Loading...
Staff Report/Annexation & ZoningFlathead ei® al Development Office 723 5th Avenue East - Room 414 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 758-5980 Fax: (406) 758-5781 November 25, 1998 Glen Neier, Interim City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Cra-Lon Corporation Request for Annexation and Initial Zoning of RA-1 Dear Glen: The Kalispell City -County Planning Board met on November 10, 1998, and held a public hearing to consider a request by Cra-Lon Corporation for initial zoning of RA -I, Low Density Residential Apartment upon annexation into the city. The property proposed for annexation contains approximately one-half acre and is located at 440 College Avenue East of Kalispell. The property is currently zoned County R-2, One Family Limited Residential. Steve Kountz of the Flathead Regional Development Office presented a staff report and recommended City RA-1 zoning for Lot 3 and the proposed subdivision, and R-3 zoning for Lot 4 upon annexation. At the public hearing, Paul Stokes, representing the applicants, spoke in favor of the proposal. Eleven neighbors spoke in opposition, citing their concerns regarding the narrowness of Sylvan Drive and the s-curve, the increased traffic on an already over used road, changing the character of the single-family neighborhood, the wildlife habitat, and the filling in of a slough area. After closing the public hearing, the Board discussed the staff report. A motion to adopt staff report #KA-98-6 as findings of fact and recommend adoption of R-3 zoning upon annexation subject to the following changes: Item #2 - delete the 2nd sentence; Item #10 - delete "On the other hand" from the 4th sentence, and delete the last 2 sentences. The motion passed on a vote of five in favor, and one abstention. A recommendation for the proposed R-3 zoning upon annexation of this property is being forwarded to City Council for consideration at their regular meeting on December 21, 1998. Please contact this board or Steve Kountz at the Flathead Regional Development Office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely Kalispell City -County Planning Board Milt �Cs n Vice President MC/SK/sm Providing Community Planning Assistance To: • Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish • Glen Neire Re: Cra-Lon Corporation Annexation & Zoning Request November 25, 1998 Page 2 Attachments: FRDO Report #KA-98-6/ application materials Draft Minutes 11/20/98 Planning Board meeting Exhibit A (legal description) c w/o Att: Cra-Lon Corporation, P O Box 533, Bullhead City AZ 86439 Paul Stokes 8s Associates, 343 1st Ave. West, Kalispell MT 59901 c w/ Att: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk H: \TRANSMIT\KAL\ 1998\KA98-6 Bahr said he lives in Northridge which has medical offices, and the residences cause more traffic. Bahr also said the lot is unique and is not suitable for residence; the clinic would be it's best use and would be less obtrusive than a 4-plex or medical office. Motion Bahr moved to adopt staff report KZC-98-4 as findings of fact and recommend approval of the zone change from RA-1 to RA-3; Johnson second the motion. On a roll call vote Carlson, Heinecke, Bahr, Stevens, Johnson, and Hines voted aye. The motion passed on a 6-0 vote. CRA-LON The second public hearing was introduced by Carlson on a request by ANNEXATION & Cra-Lon Corporation for initial zoning of RA-1, Low Density ZONING Residential Apartment, upon annexation of approximately one acre located at 440 College Avenue east of Kalispell. Johnson excused himself due to a conflict of interest. Staff Report Kountz gave a detailed overview of Staff Report #KA-98-6. Kountz said a 4-lot subdivision was also being proposed, with a 3-plex on one lot and a 4-plex on the other, which will go to City Council. Staff recommended approval and that the City Council adopt RA-1 on Lot 3 and the proposed subdivision and R-3 on Lot 4. Kountz said the applicant had no objection to the compromise in the zoning request. Kountz also said two letters in opposition were received. Public Hearing: Proponents Paul Stokes, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the project and said he had no problem with the staff report and recommended conditions. Opposition Lolla Pauli, 404 Sylvan Drive, stated her opposition to the zoning. Floyd Pauli, 404 Sylvan Drive, said there was water on part of the property and that if it's filled the bank on the north would get small. He stated the property was not large enough for the project. Thomas Marks, 401 Sylvan Drive, spoke in opposition. He submitted letters from the Johnsons', at 504 Sylvan Drive, stating their opposition. He read letters from Diane Lamers, 33 East Wyoming, and Melody Haines, 429 College Avenue who also expressed their opposition to the project. Bonnie Sponger, 345 College Avenue, said she was concerned that her property will be flooded if the project goes through. She also stated the s-curve is dangerous, and there was no visibility or parking. She said the zoning will ruin the character of the neighborhood. Tony Loiacono said it was a very private and unique area. He expressed his concerns regarding the piiiabing that is starting to Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 10, 998 Page 5 of 10 happen, and said additional traffic will escalate the crime. He said the road was being used as a shortcut to Conrad Drive. He said Montessori School had told their visitors that Sylvan could be used to go up to Woodland and it has now turned into a freeway A question was asked if the property is in the floodplain. Kountz said FEMA does not map the area in the 100-year floodplain and that the maps were probably wrong. Edna Green stated there were approximately 20 families in the area and the project would lower the property value of the other homes if the zoning was allowed. She said flooding does occur on her property, and her property is higher than the subject property. Ann Ingram, Sylvan Court, expressed her concerns about the wildlife, the danger of children walking on the s-curve. She said property values were typically over $200,000 and a multi-fasxrily project will bring down their property values. Dave Lawrence, Lawrence Lane, said he was concerned about the water and wildlife. He also expressed his concern that filling would diminish surface area and would ruin his property; and expressed concern on the traffic issue. Fran Olendyke, 556 Sylvan Drive, said she previously served on the board and that this property should remain single family residential. Christine Curtis, 530 Sylvan Drive, state the wildlife is treasured and the atmosphere is good. She also said a lower income tri-plex will cause further degradation of her home and that the traffic is already bad. Judy Lawrence said this is an aquifer or wetland and if the slough is filled the character will be changed. The Board received two letters in opposition from Dr. Delores Taylor and Carol Granger. Board Discussion Stevens asked Kountz about streets ending at the slough. Stokes said there would be a problem if there was flooding but he would only fill far enough to build; he said it is not classified as a wetland. Heinecke asked if lot 3 was 10,000 sq. ft., what would be the RA-1 minimum lot size for a tri-plex or duplex. Kountz said 9,000 sq. ft. would be the minimum lot size for RA-1 in the city regulations. Stevens said his dilemma was infill if properties were serviced by water and sewer, and that people needed to have places to live and wondered whether this was appropriate infill for affordable housing. Bahr asked if there were any multi -family residences near. Kountz said there was the tr aiier park anu 4-plexes on College Avenue. Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 10, 998 Page 6 of 10 Motion Heinecke moved to adopt Staff Report #KA-98-6 as finding of fact and recommend R-3 upon annexation with the following changes to the findings of fact as follows: # 10 - Delete "On the other hand," from the 4th sentence and strike the last 2 sentences; # 11 - Strike the last sentence, and add that substantial public comment has been received in objection to the plan; and #2 - Strike the 2nd sentence. Bahr seconded the motion. On a roll call vote, Carlson, Heinecke, Bahr, Stevens and Hines voted aye. The motion passed on a 5-0 vote. Recess A recess was called at 7:40 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 7:50 p.m. ANDREW HALL ZONE The third public hearing was introduced by Carlson on a request by CHANGE Andrew A. Hall, et al, for zone change from R-1, Suburban Residential, to R-3, One Family Residential, for property located on the west side of Mountain View Drive in Evergreen. Staff Report Kountz gave a detailed overview of Staff Report #FZC-98-11. Staff recommends that the Board recommend approval of the requested zone change from R-1 to R-3 with the zone change area expanded one lot in each direction to include Lots 5 and 13 of Block 2 and Lots 5 and 13 of Block 3. Public Hearing: In Favor Andrew Hall, petitioner, and Christine Wilkonski, petitioner, spoke in favor of the change in zoning. Opposition John Herschfelder, 420 Mountain View Drive, introduced a letter of opposition from his neighbors, the Christiansens. He expressed his concern about the traffic and wanted the zoning to continue as R-1 in order to keep things the way they are which allowed horses and chickens, etc. Dennis Savrud, 540 Ash Rd., said he had the same complaints about traffic and wants the zoning to stay the same. Judy Hollis, 546 Ash Rd., questioned whether their property was included in the zone change. Kountz answered that it would be included. Hollis said she is against the proposed change. Board Discussion Johnson commented that traffic control is not a function of the board. Stevens commented that this was classic infill and that affordable housing was definitely needed. Carlson commented that the increased density would be desirable because of the availability of sewer. Motion Stevens moved that the Board adopt Staff Report #FZC-98-11 as findings of fact and recommend approval of the zone change from R-1 Kalispell City -County Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 10, 998 Page 7 of 10 Dolores •M.D. 40 Big Pine Road, Woodside, CA. 94062 Thomas R. Jentz Planning Director Flathead Regional Development Office 723 Fifth Avenue East - Room 414 Kalispell, MT 59901 October 31, 1998 Dear Kalispell City -County Planning Board: Since l will be unable to attend the Tuesday, November 10, 1998 meeting of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board, I would like to voice my obiection to agenda item #1, a petition by Cra-Lon Corporation for annexation of 0.909 acres at 440 College Ave. and a zoning map amendment from R-2 One Family Limited Residential in the Flathead County Zoning regulations to RA-1 Low Density Residential Apartment in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. I am the owner of the property located at 435 College Ave. The property has been held in the family for over 50 years. Unfortunately, the neighborhood has undergone a transition from only single family dwellings to a mixture of single family and multi -family housing. All one has to do is drive down College Avenue to see the deterioration of the appearance of the neighborhood when multi -family housing is allowed. Please do not vote to let this beautiful part of Kalispell near Woodland Park deteriorate any further. The property at 440 College Avenue is located on a boundary of the City and County line. I recommend to the Board that the annexation and zoning map amendment be denied. .r Thank you very much. Sincerely Dolores Taor, M.D. 0/C, 1g8 pm" - us u� rbc�ss ca�y -- _.�� �- on T �Y-n 5� ��� � Bch UYA vvn- 4 Is tS oh e, Ci rc,othw'C ICA a -�� r I - c� c5c'.d �i SS t.� � S e �- e.&5 C'o ►ems t1 � �, P �UL�v cc oz4--- 6 4tLzS r 5uh 1 -- November 10, / % d MEMORANDUM TO: Kalispell City -County Planning Board Kalispell City Council FROM: Thomas H Marx 401 Sylvan Drive Kalispell Mt 59901 755 0096 Dear Elected Representatives It appears there are a number of issues buried in this one request. Should the land be annexed? Should the creek be filled? Should the zoning be chanced? How many living units can be stuffed onto .5 acres of land? LI understand a land owner would want to get the most return on investment for a property he/she owns. However it should not have come as any surprise that this area has had an intermittent creek running through it for all of recent history. The reason it had not been developed 'or built upon for all these years when there has been houses built all around it is because it is not a very good idea..Should the land be annexed? Sure, if the land is developed like the houses to the south of it. Annexation would increase the tax base of the city and it would allow for a home to be built that would have city water and sewer and other city services. This would enable the owner to realize some return on the property without lowering the property values and quality of life of the neighbors. 2. Should we allow the filling of a wet land? Every spring the creek fills with water. There are ducks and other water foul who nest and use the wetlands. There are deer, skunk and an occasional black bear who use it. As this waterway, both above ground and below ground, drains this part of the neighborhood, what will be the impact to the homes upstream in terms of flooding should this damming or filling be allowed? 3.The neighbor hood is a single family per dwelling neighborhood. The staff report mentions multifamily dwellings to the east and north of the site. ( that would be on the other side of the creek) I would invite you to view the trailer park and the fourplex in the area. That visit would speak volumes. There are unpaved gravel roads around the trailers, one or two lawns and the rest is cement and gravel. It is a typical low end trailer park. This is not the character of the neighborhood where this property is located.. To the south of this property there is nothing but nice well kept single family homes. These home owners could have bought their homes any where. They did not choose to buy in a neighborhood of low density residential apartments. The staff report mentions a transition zone from one type of housing to another. Let the existing fourplex be the termination not the transition of multi family, owner absent, -housing. 