Staff Report/Preliminary PlatFlathead Regional Development Office
September 20, 1994 723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
,ity Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Drawer 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: Sunrise View - Preliminary Plat
Dear Bruce:
Phone: (406) 758-5780
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission met in regular
session on Tuesday, September 13, 1994 to consider the following:
A request by Charles Keller for preliminary plat approval of a 18
single family/duplex lot subdivision on 6 acres in an R-4 (Two Family
Residential) zone. The property is located approximately 300 feet
south of 4 Mile Drive on the west side of US Highway 93; more
specifically described as Parcel 2X, in the NE4 of Section 1, Township
28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County.
John Parsons of the FRDO presented the staff report recommending approval for
the preliminary plat subject to ten (10) conditions as shown on Attachment A.
The representative for the applicant spoke in favor of the project, protesting the
cash -in -lieu of parkland, and the extension of Parkway Drive. No one spoke in
opposition.
After taking public comment, and discussion of the conditions of approval, the
Board adopted FRDO Staff Report #KPP-94-03 as findings of fact, and voted 9-0
to recommend approval for the requested Preliminary Plat with the conditions as
set forth by staff.
This recommendation is forwarded to the City . Council for final action. Please
contact the Commission or FRDO if you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
KAL ELL CITY- UNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
Therese Fox Hash
President
TFH/JJP/eo
Attachments: FRDO Report KPP-94-03 & Attachments
Site Plan
c: Charles Keller
2431 Highway 2 East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Paul Stokes and Associates
343 1st Avenue West
Kalispell, MT 59901
Marquardt Surveying
285 1st Ave. EN
Kalispell, MT 59901
F:\...\TRANS MIT\KPP94-3.REC
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell 0 City of Whitefish •
ATTACHMENT A
SUNRISE VIEW SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAT
FRDO REPORT #KPP-94-03
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
AS RECOMMENDED BY
KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 13, 1994
It is recommended that the City Council grant the requested preliminary plat
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Comply with the City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.
2. Comply with the City of Kalispell Subdivision Regulations.
3. Rename College View Court to Parkway Drive. Extend Parkway Drive to the
south from the end of the cul-de-sac to the south property line leaving the
cul-de-sac radius. Redesign the inside corner of that road so as to
provide a smooth curve or as directed by the City's Director of Public
Works.
4. The subdivision obtain approval from the State Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences.
5. The final plat be substantially in accordance with the Preliminary Plat
except as modified by conditions contained herein.
6. The developer pay a cash -in -lieu fee of 1/9 the undeveloped market value
of the property. That is 1/9 of $95,000 = $10,555.
7. All water lines and sewer mains shall be built according to plans and
specifications approved by the City of Kalispell Public Works Department.
All water and sewer main extensions onto private property shall be placed
within suitable easements.
8. A storm water drainage plan prepared by a licensed engineer shall be
submitted to and approved by the City's Public Works Department.
9. Placement of fire hydrants shall be approved by the City of Kalispell Fire
Department.
10. That this preliminary plat approval is valid for a period of one (1) year.
F:\...\TRANS MIT\KPP94-3.REC
FLATHEAD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
PRELIMINARY PLAT REPORT P.,
-03
SUNRISE VIEW SUBDIVISION
• *.. A 1994
A report to the Kalispell City/County Planning Board and Zoning Commission regarding a
request for a preliminary plat for an 18-lot multi -family subdivision on approximately six (6)
acres of land.
A. Owner:
Charles Keller
2431 Highway 2 East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Technical Assistance:
Paul J. Stokes and Associates, Inc.
343-1st Avenue West
Kalispell, MT 59901 `
Marquardt Surveying, Inc.
285 1st Avenue EN
Kalispell, MT 59901
B. SIZE AND LOCATION:
The property is approximately six (6) acres, a flag shaped parcel, located on the
west side of Highway 93 approximately .400 feet south of Four Mile Drive,
generally south and west behind the nursery. Please see Exhibit "A" (zoning
map) .
C. REOUEST:
The developer is requesting approval of an 18-lot duplex residential subdivision
in the R-4 zone. This project has the potential to add 36 residential units to the
housing market in Kalispell. The developer proposes a dog leg cul-de-sac to
supply access to those units.
1
The property consists of a single parcel of land which is vacant. North, zoned
County SAG-10, is the nursery, and AG-80 agriculture; east, zoned City R-3, is
developed with residences; to the south is zoned City R-3 and is a church; and
to the west is zoned City R-3 and is pasture. /
A. RELATION TO THE MASTER PLAN:
The Kalispell City/County Master Plan designates this area for high density
residential development which permits a maximum of 40 units per acre. The
subdivision proposes a density of 6 units per acre.
The subdivision meets the requirements of the R-4 zoning designation.
The subdivision does not meet the Kalispell Subdivision Regulation. The
maximum length of a cul-de-sac in the City is 600 feet, the developer proposes
a permanent cul-de-sac of approximately 1,000 feet.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES:
1. Water: Water would be supplied by the City. The cost of any extensions
of mains and tie-ins would born by the developer.
2. Sewer: Sewer would be supplied by the City. A lift station exists on the
east side of Highway 93. The cost of connection into the City's mains
would be borr�by the developer.
3. Public utilities: Other public utilities such as telephone and electricity are
in the immediate vicinity.
4. Schools: The creation of thirty six (36) units could be expected to
generate anywhere from 30 to 50 school -age children, again depending on
the scale of development proposed and the types of families attracted to
this area. The project is anticipated to have an impact on the local school
system, as the nearby school is already at capacity.
2
5. Parks and Recreation: State law provides that 1/9 of the undeveloped
value of the land be designated for park land. In this case the applicants
have proposed and would be required to pay a cash -in -lieu of park land
payment of 1/9 of the undeveloped value of the land. The applicant puts
the sites market value at $95,000. One -ninth of this value would be
$10,555.
6. Police Protection: The site is within the Kalispell Police Dept.
Jurisdiction. Response time will be within acceptable standards and the
area can be serviced.
7. Fire Protection: The subdivision is presently within the Kalispell City
Fire Department Jurisdiction. Response times will be within acceptable
standards.
8. Roads: This 18-lot subdivision is proposed to be served by a cul-de-sac
with a length of 1,000 feet which is in excess of the City Subdivision
Regulations (600 feet maximum permitted). This is not considered
acceptable by the City. In addition, the City has indicated that Parkway
Drive (to the south of the site) is to continue north into this site. The
design of Parkway Drive indicates that to be the case; it essentially dead
ends into the church property. It is therefore recommended that the cul-
de-sac remain as a temporary measure, and the road be extended to the
south terminating at the south property line of this subdivision. This
extension would provide for the connection of Parkway Drive to the south
with the internal road of this subdivision allowing for secondary access of
this subdivision. The cul-de-sac would effectively be temporary.
In addition, the road has been indicated to be private and named College
View. The City requires dedication of the streets and construction to its
standards within its jurisdiction. Since this road would be an extension of
Parkway Drive it is recommended that the road be named such.
7. Solid Waste: Kalispell municipal garbage pickup is available and can
handle the increased demand in service.
8. Public Health Services: Adequate medical facilities exist within the City
of Kalispell to address any reasonable need.
3
The applicant has submitted with the application a proposed declaration of
covenants, conditions and restrictions. This document describes homeowner's
association membership, use and maintenance of the property, and architectural
control standards.
F. EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY:
The effects and/or impacts of 18 duplex lots at this location is expected to be
minimal relative to public health and safety. This subdivision, upon annexation,
will be within the jurisdiction of the Kalispell Police and Fire departments.
Emergency medical support is located nearby at Kalispell Regional Hospital. The
proposed lots are on property well -suited to accommodate residential
development. Access to the site is available via Four Mile Drive, a County road.
G. EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT:
The subject property lies in an area which is residential in character; there
appears to be no residual wildlife habitat of significant value remaining on the
site.
V - V .. MOUVOTONISIMBIR
The proposed subdivision should have minimal impacts on the natural
environment. The site exhibits no unusual topographic features, nor are there
critical plant communities present.
L EFFECTS ON AGRICULTURE:
The site is currently a field and is located within the urban fringe of Kalispell and
is not considered suitable or desirable agricultural land.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION
A request for annexation and zoning of the subject property will, if approved, allow the type and
density of development proposed in this request for preliminary plat approval. Further, the
proposed use is in substantial conformance with the Kalispell City -County Master Plan.
It is recommended that the Kalispell City/County Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt
this report as findings of fact and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council of
this Preliminary Plat with the following conditions:
E!
1. Comply with the City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.
2. Comply with the City of Kalispell Subdivision Regulations.
3. Rename College View Court to Parkway Drive. Extend Parkway Drive to the south
from the end of the cul-de-sac to,the south property line leaving the cul-de-sac radius.
Redesign the inside corner of that road so as to provide a smooth curve or as directed
by the City's Director of Public Works.
4. The subdivision obtain approval from the State Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences.
5. The final plat be substantially in accordance with the Preliminary Plat except as modified
by conditions contained herein.
6. The developer pay a cash -in -lieu fee of 1/9 the undeveloped market value of the
property. That is 1/9 of $95,000 = $10,555.
7. All water lines and sewer mains shall be built according to plans and specifications
approved by the City of Kalispell Public Works Department. All water and sewer main
extensions onto private property shall be placed within suitable easements.
8. A storm water drainage plan prepared by a licensed engineer shall be submitted to and./j
approved by the City's Public Works Department.
