08-15-84 Annexation CommitteeF'
Flathead Regional Development Office
Advisory Technical Staff 723 Sth Avenue East - Room 412
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 755-5300 Ext. 279
July 11, 1984
Mayor and City Council
City of Kalispell
Drawer 1997
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: Heller Zone Change Request
Honorable Mayor and Council:
The Kalispell City Zoning CorNissio�n, at its regularmeeting on Tuesday,
July 10, 1984, considered the following request from John M. (Jack) Heller;
A change from R-4 (Residential) to B-2 (Neighborhood Professional
Business) for Lot 12, Block 235, Kalispell Addition No. 6.
isThis request was considered in accordance with your referral letter of
June 19, 1984.
Attached herewith are documents pertaining to the request as to location and
F.R.D.O. evaluation for your reference.
After careful evaluation and following discussion held July 10, 1984, the
Commission resolved to recommend that;
The requested change from R-4 (Residential) to B-2 (Neighborhood
Professional Business) be approved.
This recommendation and attached documents are herewith submitted to your
Council for further consideration, public hearing and action.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this Commission or the -
Flathead Regional Development Office.
Respectfully submitted,
KALISPELL CITY ZONING COMMISSION
- James B. Stephens
President
• JBS/dll
• Flathead County 0 City of Columbia Falls 0 City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish
r
Mayor and City Council
City of Kalispell
• July 11, 1984
Page 2
Attachments: Application
F.R.D.O. Report #KZ-84-02
cc: John M. Heller
230 Fourth Avenue W.
Kalispell, MT 59901
City Clerk
City Attorney
City Building Official
Chairman, Annexation Committee
•
•
FLATHEAD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
ZONING CHANGE REPORT NKZ-84-02
HELLER ZONE CHANGE REPORT
A report for the Kalispell City Zoning Commission meeting on June 12, 1984,
A proposed amendment to the official zoning map of the City of Kalispell,
Montana.
BASIS FOR CONSIDERATION:
A petition by John M. Heller for zone change from R-4 (Residential)
to B-2 (Neighborhood Professional Business), for Lot 12, Block 235,
Kalispell Addition A. The lot measures 4430 square feet in area and
is used as a Single Family residence. This lot adjoins Sunset Boulevard
in the east, Wyoming Street in the north, Second Avenue in the west,
and residences in the south. It is also across Second Avenue from
Russell School.
EXISTING ZONING:
The present zoning for the property is R-4, which is Single Family
Residential with a minimum lot size of 7200 square feet. This lot with
and area of only 4430 square feet is a non -conforming lot. The property
adjoins B-2 (Neighborhood Professional Business) Zone in the east.
Further, the minimum lot width required in this zone is 60 feet. The
• subject property is only 50 feet wide. RE: Section 5.05, Ord. No. 920.
REQUESTED ZONING:
The requested Neighborhood Professional Business B-2 zoning for the
subject property is defined in the City Ordinance "Appendix B" as "A
business district intended to accommodate professional offices where
they are compatible with residential uses and where it is not deemed
desirable to permit a more intensive business activity of a retail
nature. These office structures need not be commercial in appearance.
They should be architecturally harmonious with the adjacent residential
areas and other commercial districts or be closely associated with
primarily intensity generators".
LANDUSE CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The general character of the area is predominantley Single Family Residential
with professional offices along the highway. Northwest of this property
is the school playground which provides the desired buffer between
the residential and business developments. The landuse in this block
is divided along the alley. Properties east of the alley are developed
as "professional offices", while properties west of the alley are
residential.
0
• COMPATIBLITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The subject property is an area designated as "Urban Residential" land
use in the Kalispell Area Comprehensive Plan. According to Section
3.01 (Table 3), of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, B-2 zoning classification
in the "Urban Residential" land use designated area is considered as
in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA:
The application is further reviewed in terms of criteria stated in
statutes and the following evaluations are made:
DOES THE REQUESTED ZONE COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?
In accordance to Ordinance ti953 of the City of Kalispell, B-2
zoning classification in areas designated "Urban Residential"
in the Comprehensive Plan, is considered in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
'A r
2. IS THE REQUESTED ZONE DESIGNED TO LESSEN CONGESTION IN THE STREET?
Generally, business zones generate higher volume of traffic than
residential zones. However, the size of this property and the
nature of business proposed on it is such that it should not result
• in any significant increase in traffic in the area. However, the
intersection of Highway #93 and Wyoming Street is the main school
crossing. Measures have been taken to ensure the safety of the
children at this intersection. The subject intersection is now
controlled by a traffic light and the subject property has been
fenced along the Wyoming Street and Highway 93 sides.
3. WILL THE REQUESTED ZONE SECURE SAFETY FROM FIRE, PANIC, AND OTHER
DANGERS?