4 Most of the homes that house one family in this neighborhood are on lots of .5 acre or more. This proposal would put up to -seven families (I don't know how many people) and (assuming two working people per living unit) potentially 14 or more cares and trucks on the same size lot. This is inconsistent with the present use of the surrounding land. 5. The road is hazardous in this area under best of conditions. The corner to the east of the property is a blind corner because of the trees and bushes. The road is hardly wide enough for two cars to pass each other in the corner. In winter the road becomes even more narrow. My wife's car was hit there while stopped to allow another car through the corner. 00198 ,�o2pa�j kMl To m Sb �-/ 1Ja, Dr, f4 i t s p, e [I k1.�- s5 Io l �2Qr Ci COv�Gc �ersanS� Y-0y Wi4e are res/-den 5/ oWhtYtq a h,v of Soil sy�u��, pv�;Je. ctv,e. -f o at) j doh � � � x di it oat,,+ © �- k 0,vt cJ- a IN / �-t _ �'o-�,� � 17 d &J e l i A y S 40 S.5inle lq�-w� t� cnz %� bo v �z 6 , . OJ 2 u K d ew s r-e-, d � - - -c o �a� E ► s v d I's cu s s� o h aY) a v e.� sf 4-t,,v— develop.v 4r-) Cx�une-,c ttt;s lof �o (nM•u �'� t — c (�, C� Yi P �o ✓' -C u.v p 15 o ct a ►��a . �'� �dj .1 p tese- 4V Y-A eSe V, e&8 0--A S . S� vt c�e v'e 1 \o \ \qT8 ■ ► REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTOFFICE STAFF REPORT • . NOVEMBER 18,1998 A report to the Kalispell City Council regarding a request for preliminary plat approval of a four -lot residential subdivision. Technical assistance Cra-Lon Corporation P.O. Box 533 Bullhead City, AZ 86439 Paul J. Stokes & Associates 343 1st Av. W . Kalispell, MT 59901 B. Location of Property: The site is located on the north side Sylvan Drive where it merges with College Avenue. The property is described as Assessor's Tracts 4CA and 2BA in Section 17, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. C. Size: Total area: 0.909 acres Minimum lot area: 5,662 square feet, 0.132 acres Maximum lot area: 14,078 square feet, 0.323 acres D. Existing land use and zoning: Lot 1 is developed with a duplex, Lot 2 with a single family house, and lots 3 and 4 are vacant. The existing zoning on lots 1 and 2 is RA-1 Low Density Residential Apartment in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The RA-1 district provides for multi -family housing and minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and an additional 3,000 square feet for each additional unit beyond a duplex. The existing zoning on lots 3 and 4 is R-2 One Family Limited Residential in the Flathead County Zoning Regulations, which is proposed to be annexed and amended to city zoning. The planning board recommended that city R-3 zoning be adopted on lots 3 and 4. E. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning: North: Single-family residential, County R-2 and City RA-1 zoning South: Single-family residential, Kalispell R-3 zoning East: Single family residential, County R-1 zoning West: Single family residential, Kalispell RA-1 zoning F. Availability of Utilities: City sewer and water, overhead power, and natural gas utilities are in place within the street right-of-way abutting the subdivision. Water: City of Kalispell Sewer: City of Kalispell Electricity: Pacific Power Telephone: Centurytel Solid Waste: City of Kalispell Fire: City of Kalispell Schools: School District #5 Police. City of Kalispell REVIEW AND FINDINGS OF FACT This application is reviewed as a minor subdivision in accordance with State statutory review criteria and the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations. A. Compliance with the Flathead County Zoning Regulations: As noted above, RA-1 zoning currently exists on lots 1 and 2 and is proposed on lots 3 and 4. The subdivision would not comply with zoning in three respects. First, lot 1 would not meet the minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet. The plat proposes a lot size of 5,662 square feet, which could become even less if additional street right-of-way dedication is required (see discussion below on streets). A duplex already exists on lot 1. Second, lot 1 would not meet the minimum lot width requirement of 60 feet. The plat proposes a lot width of 48 feet, which could become even less if additional right-of-way dedication is required. Third, the proposed lot boundary between lots 1 and 2 does not meet the 10-foot side yard setback requirement of the RA-1 district. One option for compliance would be to combine lots 1 and 2 into a single lot. Another option would be to obtain a variance from the board of adjustment for creating these three non- conforming circumstances. Staff recommends a condition requiring compliance with zoning, which would provide for either option. B. Conformance with the Master Plan The subdivision substantially complies with the Kalispell City County Master Plan. On the master plan map, this area is designated as both high density residential land and transition area to urban residential land. The site is along a boundary between more intensive and less intensive land use designations. In high density residential areas, the plan anticipates proximity to commercial area, public open space, and collector or arterial streets, and this site is the southern edge of a planned high -density residential area which accordingly abuts Conrad Dr., Woodland Park, and a neighborhood business district. An applicable master plan policy which would also support the subdivision is 8.a, to designate areas for development where urban services already exist or can be economically extended. C. Effects on Health and Safety: Flooding and soils: The Soil Survey maps an intermittent stream across the middle of the property, and the steep banks of this drainage channel are approximately eight feet high. The channel has been filled west of the site at College Av. and east -of the site at Zimmerman -Rd, so it no longer appears -to function as a flowing drainage way for surface -water, but it does appear to function as a drainage retention area and potentially a wetland. At the public hearing on the zone change, adjacent neighbors referred to this area as the slough and said that it typically has surface water and waterfowl in it each spring. Viewing the site in October, the channel had no surface water but did have some wetlands vegetation (horsetails) and several birch trees growing in it. The area is not mapped as 100- year or 500-year floodplain in FIRM panel 1810D, but the FIRM panel may be in error in this area, since the floodplain boundary is shown as a straight north/south line as if the floodplain mapping abruptly ended. The soils on the site are mapped in the Soil Survey as Swims silty clay loam (Sr), which are rated by the Natural Resources and Conservation Service as having severe limitations for building sites due to flooding and ponding. Engineer Paul Stokes representing the applicant has stated that, upon preliminary inspection, the site does not appear to qualify as a wetland protected under the Clean Water Act; and the intention of the owner is that most of the channel area on lot 4 would be filled to create a suitable