9. Placement of fire hydrants shall be approved by the City of Kalispell Fire Department.
10. That this preliminary plat approval is valid for a period of one (1) year.
F:\FRDO\REPORTS\KPP94-03.SNR
M
-545. 7
Zak7L
167.oaf
�`0
®
8
p
®
�%p �r p� a
'AFze
® �y
�p
pry
t L.. A
� V ci -7
k
Io•
®
W. DV'+W34"W-
7
�LG"�
E
�Y
•t'Y.Ac � �'.
I'ic�.
0,55 A i-I
cry
0
a
o
�
-
a
�A�sa s
c=.. aar S• Y�So.
ta3°rr3
°is
PAR".
T-+A. ;
5E a I . . .
I NE ^_
87.4:-
7 Z I r„-_
` :NE v..
u_RE0N
FARCE
SO i�!_ii
v ,. T A 1 ,\
STATE O-
vC Jj NT
C� ti
�EZs0N�_
Af.0 - :n .
4 M I L E -- R , / E
r - -I c 1 4
2 XLA
zor-C
2 x
IN,
4c
-A, QL
Z'
o
20 NJRTC HAV HEIG
SECO C- DOI 10, J 7
14 13
its !:r 6 C 2; A 17 0 vv_
ADM
N
IN 16 6r q R >
10
It I I 12 �6y
.19 t5r 20CA
m o R rm 4 A V CII DRIVE
5, 4
ISi "THOUPSONSHEIG HT%ADD. -t VD-1 RICGC s ic D
,5JAA
N Rr
�4 2 3 5 6 80
Su4ml
3 a L 0
L c ou
11 1 a 20 3
al It IT R 1 0 5 C 0 a 1 d E I IL
Q 13 11F 2w
to
I.
Ai
8 T a a v Gb 0
&
A r o PARK NO. ..A,
tc! 3 PA A K
/.2 7 LOT I -
IS
0 0
r c p 9K 6 4 q6f.
04 1 L 1. ..33 1 2 C"u C" OF
9 AD It` 3 Goo
IL 13! 4 y
3 ILI M SUSONIN
0411
X 3 2
I
DRIVE
99., r- zo 12 t' 7
S461 of
3 IXI
2 'D
3
fa --'fET 2 1 % 4
5 22
I Q 21 10
2
TR-
277. z
Zc
2 6 :3 bd
2 24
as Z
VA 43 -T
�'A'l SH IS
17 Id Is
/\ to
24 14A 4
1A,
4 0 It
4
2 0 9 to
4] 12
2C 41 at I
.2
2 13- i.
IS !a 16 is I-ILI lij
a 0 0 14
24 ',V --.:
3
C A ell
7
00 L D S T R Tl'
-k
4 C
SAG-10
R-1
N
AG-80
;
4E
L
MUTTON
N 0
8'
4A
!FTI
STATj! tJ 34 33 =�
H a.3
-
CEmmammi
3= •*
_
r
SUBJECT -
3j .._..: ♦. �i
A Ii '�
CITY LuffmPmr-
22
23 24
:_.. a =E __ '
.3
MOrtT71
~gym DAM
�
R 3
♦ �
2
:7 ►f
15 114 :3 7
ASSEMBLY OF GOD
3 •
•
2 ADD NO 180 • !
♦ c .3
= L
MORT"
KAVEN D&M
�ourSCk5 SLw -
T
3
! 1
Gc ADD 819
i
1
i' 9LPC9 s
12 3 ♦ S
3= 1 21 :
T 20
. , tfllt�Ins !ltrIns
-
R-3 _
PARK YIE
cR
3
p tr a 13
�♦ .s I �i t .7 tiORT.11ic:[ ♦ .a �
Cl 92
` t7� SEC ' 0
' a�
t 7
< f
RA-1
•�Y 3_
2, P1
.
_
.
ev, < <�
PA UL J. STOKES & ASSOCIATES
Consulting Engineers
94-3
CITY OF KAUSPELL
SEWER MAP
CHARLES E. KELLER PROPERTY
LOT 2X SEC. 1, T28N, R22W
FLATHEAD CO., MONTANA
LL
®
O CO
'• S 8
LLJ
L� (NJ °e
co
€f) ODit
rrLli�� _ qa N�vd 3 C6 'oN AMH •s ' •n� S
Jz
Ld
cr —D Z U- g - G°F Y3iy rtt 3'a7 Z.0 Ta �� o
Q V J--
�-
2�14bt
:
10
J 9'
2 Wy C Y• `_ �oN H
ot N N 00 J- J O 6 -
J j a a s
V� to d
SL m
b
£(i ,tVJn H�JtH_'S •/) q'ti o � �Q Qp$ � ° � „oj g o
D O m b\
Ire
Ti
n O
F n * t • u►
�, • uj .--•..i J o 0 � N o Yw.,.� � N E
>
M t f
re
-� d N •p g' •0
A � $ u• �� re � = o ��''!' I J o � Z 3
UN
6'0• /uDA/v r a
F 4 K �• {�� f•-' i �• o 8 N Q O
z �
p
,O
y r 1 b°N�
(- N
3 f M
3�°• I N � 3
o
K
� � .00 ozr F s i o A o� °•
2 3 lu voty a e? I a d
® $ v J Q
o' eon J
��6 Rj z W � ,00'14Z �J-i.fEAZA'N I 2
%yea+ .O'Ozf V '
,e+5?.pP Y � � •3•ors.. L�0 %•Y I r � :5 0 � .a
b k COLLEGE �Fv(EW CT ° QN vi
wO 'e rodoty �- —9•N — . ' ' -J Q ° Rif
+oa a, • �L "6ES
or 0
KALISPEL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
rR SEPTEMBER 13, 1994
CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City -County
AND ROLL CALL Planning Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05
p.m. by President Hash. Board members present were Lopp,
Fraser, DeGrosky, Hodgeboom, Sanders, Bahr, Carlson, Kennedy
and Hash. John Parsons, Senior Planner represented the Flathead
Regional Development Office. Brian Wood, Zoning Administrator
represented the City of Kalispell. There were approximately 50
persons in attendance.
APPROVAL OF The minutes of the August 9, 1994 meeting were corrected as
MINUTES follows: on page 4, Bill Dryres was corrected to Diers; on page
6, paragraph 2 under Discussion, line 10 should read "orthopedic
surgeons". The minutes were approved as corrected on a motion
by Kennedy, second by Bahr. All members voted aye.
LISTER ZONE Hash introduced a request by Alberta Lister, et al to amend the
CHANGE / Lower Side Zoning District by changing the zoning on
AG-40 TO approximately 65 acres from AG-40 (Agricultural) to SAG-5
SAG-5 (Suburban Agricultural). The property is approximately 1/4 mile
southwest of Foys Lake, and is further described as Tracts 5BCA,
5BC, SBD, 5BAAB, SBAAC, 5BAB, 5BABB, 5BABA, SBAA, and 5BA in
Section 26, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead
County.
Staff Report Parsons presented report #FZC-94-19. The statutory criteria for
evaluation of a zone change was evaluated. Based on findings
that the requested zone change was inconsistent with the intent
of the zone and the Master Plan, and because of the limited road
access, the steep slopes in a forested area, and the high fire
danger, staff recommended denial of the requested SAG-5 zone.
Public Hearing The meeting was opened to those in favor of the zone change.
Proponents Dawn Marquardt, surveyor representing Alberta Lister, told the
Board that she had met with a planner other than Mr. Parsons,
who indicated that an R-1 zone would be supported by FRDO.
Later, she was informed by another planner that R-1 was not
appropriate, but that SAG-5 would be. So, based on that go-
ahead, her clients proceeded with the zone change application,
paid the fees, and paid for technical assistance. Two weeks
before the meeting, she received a phone call from John Parsons
telling her that he could not support the SAG-5 zone change. She
was upset that this was not discussed at the initial meeting with
FRDO. No mention was made, at that time, of the access road.
There is adjacent R-2 zoning to this area. None of these parcels
are 40 acres to fit the AG-40 zone. There is no transition
1
between R-2 and AG-40, so SAG-5 would be a transition zone. She
argued that a zone change does not increase the density. There
are other avenues to go through if the applicants decided to
subdivide their property.
Mike Tamburelli, Columbia Falls, owns property in the area, and
felt the zone change would fit the area better. He had invested
in this property with the intention of subdividing at least a
portion of it into smaller lots. Much of the area is steep and
unuseable, so that would limit the density.
Alberta Lister, applicant/property owner, was in favor of the SAG-
5 zone. She submitted photos of many flat spots on the property
which would make good building sites.
Opposition Ken Bullman, Fire Supervisor for the Kalispell Unit for the
Department of State Lands, testified that this property is
identified as a high fire hazard area, and even though there may
be some nice building lots in there, on a whole it is one of the
worst areas for the danger of wildland fires that he has seen in
his 25 years of fighting fire. There are steep slopes, box
canyons, and heavy fuels, so that no matter where you build a
home, there is no way out to ensure public safety. The reason
there is no transition zone is because it goes from flat to very
steep. There is no reason to worsen the situation by changing
the zone to allow more density.
There being no further opposition, the public hearing was closed
and opened to Board discussion.
Discussion Lopp addressed questions to Parsons, pertaining to the issues
that Dawn raised as to the processing of an application with staff.
Parsons explained the chronology of events as noted in his file,
stating that he did not initially meet with Ms. Marquardt, but
indicated that he told her that he could not guarantee approval
of the zone change. He stated his position in this case and told
the applicant that he most always tells applicants he cannot
guarantee that he will recommend approval prior to evaluation of
the request or a site visit.
Other subdividing options were explored for the subject 65 acres.
Parsons remarked that a person does not rezone their property
unless they intend to subdivide. The grandfather clause protects
the nonconforming size lots which exist there now.