Requested B-2 zone should not result in any increase in fire, panic,
or any other danger if the ingress and egress is properly designed.
The building codes and zoning regulations would provide adequate
measures to protect from fire and other dangers. In addition to the
improvements mentioned in #2 above, the school playground has also
been fenced.
4. WILL THE REQUESTED ZONE PROMOTE THE GENERAL HEALTH AND WELFARE?
The lot does not meet the minimum size requirement of the existing
zoning and is generally inadequate in terms of location and size
for residential development. The lot, because of its facing a
major highway, is more appropriate for business use. The granting
of the zone change would make it a conforming lot and increase
its potential use. The welfare of the adjoining residential properties
• shall be preserved by the six foot high fence required between
adjoining business and residential zones, as per the City Zoning
Ordinance.
5. WILL THE REQUESTED ZONE PROVIDE ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR?
0
The building setback requirements of the requested B-2 zone should
• ensure adequate light and air.
6. WILL THE REQUESTED ZONE PREVENT OVER -CROWDING OF LAND?
The requested zone will not result in any increased over -crowding
of land. The building setbacks and height limitations in both
R-4 and B-2 zones are similar.
7. WILL THE REQUESTED ZONE AVOID UNDUE CONCENTRATION OF POPULATION?
The requested zone being B-2 should result in lessening residential
population in the area.
S. WILL THE REQUESTED ZONE FACILITATE THE ADEQUATE PROVISION OF
TRANSPORTATION, WATER, SEWAGE, SCHOOLS, PARKS, AND OTHER PUBLIC
REQUIREMENTS?
All services are available to the site,
9• DOES THE NEW ZONE GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA?
The requested B-2 zone will adjoin existing B-2 zone in the west
and is considered compatible with the residential zones. Therefore,
the requested zone will not alter the character of the area which
is primarily single family residential with professional offices
• along the highway.
10. DOES THE REQUESTED ZONE GIVE CONSIDERATION TO PARTICULAR SUITABLITY
OF THE PROPERTY FOR PARTICULAR USES?
The property being adjacent to a busy highway and also because of
its small size, is more suited to professional office use than for
residential use.
11. IS THE ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED WITH A VIEW TO CONSERVE THE VALUE OF
BUILDINGS?
The proposed zone is compatible with adjoining land uses in the
area and, therefore, will conserve the value of buildings and
properties.
12. WILL THE REQUESTED ZONE ENCOURAGE THE MOST APPROPRIATE USE OF
LAND THROUGHOUT THE MUNICIPALITY?
The request is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan which is
designed to encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout
the City of Kalispell and its vicinity.
COMMENTS:
The intersection of Highway n93 and West Wyoming Street is very busy,
particularly during school hours. Consideration should be given to
have access to the building and off-street parking on this lot only
from Second Avenue and not from Highway #93 and Wyoming Street.
RECOMMENDATION:
• •The requested zone is determined to generally meet the statutory criteria,
is found to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the general
character of the area. Based on such determination, the requested zone
change from R-4 (Residential) to B-2 (Neighborhood Business Office) is
recommended to be granted.
•
•
PEIIIION FOR ZON1 NG NAP AMENDMENT
City of Kalispell
applicant's Name John M. & Linnea J. Heller
Address 230 4th Ave. West, Kalispell, MT 59901
Interest in Property
Owners
Phone 257-0319
7.5!�r
Petition for a change In the zoning classification of the property. located:
(general area) 690 Sunset Blvd.
and described as (lot & block of subdivision; or lot or tract and Section, Township
& Range) Lot 12 Block 235
The present zoning of the above property is R-4
The proposed zoning is B-2
State changed or changing conditions that make the proposed amendment necessary:
.AII other city private property fronting on Hwy 93 from 1V. Utah St. on the North
to the city limits on the South is in a B-s zone or other commercial zone.
State other circumstances that justify the proposed amendment:
a. It meets all the criteria for B-2 zoning (neighborhood offices)
b. All private property owners in the vicinity have no objection.
c. Traffic light has been installed at this intersection.
d. Property' fenced to preclude vehicles from exiting on Wyoming Street.
e. School
has fenced property which requires children
to only enter
from Wyoming St.
f. pnly pa cel. that borders
Attach Vcp pa parcel and
Hw 93 from
suYrounding
gglf course to N.G. Armory that is not zoned
vicinity.or has variance for commercial use.
Signature of Applicant
of t e vi -1
41
%�7 Fee Receipt Number
i
•
•
0
PROPERTIES WITHIN 150 FT. OF LOT 12, BLOCK 235
OWNERS NAME
Melford Nordtome.
Robert & Pearl E. Wyman
Howard Martini &
Robert Spoklie
Walter & Martha R: Deets
Richard & Rebecca Mattson
GNW Partnership
% Bomar Office Supply
Willis & Lorma Paul
Board of Trustees
School District #5
ADDRESS
675 2nd Ave.