building site. Subdivision regulations require the following: that the design and development of subdivisions contain suitable building sites which are properly related to topography and shall preserve the natural terrain, natural drainage, existing topsoil, trees, natural vegetation, and wildlife and fish habitats to the greatest extent feasible (3.02); and that a drainage easement be placed along a watercourse drainage way, channel, ditch, or stream, at a sufficient width to allow for maintenance and stream bank preservation (3.18.D). Such a drainage easement would keep building sites outside of this channel area and mitigate potential flooding and environmental impacts. With such an easement extending to the top of the bank, the building site area on lot 4 would be only 16 feet deep at the most; because the area between the bank and the front property boundary ranges from approximately 16-36 feet deep and the front setback requirement is 20 feet. To implement these subdivision requirements, staff recommends the following: a qualified engineer, hydrologist, or agency shall delineate any part of the site which qualifies as a wetland under the Clean Water Act, and such land shall be designated on the final plat as a drainage easement and shall not be used as a building site. If lot 4 does not contain a 40'x40' building site outside of such drainage easement and required zoning setbacks, then lots 3 and 4 shall be combined into one lot. Topography: The steep bank of the drainage channel across the site is approximately eight feet high and 100% slope. Subdivision regulations (3.06.E) require that each lot have a suitable building site (40' x 40' square pad) on existing undisturbed terrain of 30% or less slope. Lot 4 does not meet this requirement but a variance is considered below, since the slope is only 8 feet high, and a building site with a daylight basement or moderate fill appears feasible. Fire and emergency access: The site is in an urbanized area and would be served. by the Kalispell Fire Department. The subdivision is approximately 0.8 miles from the fire station and police station. A hydrant is in place, which the Fire Chief commented is adequate to serve the subdivision. Access for fire and other emergency services is adequate. The site is in an urbanized area and is not mapped by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks as significant riparian or big game habitat. The channel/wetland area across the site may provide habitat for a variety of birds and other species. At the public hearing before the planning board on the zone change, neighbors commented that a variety of wildlife use this area. Retaining any qualified wetlands in the slough area as a natural drainage easement would mitigate potential impacts on wildlife (see further discussion above on flooding and soils). E. Effects on the Natural Environment: Channel/Wetland: As noted above, a natural drainage way crosses the site, which appears to function as a drainage retention area and potentially a wetland. At the public hearing on the zone change, adjacent neighbors referred to this area as the slough and said that it typically has surface water and waterfowl in it each spring. Engineer Paul Stokes representing the applicant has stated that, upon preliminary inspection, the site does not appear to qualify as a wetland protected under the Clean Water Act; and the intention of the owner is that most of the channel area on lot 4 would be filled to create a suitable building site. Based on subdivision requirements to conserve natural drainages within drainage easements, staff recommends that a qualified professional shall delineate any part of the site which qualifies as a wetland under the Clean Water Act, and such land shall be designated on the final plat as a drainage easement. See further discussion above on flooding and soils. Other effects: The building site portion of the site is relatively flat, requiring minimal grading except for lot 4 on which a variance from slope standards is discussed below. The road is paved, preventing potential road dust impacts on air quality. F. Effects on Local Services: Annexation: Annexation to the city would improve the overall level of public services to the subdivision, including municipal utilities, a staffed fire department, substantially more police staffing per capita and size of service area, and more extensive street infrastructure. Water and sewer: Municipal water and sewer lines are already in place in the street right-of-way abutting each lot. Streets: The subdivision would provide for 7-12 dwelling units, depending on the zoning approved on lots 3 and 4. The Institute of Transportation Engineers estimates average daily traffic for a single-family house at 10 daily trips and for a low-rise apartment unit at 6.6 daily trips, or 53-79 daily trips with full buildout of the subdivision. College Av. and Sylvan Dr. abutting the site are city streets with approximately 22-foot paved width and street lights but no curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or street trees. At the public hearing before the planning board on the zone change, neighbors commented that the two corners abutting the site form an S-curve which is a significant traffic hazard. Kalispell subdivision regulations require minimum road width of 28 feet and installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the subdivision side of the street, but also provide that city council can require waiver of protest to an SID in lieu of street improvements where minor subdivisions front on existing streets. The public works director and planning staff recommend completion of the street improvements in this case, due to the additional traffic impact of multi -family housing and that street improvements would significantly enhance the corner of College Av. and Sylvan Dr. which neighbors have objected is unsafe. Subdivision regulations also require minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet and that utilities be placed within right-of-way/easement at least 20 feet wide unless specified otherwise by the utility company. A portion of College Av. has right-of- way only 40 feet wide and the existing power line is outside the right-of-way, approximately six feet into the site. Although extending right-of-way width 20 feet on the other side of the street would better match the 60-foot right-of-way on the curve of Sylvan Dr., such dedication would burden that neighboring lot owner to the south by placing the right-of-way only 13 feet from the house there, and such right-of-way configuration would not be consistent with the existing location of the pavement and power line. Tim Hunt at Pacific Power commented that extending the right-of-way north to include the power line and an additional two -foot beyond s that point would be adequate for utility maintenance in this case. Accordingly, the Public Works Director recommends that additional College Av./Sylvan Dr. right-of-way be dedicated from the subdivision to include and extend two feet beyond the power line from the corner to the east end of the subdivision's Sylvan Dr. street frontage. East of this point, subdivision