The Board felt that this year's fire season amply supported the
State Land's position. DeGrosky stated that he is very familiar
with the site and was involved with the original assessment. In
heavily forested areas with inadequate access there exists a
volatile combination, which creates a high fire danger.
2
Motion DeGrosky moved to adopt FRDO staff report #FZC-94-19 as findings
of fact, and forward it with a recommendation for denial of the
zone change request. Fraser seconded. On a roll call vote, Lopp,
Carlson, Fraser, Hodgeboom, Kennedy, Bahr, DeGrosky, Sander and
Hash voted 9-0 in favor of the motion.
SUNRISE VIEW Next, was a request by Charles Keller for preliminary plat approval
PRELIMINARY on approximately 6.0 acres of property currently zoned R-4 (Two
PLAT Family Residential) located approximately 300 feet south of 4 Mile
Drive on the west side of US Highway 93; more specifically
described as Parcel 2X, in the NE4 of Section 1, Township 28
North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County. The subdivision
is known as Sunrise View, and will contain 18 single family/duplex
lots. Access will be from 4 Mile Drive to the interior road called
College View Court. Lots range in size from 9,600 square feet to
14,200 square feet and will be served by City services.
Staff Report Parsons presented report #KPP-94-03. The subject property was
annexed in August, 1994. The proposed 1000 foot cul-de-sac does
not meet City of Kalispell subdivision regulations for roads, and
is recommended to be built on a temporary basis, and in the
future be an extension of Parkway Drive. Based on evaluation of
the criteria for a subdivision, staff recommended approval subject
to ten (10) conditions.
A letter was received and distributed to Board members from Jean
Johnson, of Paul J. Stokes & Associates, technical assistants for
the applicant, addressing some concerns they had with the
conditions.
Public Hearing The meeting was opened to public comment.
In Favor Jean Johnson, Paul Stokes & Associates, addressed the issues
outlined in his letter of September 13, 1994. With regard to
building a permanent cul-de-sac, the developer has been unable
to negotiate a sale of property from the church for the extension
of Parkway Drive. Neither the church nor the subdivision was
able to get an approach permit onto the Highway. The developer
also protested the market value assigned to the property for the
purpose of evaluating the cash in lieu of parkland, stating that
the considerable expense of developing the property makes it less
desireable for sale, so this figure does not reflect the actual
market value of the property.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was
closed and the meeting opened to Board discussion.
Discussion Hash questioned what the easement noted on the title was for, as
it indicated this particular property is burdened with an easement
to others. Charles Keller, the developer of the project, answered
that the only easement on the property was for underground
electrical service.
3
The temporary cul-de-sac was discussed, with the potential of a
through road at some future date. With the growth occurring in
that direction of town, with children going to the schools, a road
parallel to the highway is a necessity for safety purposes.
Motion Lopp moved to adopt the findings of fact in report #KPP-94-03
with the conditions as presented. DeGrosky seconded. On a roll
call vote, the Board voted 9-0 in favor of granting conditional
preliminary plat approval for Sunrise View Subdivision.
Mike Fraser excused himself from the Board for the next two items
on the agenda.
SCENIC TRACTS Hash introduced a request by David L. and Jean L. Pittsley for
EAST / preliminary plat approval of an eight (8) lot subdivision on
PRELIMINARY approximately 4.7 acres located about 500 feet north of West
PLAT Reserve Drive on the east side of Scenic Drive, and is zoned R-2.
The property is further described as Lot 7, Block 1, Scenic Tracts
located in the SW4 SW4 of Section 28, Township 29 North, Range
21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County.
Staff Report Parsons gave a brief overview of report #FPP-94-22. Based on
staff evaluation of the statutory criteria for a subdivision,
conditional approval is recommended.
Public Hearing Doug Kaufman, of Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, technical representative
In Favor for the applicant, stated that they had no problem with the
conditions set forth in the staff report. He said that the zone
change request for R-2 has gone to the Commissioners. The
proposed subdivision is surrounded by other subdivisions that
average 1/2 acre lot sizes, so this would be in character with the
neighborhood, and should be an attractive infill development.
Opposition Don Bogut, Evergreen School District, spoke in opposition to the
proposed subdivisions, because of the negative impact it would
have on their enrollment. In order to accomodate the influx of
students from all the recent developments in Evergreen, they have
had to restrict out of district students from coming into the
school. He requested an 18 month delay in approving the
subdivision so they will have time to assess the impacts on the
school.
Robert Aumaugher, Superintendent of the Evergreen School
District, reminded the Board that in the last year 170 mobile home
spaces have been approved, which will have an enormous impact
on the school district, as they are already maximized on the
classroom capacity. A school levy failed last spring for $5.00 per
household to build new structures. It is a frightening experience
for them to try to get mill levies passed.
Denise Kofer, Evergreen resident, agreed with the previous two
speakers on the impacts to the schools. She is generally in favor
4
of the subdivision as she knows of the need for housing, but she
also requested an 18 month delay to allow time for the schools to
assess the impacts.
Tony Dawson, Chairman of the Evergreen School Board, is also
employed in the building industry, and employs a dozen cabinent
makers, therefore he is not opposed to development. However, the
overriding impact is on the schools. The way the funding works,
is that when you have more kids, you get more funding, but that
money does not support construction of new buildings. With the
approved manufactured home parks, they estimate 1-3 children per
mobile home. With the experience they have had with trying to
get a $25,000 levy passed, that failed one time, they are not
excited about trying to get a million dollar levy passed. By
delaying a decision for 18 months, it will at least give the school
an opportunity to assess the impacts.
Hearing no further comment, the public hearing was closed and
opened to Board discussion.
Discussion Kennedy questioned the county standards for paved roads in
subdivisions, which allows double chip seal as an option. She
does not believe that for the long term, it will be able to
withstand the traffic generated. She argued to remove the option
of a double chip seal, and insist on asphalt paving. Hash felt
that if the county provides that chip seal is appropriate, the
Board would have to specify the alternative. Without some
findings to support a higher standard, the Commissioners would
defer to the County Road Department. Concerns regarding the
double chip seal were to be forwarded to the County
Commissioners, but Board will leave it to the County's discretion
to adequately pave the cul-de-sac.
DeGrosky felt that the school board made some compelling
arguments, and presented a novel approach to wait before
approving the subdivision. The Board sympathized with the
school board, recognizing the impacts to the schools in the cities
and countywide, however questioned if an 18 month delay would
accomplish anything to accomodate the influx of students in
Evergreen. Lopp felt that the timing of this proposal has a built
in time delay due to it being the end of the building season.
Hash agreed with the comments regarding the impacts to the
schools, and until the public decides to take a "no growth"
stance, we are going to be faced with these issues. As the
building and service trades benefit from the influx of people, the
public is going to have to bear some of the burdens.
Motion Bahr moved for the adoption of FRDO Report #FPP-94-22 and
recommend approval to the County Commissioners with the
recommendations 1-13 as presented. Kennedy seconded. On a roll
call vote Carlson, Lopp, Kennedy, Hodgeboom, DeGrosky, Bahr,
5
Sanders and Hash voted in favor. The motion carried on a 8-0
vote. Fraser abstained.
SCENIC TRACTS Hash introduced a request by Dennis J. and Kitty L. Kirby for
WEST / preliminary plat approval for a 7 lot single family subdivision
PRELIMINARY known as Scenic Tracts West, on approximately 3.5 acres located
PLAT north of West Reserve Drive. The property is known as Lot 6,
Block 2, Scenic Tracts in the SW4 SW4 of Section 28, Township 29
North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County.
Staff Report Parsons presented report #FPP-94-21. The proposed subdivision
meets all the necessary requirements, therefore staff recommended
conditional approval, adding a condition #14 to read: The final
plat shall show the parcel located in the northwest corner as "Not
a Part". It was staff's understanding that the owners of the two
properties are negotiating on the right of way for the access.
Public Hearing Doug Kaufman, Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, representative for the
In Favor property owner, explained that the proposed subdivision is just
across the road from the previously heard proposal, and his
comments apply to this one, as well. They have been in contact
with Mr. O'Myer who owns the northwest portion of the lot in
question, and are trying to negotiate a trade on the 12 foot
easement to the north, which would not provide access, anyway,
and allow him access on the 60 foot right of way.
Dennis Kirby, the property owner, shares the concerns of the
school district, as his three children attend Evergreen School, but
he feels that an 18 month delay won't change anything.
Presently, the lot is a vacant dusty field that would be better
utilized with homes built on it. His neighbor, Mr. O' Myer has
agreed to grant the 12 foot easement along the north lot lines,
which will be deeded back to him on the main access.
Charles Barrow, adjacent property owner, agrees with Mr. Kirby
that a subdivision is a good use for the property, as it is just a
vacant, dirty field now. He is in favor of the proposal.
Opposition Don Bogut, Evergreen School District, opposed this subdivision for
the same reasons he opposed Scenic Tracts East.
Robert Aumaugher, Superintendent of Evergreen School District,
had the same reasons for being opposed as stated earlier, and
noted that a minimum of two classrooms would need to be added.
He is not sure how "to get on with it" based on recent legislative
action, as the governor is not recommending any increase in the
foundation program for this year. He is perplexed as to what
they are supposed to do.
Denise Kober, is in favor of more housing in the Evergreen area,
however is opposed for the same reasons as previously stated.
N.
She felt that the impacts to the schools should be addressed in
the review criteria.
Tony Dawson, was opposed for the same reasons as mentioned
before. He pointed out that last year in the Marion School
District, something very similar happened, where the residents
were not opposed to development, but were in opposition to the
impacts it would have on the school. The Commissioners found in
their favor and denied the subdivision. They are not asking for
denial, but rather a delay. The time it takes for the school to
react to the impacts, and hold an election on the bond issue,
takes at least two years. These are small subdivisions, but the
cumulative effect creates the need for more classrooms and
teachers.
