Travel Sidewalk Lots, Dwclling,�s
OvNncrship (1) Surface Served Strved
Min, Max. Nlax.
Local-] Private 1 10 110TIC 1 0 (titility)
To-cal-2 -Private 2-1) 1-0 (Noric) 2 2
�j Priviatc 30 20 One sidc 3, 6
_T_oc4,d-4 ......................................6 1 a t C......................................... 4-0 _20 .............................e a c..........h.............s i(I c............................._4 81
with h,,)ts
servcd
ow al-5 Private or 51") 24 oth sides 5 20
Public mmmmmm
6 mmmm6 0 2 8 Both, sides.mmmmm ...................i) n
rrw
I F�o I I C_ct() -Public .......................................6..............0............................................................................................3..............4...................................................................................1 3 o..........i I i.............s i..........d.............c............s.................................... ma .................................................................t I ........................................................
......................................
-tr ,1c-ta I 11-1b I�i C 8.....................................................()......................................................................................(2.........................)...............................................r B................o..........i I i.................S............i d.............c............s.................................. ]Va
South Meadows Drive does not meet the definition of an "exterior road," as it will serve as the
primary ingress and egress for North Meadows subdivision residents and service vehicles.
Sidewalks on both sides are required for compliance and public safety.To my knowledge,the City
has not previously approved a development dependent on a noncompliant access road, and doing
so here would weaken the consistency and credibility of Kalispell's development standards. I do
think there needs to be clarification here, and discussion on the regulations around all future
developments building in established neighborhoods that fail to meet current design and safety
standards.
4. Density and Buildable Land Constraints
According to the Montana Cadastral,this property totals 14.63 acres, of which only 10.18 acres are
classified as buildable. Despite that,the owner and developer are proposing to build across
approximately 12 acres,which includes portions identified as non-buildable land.
3
4
10000 7
V C-';1"',d I , 1"� J'a
I<>STATE 'LIBRARY
MON TAT CADASTRAL
Propert -1 18,59 S, MEADOWS D, R KAL
ly
Add ss 599 1
Gleocode., 07-3966-19- 1 -014-10-0000
I*
Tax Year., so
ilr- irn a ry
ol
0-0 Owt'i &rs
i s a s
I rl
I ask the City Council and Mayor to clarify whether they've ever approved a variance allowing
construction on land designated as non-buildable under similar circumstances. If not,this
proposal represents a dangerous precedent. Granting such approval here could open the door for
developers to challenge the integrity of zoning classifications and land use restrictions citywide;
undermining the careful balance of environmental protection, infrastructure capacity, and safety
that Kalispell's regulations are designed to uphold.
5.Violation of Section 28.3.07-Watercourse Setback Requirements (Ashley Creek)
Section 28.3.07 of the City's Subdivision Regulations clearly states that developments adjacent to a
watercourse must mitigate impacts through the use of setbacks and limitations on adjacent
development. Specifically, subsection (13)(1) requires a minimum 200-foot setback for impaired
streams,which includes Ashley Creek.
The developer is requesting to reduce this required setback from 200 feet to 100 feet, a 50%
reduction.This standard exists for critical reasons to protect and reducing this setback directly
undermines all of those objectives.Ashley Creek is an impaired stream located upstream of the
city's wastewater treatment facility,which is already under significant strain and in need of
modernization.Allowing additional development encroachment within this sensitive corridor could
increase sedimentation, runoff, and pollution; burdening the system.Avariance of this magnitude
is not a reasonable adjustment; it is a fundamental rollback of the very protections meant to
prevent these outcomes.The applicant should be required to comply fully with the existing 200-
foot setback standard.
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully urge the City Council and Mayor to deny the
requested variances and to require full compliance with all applicable subdivision regulations,
including access, sidewalk, and land use standards.
Kalispell's subdivision regulations exist to ensure responsible growth, public safety, and
environmental stewardship.The developer's variance requests due to "unnecessary hardship"
appears designed to preserve maximum unit count to attain profitability, citing past development
and estate issues delaying this process.These variances,to apply with the new regulations now, do
not merit approval so the developer can skirt standards to lower costs. Bending standards for the
convenience of a single developer would compromise not only this neighborhood's safety but the
integrity of the city's entire planning framework.
Thankyou foryour attention and dedication to maintaining fair, consistent, and safety-oriented
development within our community.
Sincerely,
Micah and Sage Drury
1951 Bluestone Dr
6