regulations would require dedication of additional easement to accommodate utilities in accordance with plans approved by the applicable utility companies. Schools: Staff estimates that 5-6 additional school -age children would reside at the site with full build -out of the subdivision. The property is located within the Kalispell School District. Gary Rose of the district commented that the subdivision would not have a significant effect on schools. Parks: Subdivision regulations do not require parkland dedication for minor subdivisions. The site is within walking distance, approximately 1,100 feet, of Woodland Park. Police Protection: The site would be served by the Kalispell Police Department. The subdivision is approximately 0.8 miles from the police station. Fire Protection: The site would be served by the Kalispell Fire Department. The subdivision is approximately 0.8 miles from the fire station. A hydrant is in place, which the Fire Chief commented is adequate to serve the subdivision. Refuse Disposal: Refuse disposal would be provided by the City of Kalispell. The County Landfill has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional refuse generated from this subdivision. Medical Services: Medical services are available at Kalispell Regional Hospital approximately 2.5 road miles from the site. G. Effects on Agriculture and Agricultural Water User Facilities: The 0.9-acre site is in urbanized area abutting the city. No significant impact on agriculture or water user facilities is anticipated. H. Compliance with the Flathead County Subdivision Regulations: The proposal complies with subdivision requirements, subject to meeting conditions that address improvements and design, except that a variance would be required from slope standards for lot 4. Subdivision regulations (3.06.E) require that each lot have a suitable building site (40' x 40' square pad) on existing undisturbed terrain of 30% or less slope. Lot 4 does not meet this requirement. Subdivision regulations provide for granting of variances subject to adoption of findings that the following criteria are met, each of which is discussed below. 1. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare or injurious to other adjoining properties. The steep bank of the drainage channel across the site is approximately eight feet high and 100% slope. It crosses the middle of lot 4. The slope standard addresses potential impacts of steep slope development from slope instability, erosion and siltation, reduced ability to suppress fires on steeper slopes, and hillside scarring. The slope standard is intended to address larger, continuous steep slopes although the standard does not specify a minimum height. Since the slope is only 8 feet high, a building site with a daylight basement or placed on suitable fill appears feasible without undue impacts on slope stability, erosion, fire safety, or scarring. Staff recommends that a professional engineer certify that the slope poses no significant geological hazard for the development of lot 4 or for neighboring properties, and that any recommendations for mitigation be noted on the final plat. 2. The conditions on which the variance is based are unique to the property on which the variance is sought and are not applicable generally to other property. The condition on which the variance is based is that the slope is only 8 feet high, which is unique to the property and not applicable generally to other property. 3. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property, a particular hardship would result as distinguished by a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations is enforced. The physical condition on which the variance is based is that the slope is only 8 feet high. The particular hardship is that lot 4 would not be developable if the standard is applied. 4. The variance will not cause a substantial increase in public costs. Substantial increases in public costs as a result of the variance are not apparent. 5. The variance will not, in any manner, vary the provisions of any adopted zoning regulations or master plan. 7 The variance would not be contrary to specific provisions of the zoning and master plan. Staff recommends approval of the variance from 3.06.E for lot 4, subject to the condition that a professional engineer certify that the slope poses no significant geological hazard for the development of lot 4 or for neighboring properties, and that any recommendations for mitigation be noted on the final plat. The Flathead Regional Development Office would recommend that Kalispell City Council adopt the Staff Report #KSR 98-3 as findings of fact and grant preliminary plat approval for this subdivision subject to the following conditions: The subdivision shall comply with the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. Either combine lots 1 and 2 into a single lot, or obtain zoning variances for lot width on lot 1, lot size on lot 2, and the side yard setback on lot 2. 2. The subdivision shall comply with the Kalispell Design and Construction Standards, as approved by the Public Works Department. a) Install street improvements including curb, gutter, and detached sidewalk on one side where the subdivision abuts the street. b) Dedicate additional College Av./Sylvan Dr. right-of-way from the subdivision to include and extend two feet north of the power line from the street intersection to the east end of the subdivision's Sylvan Dr. street frontage. c) Prepare and implement an engineered drainage plan. d) Sewer and water facilities shall meet design and improvements standards. 3. A variance is granted from 3.06.E for lot 4, subject to the conditions that a professional engineer certify that the slope poses no significant geological hazard for the development of lot 4 or for neighboring properties, and that any recommendations for mitigation be noted on the final plat. 4. A qualified engineer, hydrologist, or agency shall delineate any part of the site which qualifies as a wetland under the Clean Water Act, and such land shall be designated on the final plat as a drainage easement in accordance with Section 3.18.D of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations and shall not be used as a building site. If lot 4 does not contain a 40'x40' building site outside of such drainage easement and required zoning setbacks, then lots 3 and 4 shall be combined into one lot. 5. Dedicate utility easement to accommodate the existing utilities east of the subdivision's Sylvan Dr. street frontage in accordance with plans approved by the applicable utility companies. 6. Install street trees on one side of the subdivision street frontage in accordance with a plan approved by the Kalispell Parks Department. 7. Obtain approach permits from the Public Works Department for driveway approaches onto College Av. and Sylvan Dr. The requirements of the permit shall be met prior to final plat approval. 8. The following notes shall be placed on the final plat: a. All house numbers shall be placed to be visible from the road, either at the driveway entrance or on the building. b. New utilities shall be installed underground. 