Hearing no further public comment, the public hearing was closed
and the meeting opened to Board discussion.
Discussion DeGrosky informed the audience that schools are addressed under
the twelve criteria for review of subdivisions. The Board is not
insensitive to the impacts on the schools. It comes up time and
again. Until the issue is seriously addressed and there is a
moratorium on building while the schools' situation is rectified,
there is no legal recourse to deny the subdivision. Parsons
replied that the State has not allowed any recourse. It is up to
the County Commissioners to set a policy. This Board does not
have the authority to curtail development. Enabling legislation is
needed to extract mitigation/impact fees. Hash commented that
impacts to police and fire services are also issues we will be
facing for a long time, and are concerns to take to our governing
bodies. Lopp addressed the school issue, as he is very familiar
with the impacts from major subdivisions. A long term solution
being discussed in Spokane/Rathdrum/Coeur d'Alene area. They
are seriously looking at a services fee, so that every new
subdivision that comes in pays a full load for the services they
are going to need. Although these subdivisions come on with
additional taxes, they still do not pay for the services for which
they are given. He sympathized, but does not have any authority
to deny the request.
Kennedy wanted it noted in the record that she had concerns with
the double chip seal. She would prefer to see asphalt.
Motion Lopp moved to adopt the findings of fact in report #FPP-94-21
and forward a positive recommendation to the County
Commissioners to grant this subdivision subject to the conditions
as presented, with the addition of #14, to indicate on the final
plat the northwest corner lot to be identified as Not a Part.
Kennedy seconded. On a roll call vote DeGrosky, Kennedy, Bahr,
Carlson, Hodgeboom, Sanders, Lopp and Hash voted in favor of
granting preliminary plat approval for Scenic Tracts West. Fraser
abstained.
7
Kennedy asked fellow Board members if they deemed there to be
a conflict of interest for her, as City Councilwoman, on the next
three agenda items. It was agreed that as an elected official, it
was necessary for her to act on requests by the City, and could
not step down from the Board for every City initiated proposal.
CITY OF Hash introduced the following requests by the City of Kalispell on
KALISPELL approximately 7.0 acres owned by the City, located about 1300 feet
REQUESTS - south of Woodland Avenue on the east side of South Woodland
WOODLAND Drive; more specifically described as Lots 27, 28, and 29 of
COURT / Greenacres Subdivision, for: (a) a change in the zoning from R-2
ZONE CHANGE; (Urban Residential) to R-4 (Two Family Residential); (b) preliminary
PRELIMINARY plat approval of Woodland Court Subdivision, a 28-lot residential
PLAT & CUP subdivision of which 12 lots will be single family detached and 16
lots will be single family attached (32 sublots), for a total of 44
single family lots. Lots range in size from 6,000 square feet to
9,836 square feet and will be served by City services; (c) a
conditional use permit to allow as a cluster development a 16 lot
attached single family (32 sublots), a 12 lot detached single family,
and a 0.76 acre homeowners park.
Staff Report / Parsons presented staff report #KZC-94-3, which assessed the
WOODLAND City's request for a zone change from R-2 to R-4. Parsons went
COURT ZONE through the statutory criteria for evaluating a zone change, and
HANGE / based on his findings, recommended that the requested zone
R-2 TO R-4 change be approved.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the zone
change.
In Favor Susan Moyer, City of Kalispell, explained that the reason for the
zone change request was to create smaller lots with the intention
of building an affordable housing project which the private sector
cannot provide to the bulk of the residents in the area whose
average income makes it a struggle get out of the rental market
and become homeowners. With grant money, the City is able to
build homes in the $62,000 - $65,000 range on affordable lots. A
fledgling attempt was made some years ago, with seven (7) homes
built with the grant funds, however, money had to be refunded
because the City was unable to locate affordable lots. She felt
that there may be a stigma about affordable housing, so passed
photos of two of these homes to show their pride in ownership.
Jim Oliverson, 640 Woodland Avenue, employed by Kalispell Regional
Hospital, was speaking both as an employer and as a father, in
favor of the proposal. The average yearly income in the area is
roughly between $12,000 to $15,000. That comprised one-third of
his 700 employees, and out of that figure only about 30-40% are
working full-time. His son is 25 years old, and has worked at his
job in the service industry for two years, and makes $4.85 per
hour working part-time. There is no way for the working class
people to buy a home, and he is speaking on their behalf.
Bruce Lutz, land planning consultant for the project, has attended
these type of planning sessions for 18 years. The most
resounding things he hears in Bigfork, Whitefish and Kalispell is
"where is the affordable housing?" In this case, there is a site
which is close -in, owned by the City, so that the City can enable
this to happen. He sees this as an opportunity rather than an
impact. The zone change will allow the density to make this
project pencil out.
Lisa Hooper, is a beneficiary of the City's low-income housing.
She was told that low income housing would look like Browning,
or a slum. She takes a lot of pride in her home and passed a
photo to the Board members of her house. When she qualified for
the City grant money, she had worked for a bank for 6 1/2 years,
had saved her money to buy a house, but the houses she was
qualified to buy looked like they should be burned. At the time,
she was living with her 2 1/2 year old son in a 364 square foot
apartment, and was getting desparate to buy a house. She felt
strongly that just because one does not make enough money to
buy a house at today's high prices, does not make a person a
slob or a bad person. Her house is on one acre with three other
houses, and she has plenty of space. These homes look good and
have the same amount of space as other houses in the
neighborhood. There is a lot of paperwork, and the City has
standards that must be met to be able to buy these houses. Just
because we don't make alot of money doesn't mean they won't care
for their homes. People will take pride in their home if given a
chance.
Michael
Cole, a college graduate
who is employed by
an
architectural
firm in town, falls into
the income bracket that
will
not allow
him to buy a home. The
lower priced houses he
has
seen are
between $85,000-$90,000.
He can't afford that.
This
program
would give him an opportunity to invest in a house
and
give him
a start.
Doug Kaufman, speaking as a private citizen, has been employed
for six years with the same engineering firm. About 1 1/2 years
ago, he was fortunate to get involved in the program for
affordable housing with the City. He had been looking for a
house for 6-9 months. He saw alot of dumps, which may have
been affordable, but were not decent living accomodations. He
could see his dream of owning a house floating away, because
affordable housing tends to run from $80,000-$100,000 on the low
end. At the wages he makes, he could never afford to do that.
It is an excellent plan. He felt that the plan should be addressed
prior to the zone change, so that it is understood that this
program promotes self-help. This program will allow you to
develop pride in your property. When he looks at the rentals
down the street from his neighborhood, it is not pretty housing.
It looks like the houses he saw in the $50,000 range. These are
quality built houses. Their houses have increased the values in
9
the neighborhood. He has done quite abit of the work himself.
It is a very valuable program, to keep people from living in
substandard rentals.
Mike Fraser, speaking as a citizen and as a professional, who has
been involved in many projects, noted that the major expenses
faced by developers in the private sector is land and
infrastructure costs that push the prices up. The City has an
opportunity with public property to apply some leverage to help
with these costs. It is in compliance with the Master Plan, the
infrastructure is available, and the statutory criteria are met for
the zone change request.
There being no other proponents, the hearing was opened to
opposition to the requested zone change.
Opposition Gina Balderant, 61 S. Woodland Drive, was opposed to the zone
change because it would increase the density.
Alice Ward, 538 Willow Glen, felt that the comparison between
Lisa's development with 4 houses per acre, and the proposed
development with 44 per 7 acres was twice the density. The issue
is not whether or not it is affordable housing, but changing the
zone to allow more density and attached buildings, adding to the
traffic problem, the impacts to the schools and is inconsistent with
the neighborhood.
Susan Cole, 1523 S. Woodland Drive, agreed with the previous two
speakers and was also opposed to the R-4 zone because of the
density in a neighborhood that has many 1/2 acre lots, with nice
homes. Due to all of the development to the south, the traffic on
South Woodland is very busy all day long. It is no longer a quiet
neighborhood. It is a narrow street and the increased traffic will
be too much.
Laurie Cole, 1523 S. Woodland, agrees with what the others said.
They have lived in Kalispell for 17 years, and in the neighborhood
for 5 years. There has been a remarkable amount of change all
over town. He disagreed that the infrastructure could handle the
development. It is pushed to the limit. He can no longer walk,
jog or bike safely on Willow Glen or South Woodland because there
is too much traffic. The proposed density will exacerbate the
congestion. He is favor of having low income housing, but limit
the high density.
Valerie Pacovsky, property owner to the east of proposed project,
agrees that the zone change allows too much density, which would
lend a total different flavor to the neighborhood. Others own 1/2
to 1 acre lots. The proposed density would put a strain on
Hedges School. It will impact services and the quality of life they
chose when they bought their land.
10
Bob Thomas, 1422 Woodland, is opposed to the R-4 zone due to the
density impacts, specifically from increased traffic. He lives at
the busiest intersection on the street and sees and hears how
nasty the traffic gets. It will impact the schools. His sons were
bussed to Elrod when they were within walking distance of
Hedges. The high density will necessitate bussing to other
facilities, and the neighborhood school system won't happen. He
feels that the evaluation criteria have been glossed over, and the
impacts to services haven't been addressed, and they ought to be.
Stanley Ness, lived on the subject property when he was 14 years
old. His stepdad sold that piece of property to the City many
years ago for the purpose of building a school. Now, we are
talking about how crowded the schools are, so why hasn't a school
been built? The planning there is terrible.
Orwell Parker, 1702 South Woodland Drive, is opposed to changing
the zoning to R-4. They live in a nice neighborhood and he is
opposed to the high density. Forty-four families on 7 acres is too
much, and will impact the schools.
Bob Meerkatz, 1604 S. Woodland Drive, has lived there for 32
years, and was one of the instigators for R-2 zoning in
Greenacres. About 25-30 years ago two trailer parks were
developed out there, and residents wanted reasonable development,
so they got the area zoned R-2. With new development, there is
approximately 800 homes in the area. There are new subdivisions
proposed on Kelly Road. There is very high traffic on a narrow
road. There is going to an impact on the schools. It is already
dangerous for kids walking to school. He is not against low
income housing, but 44 families on 7 acres is too dense. He is
opposed to the R-4 zone.
Diana Kayhe, 1540 Lehi Lane, appreciated all the comments made
by the proponents of the project, as she is a single mother and
has gone through the same thing. She owns her house, and
worked to get her house on normal standards. She agreed there
that we should allow low income housing, but she did not take
advantage of that. The road is too narrow for the traffic flow,
the proposal is too dense. Even if she was desparate to buy a
house, she would not want to be that close to her neighbors.
Taking pride in home ownership is not the issue. The issue is
that there are too many families being proposed for seven acres.
Shari Harris, 590 Willow Glen Drive, agrees that 44 families on 7
acres is entirely too many people. She lives on 2 1/2 acres with
her two old horses, and she can predict all these little kids
coming over to see "old Buck and Brandy", and she will be sued
because old horses and children don't mix. She understands the
need for affordable housing, as she works for the school district
and is far from wealthy. However, she is opposed to so many
houses on such a little area.
11
Merritt Warden, 430 Woodland Avenue, asserted that none of the
opponents were against affordable/low income housing. What they
are opposed to is the location and density of the project. This
tract of land was acquired to build a school, not a low income
housing project. He suggested that if the City acquires the
Fairgrounds property, that would be a better place to put low-
income housing, as it is better suited for traffic control, and
availability of City services than off of Woodland Avenue.
Increased traffic from 44 families will further impact Woodland
Avenue which is already a fragile street. There aren't enough
police to watch all the traffic.
Richard Harrison, 1555 Lehi Lane, pointed out that if you live in
Montana, we all fall into the category of low income. He and his
wife own a 1/2 acre lot, so when this many units are put into a
neighborhood of larger lot sizes, it will decrease the value of the
property. It will also have an environmental impact.
Bert White, 1565 Lehi Lane, whose property borders about 1/3 of
this tract, and therefore this proposal would put about five (5)
families next to his backyard. He is opposed to the zone change.
Dennis Kelley, 1580 Lehi Lane, would like to see single family
dwellings there, not double family. This neighborhood can't
handle an R-4 zone change. It is a nice place to live that is
close to town, although rural, and he is opposed to the R-4 zone.
Mrs. Sam Shevenko, 1517 South Woodland Drive, has lived there
for 18 years, and they moved out there to get out of the City
limits, as there is a big difference between City taxes and County
taxes. There is no police patrol out there, the traffic is terrible
and they drive the road like a raceway.
Jeri Jovita, 1506 S. Woodland Drive, is opposed to the zone change
for the reasons that everyone else has stated.
Susan Cole, 1523 South Woodland, observed that the previous
hearings on subdivisions did not have as much opposition. She
urged the Board to take into consideration the number of persons
opposed to this project, who sat for three hours to be heard.
There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed
and the meeting opened to Board deliberation.
Discussion Lopp compared the density between the R-5 zone and the R-4. At
recent public hearings, the Board has approved an R-5 zone
change two lots south of this project, and on Kelly Road. He was
opposed to putting that kind of density out there, but there
wasn't much opposition to the zone change. He would have liked
to have had support on these other changes, but had to accept
them because there was no opposition in the same neighborhood.
12
He has to question if the opposition is to the R-4 zone, or is it
the specific project?
DeGrosky responded that those in attendance tonight were not
notified because they do not live within 150 feet of the other zone
change requests. The City made a very compelling case for
affordable housing, but that isn't the issue here. He had
concerns about putting a subdivision in a public zone. The R-4
zone allows duplexes, and that is not single family housing. If
the intent is urban density single family, then the zone should be
R-3. As to the character of the neighborhood, there is no
question that the existing lots are not that small. There is a
question here of spot zoning. This area is totally surrounded by
R-2. He has concern regarding some past decisions on other zone
changes where there was also quite a stretch from the existing
zone and what it was changed to, which was totally out of
character with the neighborhood.
Kennedy clarified the reason for the duplex zone is because the
City intends to build attached units. DeGrosky reiterated that the
City's intent was clear, however the zone designation allows
duplexes. He believes the project is a good one, but he questions
the zone change.
Bahr empathized with the neighborhood regarding the density
proposed in their area, and also with the City in their attempt to
find a suitable site to build their project.
Hodgeboom agreed with the concerns regarding the zone change.
He had similar feelings about the R-5 on Willow Glen. The trust
of the people in the neighborhood was strongly stated that they
rely on the R-2 zone. He has serious reservations about the R-4
zone.
Carlson felt that the zone change complies with the public good
for the entire City, and deals with a stated need by the entire
community.
Sanders agreed it was too dense. He is not in favor of the zone
change.
Hash had grave concerns about the safety of the road and feels
that any development, whether it be one house or twenty will
further impact the road, and was very much opposed to a high
density development unless the road can be improved. She
recognizes the need for decent, affordable housing and realizes
there are no easy answers.
Lopp stated he has always been uncomfortable with the amount of
density the Board has been approving in the Willow Glen/South
Woodland area. He disagrees with the findings of fact on the
overcrowding of land. There are environmental impacts in relation
13
to the high water table in the area, and there is not adequate
infrastructure in place to accomodate the density.
DeGrosky disagreed with the findings pertaining to the affects on
the character of the district.
Motion DeGrosky moved to reject FRDO staff report #KZC-94-3 on the
grounds that it does not meet all the statutory criteria, included
the expressed public opinion, and forward a negative
recommendation to City Council to deny the zone change request
from R-2 to R-4. Hodgeboom seconded.
Considerable discussion followed on making new findings. Since
there will be no public hearing at City Council, the neighbors will
not have another chance to present comments.
Withdraw Motion Hodgeboom withdrew his second. DeGrosky withdrew his motion.
Motion Bahr moved to adopt FRDO report #KZC-94-3 as findings of fact
and recommend to City Council to approve the zone change
request from R-2 to R-4. Lapp seconded. On a roll call vote
Kennedy and Carlson vote aye. Hodgeboom, Bahr, DeGrosky, Lapp,
Sanders, and Hash voted no. The motion died on a 2-6 vote.
DeGrosky felt that a motion to reflect the Board's differences in
the findings of fact on the 12 statutory criteria should be
forwarded with a negative recommendation to the City Council.
Considerable discussion ensued. The Board questioned whether a
low income housing development on publicly owned land was
perceived by the public as a municipal use by the city.
Parsons indicated that the property was already zoned for
residential use and suggested that the Board recommend approval
of a different zone. The Board deemed this was procedurally
wrong to change the proposal at the late hour, without notice and
after some of the public had left.
Rewriting of the findings proceeded. Overcrowding of land with
relation to infrastructure was defined. The Board felt the
infrastructure was not adequate as stated by staff, and based on
public input, an undue hardship would be experienced by the
neighborhood by the concentration of people. Kennedy argued
that public testimony could not be considered as fact. Hash
responded that she had to take issue with the findings of fact
contained in the staff reports, thus feels the Board can make a
finding of a negative impact from the R-4 zone, as it is
incompatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
Kennedy contended that there is R-4 and R-5 in the surrounding
neighborhood, and the proposed density is anticipated in the
Master Plan. Parsons informed the Board that the reference to
"District" includes the entire City of Kalispell. Members of the
14
Board felt this was stretching the criteria too far, and voiced
concern that they had been misled on previous zone change
requests if a district is to be considered the entire City. Parsons
explained that any zone change decision would be based on the
Master Plan, both the map and the document. DeGrosky countered
that the Master Plan does not identify R-4 zoning. It identifies
Suburban Residential and Urban Residential densities.
Lapp stated that we have a real problem here with what comes
down on us. The person who owns a piece of property zoned R-2,
should have protection under that R-2 that the character of the
neighborhood is going to stay. Along comes a request for a zone
change allowing a much higher density, because the Master Plan
calls for it. We need to have a clarification of what is the order
of priority. Does the individual have to go to the Master Plan to
decide this is what could come my way, or do they live in an area
which is already zoned and therefore safe? They are not safe
with this Planning Board, or with this planning staff. We have a
piece of property tonight that is surrounded by R-2. Yes, there
are other R-4 and R-5. Some of which I objected to, especially an
R-5 right smack in the middle of R-2. Spot zoning. The Master
Plan is being used to justify whatever is wanted. Very often
without any regard to the people who live in the neighborhood.
We had a classic example tonight of how people are beginning to
react to it. We have a groundswell movement in this County to
throw out the entire planning process, including a $500,000
project, of which my wife and I contribued $1,000. I don't like to
see that happen. It is happening because of actions that we are
dealing with. We are disregarding people. If we want to argue
here about "does the requested zoning give reasonable
consideration to the character of the district", there is not a
single person here tonight who was thinking district in the sense
of "City of Kalispell", except you, John. They are looking at their
neighborhood. They are saying it is R-2 all the way around us,
you are plopping an R-4 right in the middle of us. I am not
going to debate the issue of low cost housing, which I think also
played a role in this because nobody wants it in their backyard.
But we need it in our backyard. I have been for this, but you
can't do this to people.