9. The preliminary plat shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of approval. H: \... \98\KSR98-3 - • • • r r r F�►Ti: • • r • Single Family Townhouse Mobile Home Park Duplex X Apartment Recreational Vehicle Park Commercial Industrial Planned Unit Development Condominium Multi -Family Other APPLICABLE ZONING DESIGNATION & DISTRICT RA1 ESTIMATE OF MARKET VALUE BEFORE IMPROVEMENTS $50, 000 IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED: Roads: Gravel X Paved Curb Gutter Sidewalks Alleys Cher Water System: Individual Multiple User Neighborhood X Public Other Sewer System: Individual Multiple User Neighborhood X Public Other Other Utilities: X Cable TV X TeIephone X Electric X Gas X Other Solid Waste: -Horne Pick Up Central Storage Contract Hauler X Owner Haul Mail Delivery: Central Individual X . School District: Fire Protection: X Hydrants Tanker Recharge Fire District: Drainage System: ALL RUN—OFF WILL BE RETA= CNSITE, SOIL TYPES ARE CONDC;C,T^ TO TOTAL ABSORPTION PROPOSED EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL: FECON=L NG, R=I=C)N OF DI=7RBED AREAS AND SILT FENCES- •• r •r VARIANCES: ARE ANY VARUNCES REQUESTED? NO (yes/no) If yes, please complete the information below: SECTION/REGULATION OF REGULATIONS CREATING SHIP: s- • a - r sr R• • r r • •• : COMPLIANCE OF REGULATIONS: PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE(S) TO STRICT COMPLIANCES WITH ABOVE REGULATIONS: 2 PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IN THE SPACES PROVIDE BELOW: Will the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare or injurious to other adjoining properties? 2. Will the variance cause a substantial increase in public costs? 3. Will the variance affect, in any manner, the provisions of any adopted zor_i.ng regulations or Master Plan? 4. Are there special circumstances related to the physical characteristics of the site (topography, shape, etc.) that create the hardship? S. What other conditions are unique to this property that create the need for a variance? 3 z • • The subdivider shall submit a complete application addressing items below to the FRDO Office at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the meeting at which it will be heard. 1. Preliminary plat application. 2. 16 copies of the preliminary plat. 3. One reproducible set of supplemental information. (See Appendix A - Flathead County Subdivision Regulations). 4. One reduced copy of the preliminary plat not to exceed I I" x 17" in size. 5. Application fee. I hereby certify under penalty of perjury and the laws of the State of Montana that the information submitted herein, on all other submitted forms, documents, plans or any other information submitted as a pan of this application, to be true, complete, and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Should any information or representation submitted in connection with this application be untrue, I understand that any approval based thereon may be rescinded, and other appropriate action taken. The signing of this application signifies approval for the F.R.D.O. staff to be present on t:ie property for routine monitoring and inspection during the approval and development process. CRA-TAN CORP. (Applicant) By: Paul J Stokes & Ass., Inc. -Aa-az�en By: Paul I es, President 0 October 2,1998 (Date) Superintendent 756-5000 Business Office 756-500 Tra nsport/Mai n tenance 756-5015 Special Services 756-5017 Flathead High School 756-5075 Junior High School 756-5030 Linderman School 756-5024 Russell School 756-5052 Peterson School 756-5067 Hedges School 756-5048 Elrod School 756-5043 Edgerton School 756-5058 phone: 406-756-5015 233 FIRST AVENUE EAST - KALISPELL, MONTANA 59901 fax: 406-756-4510 October 20, 1998 Steve Kountz Senior Planner Flathead Regional Development Office 723 5th Avenue East -Room 414 Kalispell, Mt. 59901 Re: Proposed CRA-LON Annexation Dear Mr. Kountz, A development of this size will not have a significant impact on our school district. As of this date, we are experiencing declining enrollment. Therefore, we would be able to accommodate additional students in our schools. Sincerely, Gary Rose Direc or of Maintenance and Transportation cc: Superintendent Joe McCracken 4 F. R. D. O. R. 22 M I R. 21 W. (Joins sheet 17) -Ke >a. a..• 2 R Ko .^ _ KnY�r+, 2 1� �Id e r' KO 5 a Kd .► Kn L,•: •� -� S �• 'L i' y L' � � .a,�jj�J. '4r :-.�iAa b Ile �., • , _ lj ^b• 1 Ba Kd if Aa �4 Tam Y ' Kd Kza --g, ;4.J''` s., �. v Mg _ Ba C, --1 Kzg FAIRGROUNDS Ba I Aa Ku ® C. Sr ' �C Pf NpRTHER 1 - VOooland r - Park r_kt AT ,-ISPELL` Y • _ GFZjF. BV U Kz Z n .. .-ter riti �,� i`�i �i__==✓/ o 4. Sr A Pf 17. n: P9 Pb Aa ..r •\ lit �. _ Ku x6 [V KI - m,t ) i Sa Pg Sa If S "`� - ITa r Ku r' Pf K "" - II Ku I 9] \ 1 Mi e 0 5000 ee: -survey Scale 1:20000 CRA-LON CORPORATION REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONIN STAFFFLATHEAD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE • •#KA-98-6 NOVEMBER 2,1998 A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding the annexation and initial zoning of Cra-Lon Addition. A hearing has been scheduled before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board for November 10, 1998 beginning at 6:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The Planning Board will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action. Technical assistance Cra-Lon Corporation P.O. Box 533 Bullhead City, AZ 86439 Paul J. Stokes & Associates 3431 St Av. W . Kalispell, MT 59901 B. Size and Location of Property: The 0.543-acres of land proposed for annexation is located on the north side of the curve on Sylvan Drive where it merges with College Avenue. The legal description of the property is attached in Exhibit A. C. Existing zoning: The existing zoning is R-2 One Family Limited Residential in the Flathead County Zoning Regulations. The R-2 district provides for single- family houses and minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. D. Proposed Zoning: The proposed zoning is RA-1 Low Density Residential Apartment in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The RA-1 district provides for multi- family housing and minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and an additional 3,000 square feet for each additional unit beyond a duplex. E. Existing Land Use: vacant F. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning: North: Single-family residential, County R-2 zoning South: Single-family residential, Kalispell R-3 zoning East: Single family residential, County R-1 zoning West: Single family residential, Kalispell RA-1 zoning G. General Land Use Character: The general land use character of the area is single-family residential with few exceptions. H. Availability of Utilities: City sewer and water, overhead power, and natural gas utilities are in place within the street right-of-way abutting the subdivision. The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-205, M.C.A. Findings of fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the itemized criteria described by 76-2-203, M.C.A. 1. Does the requested zone comply with the Master Plan? The proposed and existing zoning would substantially comply with the master plan. On the master plan map, this area is designated as both high density residential land and transition area to urban residential land. The site is along a boundary between more intensive and less intensive land use designations. In high density residential areas, the plan anticipates proximity to commercial area, public open space, and collector or arterial streets, and this site is the southern edge of a planned high -density residential area which accordingly abuts Conrad Dr., Woodland Park, and a neighborhood business district. 