Parsons countered that the public hearing process is for getting
neighborhood opinion. He explained how he looks at the Master
Plan for a district, and lie is confined by the statutory criteria.
DeGrosky conceded that it may be in conformance with the Master
Plan, but it is not orderly growth. It is spot zoning. He agrees
that zoning is a promise. If it doesn't control what is being built
in a neighborhood, then why go through the process? It is a
waste of time.
Hash agreed that people essentially covenant with their
government with zoning, and should be able to reasonably rely on
15
it. It may be true that the Master Plan predicts urban
development, but we need to look at the immediately surrounding
area and keep that intact, especially when you have such a public
impact.
Based on the lengthy Board discussion, the findings were amended
as follows:
Motion DeGrosky moved to adopt the Kalispell City -County Planning Board
and Zoning Commission's findings of fact, as discussed, and
recommend to City Council that the zone change request from R-2
to R-4 be denied. Hodgeboom seconded.
The amended findings are as follows:
Does The Requested Zone Comply With The Master Plan?
The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the
Kalispell City -County Master Plan. According to the map of
the master plan, the property is designated as "Public".
The public designation indicates that it is "A district
intended to be used principally for a public purpose by a
city...". T-lre--re-gttes4ed--R-4-min-g,-
loe-&4en--rye--this--frE-ner-is--rnr-c oitfcrr ante--/tA+r--th t--Mtt-s+e-r
P47&ni---h-t-&4ditie ,,-#lice--d--s-igi-ta 4eni--off-4h-e-a�°
a��--c�egt-�s--�t-e-b t�-r�r-r-e•�.��TFiai-w-lrieli--cv�rxlrl--per�rri�-�lCis
zene.
Is The Requested Zone Designed To Lesson Congestion In
The Streets And Facilitate The Adequate Provision Of
Transportation, Water, Sewer. Schools. Parks And Other
Public Requirements?
Congestion in the street and adequate transportation is
caused by an overburden of the system by traffic. The
zone in this case would Prot overburden the system because
traffic generation is a function of the number of dwelling
units and uses that are allowed within a given area; this
density of development is anticipated under the Master Plan.
In addition, South Woodland Drive is considered a Collector
street by the Master Plan and under current conditions is
unable to handle the increase in traffic.
Will The Requested Change Promote The Health And General
Welfare?
The general purpose of the City's zoning ordinance is to
promote the general health and welfare and does so by
implementing the City Master Plan. The City's Master Plan
does support the requested zone change. The requested
zone would fre4 intrude on the health or general welfare of
this particular neighborhood. ait-d-4ft--#7a-et-wattI4-pi-trnroie
lb
area-€�-��srrr-ctenss-rt-�-de�-ele parer-r�-�o--�c�c�-�-ass-p-t�ov i�
fie-iri--tl�e-maser-err. The surrounding residential uses
are not compatible with the proposed zoning classification.
Will The Requested Zone Change Prevent The Overcrowding of
Land?
Overcrowding of land can occur when development out -paces
or exceeds the environmental or service limitations of the
property. Adequate infrastructure is not in place to
accommodate the land uses allowed in the requested zone.
Will The Requested Zone Avoid Undue Concentration Of People?
Concentration of people is a function of land use.
Residential development will certainly occur on this site if
the zone change is approved. The uses associated with the
R-4 zone are anticipated for the concentration of people
expected and would shed-ne+ create an undue hardship or,
the neighborhood.
Does The Requested Zone Give Consideration To The
Particular Suitability Of The Property For Particular Uses?
The subject site is well suited for uses permitted within the
R-4 zone. The property is of adequate size and has
adequate access to facilities for the type of uses permitted
in the proposed zone. ate sig�riif a -negate-pat- is
expeeted.
Does The Requested Zoning Give Reasonable Consideration To
The Character Of This District?
The properties in question are not well suited for the type
development because of incompatibility to surrounding
neighborhood. arn-arieletl-t�-tire-Laser-Plarr�-€e�
regttes#e�-�e-fl-e- uc�,�-cif-�ke-�ep�g�`s:f�Yry; ma's-reg3enal
lc�cc�e ien;-ar�td-see rregati-v-e
i-mpaet-is-meet-eel.
On a roll call vote Bahr, Sanders, DeGrosky, Hodgeboom, Lopp and
Hash voted in favor. Kennedy and Carlson voted no. Fraser
abstained. The motion to adopt the Zoning Commission findings
passed on 6-2-1 vote.
WOODLAND Hash introduced the next two scheduled agenda items which were
COURT requests for (a) a conditional use permit to allow as a cluster
CONDITIONAL development on a 16 lot attached single family (32 sublots), a 12
USE PERMIT & lot detached single family, and a 0.76 acre homeowners park; and
PRELIMINARY (b) a preliminary plat approval of Woodland Court Subdivision, a
PLAT 28-lot residential subdivision os which 12 lots will be single family
17
detached and 16 lots will be single family attached (32 sublots),
for a total of 44 single family lots.
Staff Report Presentation of staff reports #KPP-94-04 and #KCU-94-17 was
waived.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened.
Motion Kennedy- made the motion to continue the public hearing on the
conditional use permit for a cluster development in the Woodland
Court Subdivision until the November planning board meeting.
Bahr seconded. By acclaimation vote all members voted aye.
Motion Kennedy moved to continue the public hearing on the preliminary
plat for Woodland Court Subdivision until the November planning
board meeting. Carlson seconded. By acclaimation vote all Board
members voted aye.
TEXT The next public hearing was on a request by the City of Kalispell
AMENDMENT / to amend the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Text, Off -Street Parking,
OFF-STREET Section 27.26.050(37) to exclude "Athletic Clubs" and include
PARKING - a new section 27.26.050(1) to read: "(1). 1 space per 200 gross
ATHLETIC square feet of floor area", renumbering exisitng subsections 1
CLUBS through 56 accordingly.
Staff Report Wood presented staff report #K7TA-94-02 on the requested
revision to Section 27.26.050 of the Zoning Ordinance. The City
was made aware of the need to amend the parking requirements
for athletic clubs and researched what other communities require.
Studies have been done to show that the square footage of the
buildings are comprised of locker rooms, running track, swimming
pool and other uses which would justify the staff's
recommendation to define the parking standards for athletic clubs
at one (1) space per 200 square feet of building. Athletic clubs
were given its own category in the Off -Street Parking Section of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened. There were no speakers to
testify either in fAvor or in opposition to the zoning text
amendment. The public hearing was closed. The meeting was
opened to Board discussion.
Discussion Lopp conducted his own cross sampling of athletic club parking
standards, both in and out of state, the results of which he
passed out to Board members. His findings varied from staffs,
and the recommended 1 space per 200 square feet was discussed
in terms of the uses in the proposed athletic facility.
Motion Bahr moved to adopt FRDO report #KZTA-94-02, and forward a
favorable recommendation to City Council to amend the Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance text to exclude "Athletic Clubs" from Off -Street
Parking, Section 27.26.050(37) and include a new section
27.26.050(1) to read: "(1). 1 space per 200 gross square feet of
floor area", renumbering existing subsections 1 through 56
accordingly. Fraser seconded. On a roll call vote all Board
members voted in favor. The motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS Due to a holiday in October and election day in November, the
next two regularly scheduled planning board were rescheduled to
Thursday, October 13, and Wednesday, November 16.
OLD BUSINESS Carlson reported on the Flathead County Workshop meeting he
attended on Wednesday, September 7th, as co-chair of the CPC.
As a result of the meeting, a workshop will be held at the
Bohemian Grange on Wednesday, October 12, from 7-9 a.m. on how
to deal with fear tactics and intimidation at public meetings. On
October 1, a lecture is slated for the Bohemian Grange in
Whitefish, on fear and hate groups.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
11:33 p.m.
Therese Fox H , resident
APP `
Elizabeth Ontko, Recording Secretary
19
FLATHEAD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
PRELIMINARY PLAT REPORT #KPP94-03
SUNRISE VIEW SUBDIVISION
SEPTEM 3ER 4, 1994
A report to the Kalispell City/County Planning Board and Zoning Commission regarding a
request for a preliminary plat for an 18-lot multi -family subdivision on approximately six (6)
acres of land.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
A. Owner:
Charles Keller
2431 Highway 2 East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Technical Assistance:
Paul J. Stokes and Associates, Inc.
343-1st Avenue West
Kalispell, MT 59901
Marquardt Surveying, Inc.
285 lst Avenue EN
Kalispell, MT 59901
B. SIZE AND LOCATION:
The property is approximately six (6) acres, a flag shaped parcel, located on the
west side of Highway 93 approximately 400 feet south of Four Mile Drive,
generally south and west behind the nursery. Please see Exhibit "A" (zoning
map) .
C. REQUEST:
The developer is requesting approval of an 18-lot duplex residential subdivision
in the R-4 zone. This project has the potential to add 36 residential units to the
housing market in Kalispell. The developer proposes a dog leg cul-de-sac to
supply access to those units.
11
5. Parks and Recreation: State law provides that 1/9 of the undeveloped
value of the land be designated for park land. In this case the applicants
have proposed and would be required to pay a cash -in -lieu of park land
payment of 1/9 of the undeveloped value of the land. The applicant puts
the sites market value at $95,000. One -ninth of this value would be
$10,555.
6. Police Protection: The site is within the Kalispell Police Dept.
Jurisdiction. Response time will be within acceptable standards and the
area can be serviced.
7. Fire Protection: The subdivision is presently within the Kalispell City
Fire Department Jurisdiction. Response times will be within acceptable
standards.
8. Roads: This 18-lot subdivision is proposed to be served by a cul-de-sac
with a length of 1,000 feet which is in excess of the City Subdivision
Regulations (600 feet maximum permitted). This is not considered
acceptable by the City. In addition, the City has indicated that Parkway
Drive (to the south of the site) is to continue north into this site. The
design of Parkway Drive indicates that to be the case; it essentially dead
ends into the church property. It is therefore recommended that the cul-
de-sac remain as a temporary measure, and the road be extended to the
south terminating at the south property line of this subdivision. This
extension would provide for the connection of Parkway Drive to the south
with the internal road of this subdivision allowing for secondary access of
this subdivision. The cul-de-sac would effectively be temporary.
In addition, the road has been indicated to be private and named College
View. The City requires dedication of the streets and construction to its
standards within its jurisdiction. Since this road would be an extension of
Parkway Drive it is recommended that the road be named such.
7. Solid Waste: Kalispell municipal garbage pickup is available and can
handle the increased demand in service.
8. Public Health Services: Adequate medical facilities exist within the City
of Kalispell to address any reasonable need.
3
1. Comply with the City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.
2. Comply with the City of Kalispell Subdivision Regulations.
3. Rename College View Court to Parkway Drive. Extend Parkway Drive to the south
from the end of the cul-de-sac to the south property line leaving the cul-de-sac radius.
Redesign the inside corner of that road so as to provide a smooth curve or as directed
by the City's Director of Public Works.
4. The subdivision obtain approval from the State Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences.
5. The final plat be substantially in accordance with the Preliminary Plat except as modified
by conditions contained herein.
6. The developer pay a cash -in -lieu fee of 1/9 the undeveloped market value of the
property. That is 1/9 of $95,000 = $10,555.
7. All water lines and sewer mains shall be built according to plans and specifications
approved by the City of Kalispell Public Works Department. All water and sewer main
extensions onto private property shall be placed within suitable easements.
8. A storm water drainage plan prepared by a licensed engineer shall be submitted to and
approved by the City's Public Works Department.
9. Placement of fire hydrants shall be approved by the City of Kalispell Fire Department.
10. That this preliminary plat approval is valid for a period of one (1) year.
F:\FRDO\REPORTS\KPP94-03.SiNR
9
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY Pf:As M �OVl�b.
This application sbail be submitted, along with all tntbrrnadon required by the apptioah%NWivimon Asigutsdotid
Montana Subdivision and Platting Act and the appropriate lea lot F. R. C. v.
Flathead Regional Devdoprnesht O(Itae, 723 Fifth Avenue East, Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 5MI - Teirrhone (406) 758-5790
SUBDIVISION NAMS1
OWNERM OF RECORD:
Name CHARLES E. KELLER Phone 752-
Malting City, State
Address 2431 HWY 2 EAST KALISPELL MT &Zip Code 59901
AGENT OF RECORD COPIES OF ALL
FIIRSON(S) hiSPlI6Ri�8i� erred to whorq,yV�orrestroederhoo is to bo sett:
Name PAUL J. STOKES & ASSOCIATES INC Phone 755_
Mailing City, State
Address343 1st AVENUE WEST KALISPELL, MT &71pCode 59901
TEC11MCAL(PROFESSIONAL PARTICIPANTS (Survey Engineer. etc.):
Name & Address
Name & Address
Name & Address
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
City/ Assessor's
County KALI SPELL TractNo(s) 05J-0971
Street Lot
Address No(s). 2 X
1/4 NE , i
Section I Township 28N Renege 22W
GENERAL DBSCRIPnOPI OF PROPOSED SUMDIVISION: 6.055 ACRES, RECTANGULAR IN SHAPE,
ADJACENT TO THE WEST SIDE OF HWY 93, WITH 601X340' TRACT DEDICATED FOR
9901
Number or Lots or Rental Spaces 18 Total Acreage in Subdivision 6 _ n r) S
Total Acreage in Lots 198,302 Minimum Sim or Lota or Spaces 96
n n o f t,
Total Acreage In Streets or Roads 69, d 54 Maximum Size or Lots or Spaces 14 . 200 t .
Total Aerenge In Psrks, Open Space and/or Common Arens
PROPOSED USE(S) AND NUMBER OF ASSOCIATED LOTSMPACES:
Single Family 15 Townhouse
Duplex 3 Mobile Home Park
Multi -Family: Recreational Vehicle Park
Apartment Commercial
Planned Unit Development Industrial
Condominium Other
APPLICABLE ZONING DESIGNATION & D73TRICr R-4 TWO FAMILY
IISTIMATE OF MARKET VALUE BEFORE IMPROVEMENTS
SIDENTUAL
IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED-
Roads: Omvel_X Pnved
X Curb X
Outten Sidewalks
Alleys Other
Water System: Individual
Multiple User
Neighborhood X
Pubtlb Other
Sewer Syrt.em: Individual
Multiple User
Neighborhood X
Pubtio Other
Other Utilities: X Cable TV X
Telephone X
Electric X Gas
Other
Solid Waste X' Home Plok-up
Mall Delivery; Central X
Fire Protection, X llydrxnts
Central Storage Contract Hauter Owner Haul
Individual School Dtsttiett
Tanker Recharge Fire District:
Drainage System- ON SITE
PROPOSED EROSION/SEDrMBN'TATION CONTROL.!
1
NSITE IMPROVEMENTS.
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
27 0219 89 205505
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
To the County of Flathead and the City of K a 1 i s p e 11 in Montana
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State
of Missouri, with its principal office in the City of Chicago. Illinois, and duly authorized to insure titles in
Montana hereby certifies that from its examination of these public records which impart constructive notice of
matters affecting the title to the real estate described in Schedule A hereof, as of the 8 t h day of
June .19 9 4, at 5 o'clock P.M.. the title to the described real estate was indefeasibly vested in fee
simple of record in:
Charles E. Keller
subject only to the objections. liens charges, encumbrances and other matters shown under Schedule B hereof.
The maximum liability of the undersigned under this certificate is limited to the sum of S 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0
This certificate of title is made in consideration of the payment of the premium by the subdivider of the land and
for the use of the County and City above named.
Issued by:
COUNTY GUARANTY TITLE COMPANY
21I Main (Box 73)
Kalispell, Montana 59901
(406) 752 - 7000 - (406) 862 - 7000
Fax (406) 752 - 7207
�ZAWt,a g:- 2n 1
Authori/U Sienawry
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
By:
ATTEST: Pres' ent
Secretary
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE OF TITLE (MONTANA)
Reorder Fomt No. 9113
SCHEDULE A
Page 2 Certificate No.: 27-0219-89-205505
Our File No.: CG-19809
Being the legal description of the real estate covered by this
certificate.
The following -described parcels of real estate:
A tract of land in Government Lot 1 of Section 1, Township 28
North, Range 22 West, M.P.M., Flathead County, Montana,
described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the Southerly line of a County
Road and the Westerly line of U.S. Highway No. 93; thence
along the Southerly line of the County Road
North 89037130t1 West a distance of 219.76 feet to a point;
thence
North 005912211 West a distance of 8.88 feet to a point; thence
North 8905114411 West a distance of 187.45 feet to a point;
thence
North 890521421! West a distance of 403.47 feet to the Northwest
corner of that parcel shown on Certificate of Survey No.
6761, which point is on the Southerly line of a County Road,
and which point is the True Point of Beginning; thence along
the Southerly line of the County Road
South 8905214211 East a distance of 60.00 feet to a point; thence
leaving the Southerly line of the road
South 002013011 West a distance of 231.00 feet to a point; thence
South 8904813411 East a distance of 750.84 feet to the Westerly
line of U.S. Highway No. 93; thence along the Westerly line
of the Highway
South 002111211 West a distance of 307.32 feet to a point; thence
North 8905714011 West a distance of 407.33 feet to a point;
thence
North 89051'48" West a distance of 403.45 feet to a point;
thence
North 002012911 East a distance of 539.71 feet to the point of
beginning.
Parcel B of Certificate of Survey No. 7966.
Page 3 Certificate No.: 27-0219-89-205505
Our File No.: CG-19809
Being all of the estates, interests, equities, lawful claims, or
demands, defects, or objections whatsoever to title; and all
easements, restrictions, liens, charges, taxes (general, special,
or inheritance, or assessments of whatever nature), or
encumbrances; and all other matters whatsoever affecting said
premises, or the estate, right, title, or interest of the record
owners, which now do exist of record.
1. General taxes for the year 1993.
2. Taxes, charges, and assessments not yet certified to the
County Treasurer for collection.
3. Reservations in United States Patents or the acts authorizing
the issuance thereof.
4. Mineral rights, claims or title to minerals.
5. Consent to Annex Agreement recorded August 10, 1982 under
Recorder's Fee No. 11714, in Book 744, page 851, records of
Flathead County, Montana.
6. Easement granted to Raymond D. Murphy and Olivia Lee Murphy;
and Robert C. Balhiser and Luella E. Balhiser, recorded March
12, 1985 as Document #8507111320, records of Flathead County,
Montana, as follows: "Together with an easement from Highway
#93, not less than 30 feet in width over and across the
Northeast corner of the Grantors remaining property. The
exact location to be determined at a later date."
7. Easement granted to Pacificorp, dba Pacific Power and Light
Company, recorded December 2, 1985 as Document #8533614290,
records of Flathead County, Montana, as follows: "...grant
..an easement for a right-of-way 5 ft. ea. side centerline
in width for an electric transmission line of one or more
wires and all necessary or desirable appurtenances...along
the general course now located by grantee, over..."
8. No search has been made for water rights and unpatented
mining claims, and liability thereon is excluded from
coverage of this Certificate.
NOTE: Premises lie within the boundaries of the West Valley
Fire District.