2. Is the requested zone designed to lessen congestion in the streets? The rezoning would provide for a modest increase in residential density and traffic generation on College Av. and Sylvan Dr. Looking at the subdivision proposal submitted concurrent with this application, RA-1 zoning would allow a triplex on lot 3 and a four -plea on lot 4. Impact of the rezoning on traffic congestion would be minor. 3. Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers? The Soil Survey maps an intermittent stream across the middle of the property, and the steep banks of this drainage channel are approximately eight feet high. The channel has been blocked by streets east and west of the site, so it no longer appears to function as a flowing drainage way for surface -water, but it does appear to function as a drainage retention area and potentially a wetland. The area is not mapped as 100-year or 500-year floodplain in FIRM panel 1810D, but this channel covering much of the north half of the site may be subject to seasonal surface water. The FIRM panel may be in error in this area, since the floodplain boundary is shown as a straight north/south line as if the mapping abruptly ended. The soils on the site are mapped in the Soil Survey as Swims silty clay loam (Sr), which are rated by the Natural Resources and Conservation Service as having severe limitations for building sites due to flooding and ponding. Viewing the site in October, the channel had no surface water but did have some wetlands vegetation (horsetails) and several birch trees growing in it. Engineer Paul Stokes representing the applicant has stated that the intention of the owner is to fill most of the former drainage channel to create a suitable building site. Access for fire and other emergency services is adequate. 4. Will the requested zone promote the health and general welfare? This annexation and rezoning to an urban density will promote the general welfare of the community by improving the level of public services to the site, creating a more efficient public service area (the other parcels along Sylvan Dr. and College Av. are already in the city), providing for orderly urban growth, and contributing to the City's tax base. Additionally, RA-1 zoning would provide additional opportunity for development of affordable housing within the city. On the other hand, increasing the zoning density to RA-1 on the eastern portion of the site, i.e., Lot 4 on the proposed subdivision, poses some disadvantages: it would be inconsistent with the surrounding single-family housing; the natural drainage covering most of Lot 4 poses development challenges and may contain wetlands; and Lot 4 has only 30 feet of street frontage. No significant impact is anticipated. Both the existing and proposed zoning districts include building setback and height standards that provide for adequate light and air between buildings. 6. Will the requested zone prevent the overcrowding of land and avoid undue concentration of people? The proposed multi -family residential zoning would substantially comply with the master plan. The RA-1 rezoning, however, would also contribute to crowding the eastern portion of the site, i.e., Lot 4 on the proposed subdivision. RA-1 zoning on Lot 4 would be inconsistent with the three surrounding single-family houses; the natural drainage covering most of Lot 4 poses development challenges and may contain wetlands; and Lot 4 has only 30 feet of street frontage. 7. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements? The proposed annexation and rezoning would improve the level of public services to the site and create a more efficient public service area for the City, since the other parcels along Sylvan Dr. and College Av. are already in the city. Sylvan Dr. and College Av. are paved streets, but the adjacent pavement width of 22 feet is substandard and no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks have been installed. Annexation would provide for access to police, fire, and other municipal services. City sewer and water, overhead power, and natural gas utilities are in place within the street right-of-way abutting the subdivision. 9. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular suitability of the property for particular uses? As discussed above, the Soil Survey maps an intermittent stream across the 3 middle of the property, and the steep banks of this drainage channel are approximately eight feet high. The channel has been blocked by streets east and west of the site, so it no longer appears to function as a flowing drainage way for surface -water, but it does appear to function as a drainage retention area and potentially a wetland. The soils on the entire site are mapped in the Soil Survey as Swims silty clay loam (Sr), which are rated by the Natural Resources and Conservation Service as having severe limitations for building sites due to flooding and ponding. Viewing the site in October, the channel had no surface water but did have some wetlands vegetation (horsetails) and several birch trees growing in it. Engineer Paul Stokes representing the applicant has stated that the intention of the owner is to fill most of the former drainage channel to create a suitable building site. r Does - requested zone give reasonable consideration, f_ district? RA-1 zoning would be inconsistent with the surrounding land uses, which are all single-family houses, particularly in the eastern half of the site. In fact, there are three houses within 20-feet of the'/2-acre site. Moreover, the proposal would create a finger of RA-1 zoning with single-family residential zoning on three sides. On the other hand, the site is at the south end of an area planned and zoned for multifamily housing, which includes a mobile home park and two four-plex buildings along College Av. Also, the channel/wetland crossing the site, if not filled, would provide a modest buffer between multifamily housing on this site and the single-family houses to the north. 11. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings? Since RA-1 zoning is inconsistent with the surrounding single-family houses, the proposal could adversely affect the value of the buildings in the area. No comments from neighbors have been received as of this writing. 12. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout the jurisdiction? As discussed above, the rezoning would substantially comply with the land use pattern recommended in the master plan. In high density residential areas, the plan anticipates proxir -nity to commercial area, public open space, and collector or arterial streets, and this site is the southern edge of a planned high -density residential area which abuts Conrad Dr., Woodland Park, and a neighborhood business district. 1-a*6101-iT, ►t ► � * yroul Staff recommends that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KA-98-6 as findings of fact and recommend that the City Council adopt RA-1 on Lot 3 and the proposed subdivision and R-3 on Lot 4. rd 7:1`ITlI�_1 A tract of land in the Northwest Quarter Northeast Quarter and in the Northeast Quarter Northwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, described as follows: Commencing at the one -quarter corner between Sections 8 and 17, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M.; thence South along the mid -section line of Section 17, 45.5. feet to the True Point of Beginning of the tract to be described: Thence East 229.5 feet; thence South 27020' West 105.0 feet; thence West along the North boundary of Woodland Park subdivision 277.7 feet to the mid- section line of Section 17; thence North 93.27 feet along said mid -section line to the point of beginning. 5 ,r 3 ,a a s + [ r !! ar s �.. is�ir r3�3r Fa 0 u ! r A 2 a - -_ - - � � I _ ate. uu 1A 1 2A 2E- 86 -- 8 11 p+ 1 65 10 22 64 1 83 80 A B 1 2EB 2 _ - 3 1 r 10 82 - - 61 A� 3A 9 18 � 1 � 8 2 17 , 12 7 8 p P1AT B 13 2 1 14 40 1Q1 1 VICINITY MAP CRA-LON CORPORATION REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONE CHANGE FROM COUNTY R-2, ONE FAMILY LIMITED RESIDENTIAL, TO CITY OF KALISPELL, RA-1, LOW DENSITY RESIEDENTIAL APARTMENT FILE ## KA-98-6 SCALE 1" = 300' P= DATE10/19/98 H:\&\rite\K"8_6.dwg 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Flathead Regional Development Office 723 5ffi Ave. East Room 414 Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406)758-5980 Fax: (406)758-578' CITY OF KALISPELL NAME OF APPLICANT:- CRA-LON CORPORATION MAIL ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 533 ZA. OCT 8 1998 CITY/STATE/ZIP: BULLHEAD CITY, AZ 86439 PHONE: (520) 768-9776 INTEREST IN PROPERTY: OWNER ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT: X A. What is the proposed zoning text amendment? N/A A. B. C. D. E. Address of the property: 440 COLLEGE AVENUE Legal Description: TRACT 4CA (Lot and Block of Subdivision; Tract #) NW1/4, SECTION 17, T.28N., R.21w. (Section, Township, Range) (Attach sheet for metes and bounds) The present zoning of the above property is: COUNTY P-2 The proposed zoning of the above property is: P-Al State the changed or changing conditions that make the proposed amendment necessary: THE APPLICA T HAS REQUESTED TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY FOR THE AVAILABILITY OF CITY SERVICES AND TO BE COMPATIBLE TO CITY SERVICES. 1 •;, A. Promoting the Master Plan THIS PROJECT IS CONTIGUOUS WITH THE THE CITY AND WOULD PROMOTE THE INTENT OF THE MASTER PLAN BY INCORPORATING to THE PROPERTY INTO AN EXISTING ZONE. Lessening congestion in the streets and providing safe access THE CITY HAS DEVELOPED AND PAVED THE STREETS IN THE AREA. TWO ADDITIONAL MULTI C. Promoting safety from fire, panic and other dangers ALL INFRASTRUCTURE AND IMPROVEMENTS ARE IN PLACE. FIRE, PANIC AND DANGER WILL NOT BE A D. Promoting the public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety and general welfare THE DEVELOPMENT WILL PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEAR Q Preventing the overcrowding of land THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONTIIOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS OF KALISPELL AND WOULD PROVIDE A NATURAL PROGRESSION OF THE CITY LIMITS. DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONSISTANT WITH EXISTING ZONING. F. Avoiding undue concentration of population DEVELOPMENT AND DENSITY WOULD BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH CITY ZONING REGULATIONS. G. Facilitating the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks and other public facilities THE DEVELOPMENT WILL UTILIZE ALL CITY SERVICES EXTENDED TO THE AREA AND CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR EXPENSE. 104 H. Giving reasonable consideration to the character of the district THE REQUESTED ZONING WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONED PROPERTIES I. Giving consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for particular uses THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED IN A RESIDENTUAL AREA AND IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. J. Protecting and conserving the value of buildings THE SUBJECT SITE IS K. Encouraging the most appropriate use of land by assuring orderly growth THIS DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWS THE NATURAL PROGRESSION OF THE CITY. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4. * * * * * * * * * * * * * The signing of this application signifies approval for F.R.D.O. staff to be present on the prope for routine monitoring and inspection during approval process. pplicant) (D te) 3 A. Pre -Application Meeting: A discussion with the Planning Director or designated member of staff must precede filing of this application. Among topics to be discussed are: Master Plan compatibility with the application, compatibility of proposed zone change with surrounding zoning classifications, and the application procedure. B. Completed application form. C. Application fee per schedule, made payable to the Flathead Regional Development Office. Fee Schedule Zone Change: Basefee........................................................................$400.00 For first 80 acres of area of the request.................Add $5/acre For requests for 81 - 160 acres.............................Add $3/acre For requests covering 161 acres or more...............Add $1 / acre Amendment to Zoning Text.......................................................$300.00 PUD Zoning Review: Residential....................................................................$400.00 Commercial. .................................................................. $500.00 MixedUse.....................................................................$650.00 D. The application must be accepted as complete by the FRDO staff thirty (30) days prior to the date of the meeting at which it will be heard in order that requirements of state statutes and the zoning regulations may be fulfilled. • • ► �f���i�i� 1 �L�. ail ��laA A. Application Contents: 1. Petition for zone change signed by at least 50% of the property owners in the area for which the change in zoning classification is sought. 2. A map showing the location and boundaries of the property. 3. A list of the names and mail addresses of all property owners within 150 feet of the subject property as shown on the Assessor's roll. Example Assessor's S-T-R Lot/Tract No. No. 4. A title report of the subject property. N Property Owner and Mail Address PAIL I STOKES & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engiinrs CRA-LON CORP. TRACT 4CA SECTION 17, T.28N., R.21 W. FLATHEAD COUNTY, MT PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CRA-LON ADDITION TO THE CITY OF KALISPELL TRACTS 2BA & 4CA N.E.1/4 N.E.1/4 N. W.1/4 & N. W 1/4 N. W.1/4 N.E.1/4 SEC. 17, T.28N.,R.21W., P.M.M. FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA r--7 1 �, .Clfd: f_M