13. Enforcement - If the owners of lots in said subdivision or any of them
or their heirs, successors or assigns shall violate any of the conditions,
covenants and restrictions set forth herein above, any other person or persons
owning real property in said subdivision rray prosecute any proceeding at law or in
equity against the person or persons violating any of said conditions, covenants
and restrictions either to prevent such violation or to recover darmges fur such
violation or both.
14. Severability - Invalidation of any one of these covenants by judgement
or court order shall in no wise affect any of the other provisions which shall
remain in full force and effect.
15. Term - These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding on
all parties and all persons claiming under then for a period of 25 years from the
date these covenants are recorded, after which time said covenants shall be
autaratically extended for successive periods of 20 years, unless an instrument in
writing signed by a majority of the owners of the lots in said subdivision has
been recorded agreeing to change said covenants in whole or in part.
IN WJTNESS , the Declarant have caused these presents to be executed
this (b — day of , I .
STATE OF M N TANA
s s .
County of-j�� � Z
On this �== day of I9b-4 before me the undersigned, a Notary
Public for he tate of Montana, personally appeared
G 1�.� mitts known to me to
be the person(s) whose name(s) is (are) scribed to the foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged to me that he executed the same.
In witness whereof, I have set aw hand and affixed my Notarial Seal the day and
year first above written.
Notary Public for the State
Residing at
My Cormission Expires /I
Page 3 of 3
THIS DECI.ARATICN, trade this day of Au5oST, 199_!!�L, by Charles E.
Keller, of Kalispell, Montana, hereinafter referred to as the eclarant". "D
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of the real property hereinafter described
and is desirous of subjecting said real property to the conditions, covenants and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, each and all of which is and are for the
benefit of said property and for each owner thereof, which shall inure to the
benefit of and pass with said property and each and every parcel thereof and shall
apply to and bind the successors in interest, and any owners thereof;
NCtV, THEREI-ARE, the Declarant being the owner of all of the said property and
having established a general plan for the improvements and development of said
property, do hereby establish the conditions, covenants and restrictions upon
which and subject to which all lots and portions of lots within said subdivision
shall be improved or sold and conveyed by then as owners and hereby declare that
said property is and shall be held, transferred, sold and conveyed subject to the
conditions, covenants and restrictions hereinafter set forth. The conditions,
covenants and restrictions hereinafter set forth are to run with the land and
shall be binding upon all successors in interest of the Declarant.
1. Property - The real property which is and shall be held and shall be
conveyed, transferred and sold subject to the conditions, covenants and
restrictions of this Declaration is located in the County of Flathead, State of
Montana, and is more particularly described as follows, to -wit:
�VJ
That portion of Coverrment Lot 1, Section 1, Township 28 North, Range 22 West,
Flathead County, Montana described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of that parcel shown on Certificate of Survey
No. 6761, which point is on the Southerly line of a County Road; thence along the
Southerly line of the County Road South 89a52.942" East 60.00 feet; thence leaving
the Southerly line of the road South 0°20'30" West 231.00 feet; thence South
89 48'34" East 750.84 feat to the Westerly line of the U.S. Highway No. 93; thence
along the Westerly line of the Highway South 0°21'12" West 307.32 feet; thence
North 89a 57'40" West 407.33 feet; thence North 89°51'48" West 403.45 feet; thence
North 00 20'29" East 539.71 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 6.055 acres
of land, all as shown hereon.
2. Purpose - The real property described in Paragraph 1 hereof is sub�cted
to the conditions, covenants and restrictions hereby declared to insure the best
use and the most appropriate development and improvement of each building site
thereof; to protect the owners of building sites against such improper use of
surrounding building sites as will depreciate the value of their property; to
preserve, so far as is practicable, the natural beauty of said property; to guard
against the erection thereon of structures built of improper or unsuitable
Page 1 of 3
13. Enforcement - If the owners of lots in said subdivision or any of then
or their heirs, successors or assigns shall violate any of the conditions,
covenants and restrictions set forth herein above, any other person or persons
owning real property in said subdivision may prosecute any proceeding at law or in
equity against the person or persons violating any of said conditions, covenants
and restrictions either to prevent such violation or to recover damages fur such
violation or both.
14. Severability - Invalidation of any one of these covenants by judgement
or court order shall in no wise affect any of the other provisions which shall
remain in full force and effect.
15. Term - These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding on
all parties and all persons claiming under them for a period of 25 years from the
date these covenants are recorded, after which time said covenants shall be
automatically extended for successive periods of 20 years, unless an instrument in
writing signed by a rmajority of the owners of the lots in said subdivision has
been recorded agreeing to change said covenants in whole or in part.
IN W3TNESS WHQREOF, the Declarant have caused these presents to be executed
this ( t -- day of
ss.
County o:6L)
On this -�D_= = day of , 19 before me the undersigned, a Notary
Public for he of Montana e
G �ab't �� personally appeared
ts� �iT- known to me to
be the person(s) whose name(s) is (are) scribed to the foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged to rme that he executed the same.
In witness whereof, I have set my hand and affixed my Notarial Seal the day and
year first above written.
Notary Public for the Statef
Residing at
My Commission Expires
Page 3 of 3
,n S q f a,,"
�s, D
MIL.e V174Ve Cod v Gduun FZo9.V,
343:tV
'
s 04 /yip
Q lb-ov4-7,
®K
�
fa
1
rAFZ&eL
lo. O55 Ac. s
r
N
a
4
z
�{i�sl S OF
Z
c:•. o� S. I�io•
c'a343
�
c
PAR`'=
T64A 1 L
�EQ I I
I NE ^=
% E
-
!EREON
PARE:
H A -
So:
:0IN7AINI'.
SE
STATE O
., .. .. NT\ v-
Qti -.
�E=SOtiA_
ANC N0
Lg:,:::,I,u D
APc: i— - --- .
S. S 90 4 2' E. �.
263'6.04t
/ 1
4 M I L F R / E ••I,X•a
2X2A _
2 x a r:�L
Vj ,
t
♦c 2 X
_4 O
al 22 ' z3 Z. !S / t{f rt C1JT + 9
!ao N��}RTH-t��AAVE4 !itiG !7s ! 3
( SECONC. JDC1�t10U
Z X A -O•K!
A0Cr.
HX,
10 � It � i a � V 3 cc -_
� l i � . e 's 6• j z o u
>` M0RTM WAVE» DRIVE n _
1 s 1 4 Tw0YP30N'3 AND}
/ ff EIGIHTS I5` ��iDD .Z St1YYIT RICGE 'c
I ♦ 3 2 I S ACC-1/ha.: 79 A N RTH a. }
♦ 3 6 3 2 i summl
_IQj r$ - -
aL c t�ou al�otx FIIvc � !9 g
z S i a w. t Tto
u �t :I K�Z t t3 I.a IS IB 2
Z 3� �� J G{
I T PARK NO. k'cOG��
j ii A M I Ti ® _
I :, sLYc9 w 5 c / 3 PA RK
f P
I ' C 1. 2 4 T I.AT {
� 3
Q
a,r 19X / + t w 1 r c P t �+ • ] z' 1/ / '/ c \ pray P!~ ® cHUSCH OF
1
GOD
ttt Q I i 4C
+0 c I { s 3 t } SUBDNSStON _
IQ 3 ,� s 2It. tz
vOAt� PAd I .,.►..►�•"'.►!� t _
7.
I It
/ j2 £ 1 t f_t r D RESUb�?, '
•X.11 ���' f• T- zo 12 s i t ,� T ` t_.23?`'�
o at <
cr+238 -
�2 =t ZO/ to y 22
27 y L ly 11 • J
r _! . 9 _ [�.= i .� ♦ t 3 ( 5 a Z a : 3 w to - 12 \ ®.
,.- 1 3 a a4 -+
Ys } sGx s—� = I _ ♦,�Z �;'--'1`� •2 tC t- la Isl lo!43
/ IQ -
� II as t g A J G— L A Nf -
s_ ti j ! s/ ♦ o' S l- � n i a . j_—j 2 j It It
t� \^ ,% W 1•I ( 3
2 C U— �•]: j\ `� 1 / �~ J a a> I 3 6 1 7 t® 9 10 l a
_ i'21 I
' Cl t i 1 \:�, "" '. - / � m u _ _— ZD ( Is a � IT } 14 IO II"i♦ l 13 � x
14
24
� � {_� ! 1� ! Q�T• '� 3 ^\ � ( IN 1�_;
A *r: _ � 1 `"'`�tY` ; i \\ �. // V� S '_ I I ',� , a • e !
0 0 L D I S T R 1 �' T Iif" I 7 i
r
T-1 SAG-10
R-1
N
AG-80
i
4E
HUTTOh
�C
4A
'FTf
STAT_ tj 34 35
NO.3
am own
SUBJECT SrM
:
A ]c
m4-w Am
CITY La"s 2 I jj��* , s
22 23 24 D = c-_=E 3
t R-3
:T is is �s :3 T ASSEMBLY OF GOD
ADD
No
tso
NORTH KAVX ! DRM
4 pws:ggr55UrfatT -- .
i / LPC A _ t 2t I: �i 0 3 t = i 2 s.
2i3 ' ' `�1///�///i///1///
s / 2 ?lf;K VIZ
- - R-3
G'R 3 po ticp1.3" Ii e3 aC ,7 yOR 11':'.E • '-a rp.�t'/ i
3 6 t2C s c- s . i
DL
P&A ` • RA-1
+ P I a
.arm _ `, e c ,. ♦ .
CITY OF KALISPELL
SEINER MAP
CHARLES E. KELLER PROPERTY
LOT 2X SEC. 1, T28N, R22W
FLATHEAD CO., MONTANA