W. N.
Kalispell, MT
59901
665 2nd Ave.
W. N.
Kalispell, MT
59901
Box 48
Sidney, MT
59270
'066 SLPnset Blvd.
Kalispell, MT 59901
Drawer R
Lakeside, MT 59922
700 Sunset Blvd.
Kalispell, MT 59901
115 W. Wyoming
Kalispell, MT 59901
247 1st Ave. E.
Kalispell, MT 59901
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lt 10, Blk 235
Lt 11, Blk 235
Lt 11, Blk 235
Lts 2, 3, 4 & 9, Blk 235
TR 21C
TR 8LB & 8MB
TR BN
Trs BACB, 8PB & 8V
10
{ PHVAV H1N3A3r5 _. �� •` I li}- -�`.l ._(.0
NV
3l0``1" A
nN-3{NV 'S�rRp Hi 1 1r i Jb r
`
cl
�y(10j e
H j 1 i •• � �� 1 1 � ,fir
i RN3�N3 tl
0
`, �. `�T�*- 1, .. l-Y�6�y 1 i�% FTA" ` - 11 , . , ✓ gyp.
H18a 1 ram;
E-ji@
� 1 �-�1-
i
Flathead Regional Development Office
Advisory Technical Staff 723 5th Avenue East - Room 412
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Mayor and City Council
City of Kalispell
Drawer 1997
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: Meridian Addition Zoning
Honorable Mayor and Council:
July 11, 1984 Phone: (406) 755-5300 Ext. 279
The Kalispell City Zoning Commission, at its regular meeting on Tuesday,
July 10, 1984, considered the zoning of Meridian Addition to Kalispell.
Sa o
The recommendation of April 10, 1984 was considered and discussed in accord-
ance with your referral letter of June 5, 1984.
After careful evaluation, an on -site inspection, consideration of all pre-
sented facts and information, and following discussions held February 14,
• March 13, April 10, June 19, and July 10, 1984, the Commission is resolved
to recommend:
•
That Meridian Addition be zoned as follows:
Lots 4 through 16, Block 1, Lots 4, 5, 6, El 7 and 13-
14-15, Block 2 be zoned 1-1 (Light Industry);
Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1 and Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 2 be zoned
B-3 (General Business); and
Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and W1 7, Block 2 be zoned R-5
(Residential). (Re: Exhibit "AA" attached),
In accordance with the findings of the Zoning Report NKZ-84-01 (A).
This recommendation is submitted to your Council for further consideration,
public hearing and action.
In a pursuant action, the Commission rescinded its RA-1 recommendation of
June 19, 1984 which was previously forwarded to your council.
If your have any further questions, please feel free to contact,this
commission or the Flathead Regional Development Office.
• Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls 0 City of Kalispell 6 City of Whitefish
• Mayor and City Council
City of Kalispell
July 11, 1984
Page 2
Respectfully submitted,
KALISPELL CITY ZONING COMMISSION
Jam�Stephens
President
JBS/arw
Enclosures: Exhibit "AA"
F. R. D. 0. Report #KZ-84-01 (A)
cc: City Clerk
City Attorney
Chairman Annexation Committee
City Zoning Official
11 L4�Y L{k�t9
t
I+ �A
4@'5 ADO,
I i
NO 45
I
e
° a
I
O
0
I,
B3
)09.1 e6
WEISSMANS
ADD. NO 46
,xr�.�.yr.-rvm,^=M!"4�1a�"9F+1 nt1 �!I - �1' t�l - . r;• .,...L�.n T�
I 1
I tt
1
y•p 0
MERID114N
ADDITionl
P 1 pA
- 1, 4J1 r
� '//�! //;►Sf ��S�i II •�f . L11 ll.{I���.1.1 171t s a t
r 1pf3! {'Ytl MI* SEC W.PE1EPOpNNnpb
I T (T s�
I „ IY 14 I)It I { { 3 a $
C Id "is It II q }{ y a t
• ! P'L♦ Apf I'
�rH. ST.. '-.900
or'
IS ,{ 17 I t ) tf L. 3 y y D D
tT p D 0 J�
FOURTM ST. W. ) 2 I a op sp"iy?
B y y p p y0•'B
I , 3001,
4ftlivVN�14kiWvi ,
N91
MI
I®
•
Ex%tl b►'1 AA"
a
SBx�1pI.1^ Vt
`s 01
0
RECOMMENDATION
• Based on the above cited evaluation, it is recommended that the following
zones be applied in Meridian Addition;
•
Lots 4 through 16, Block 1, Lots 4, 5, 6, E1/2 of Lot 7 and 13-14-15,
Block 2 be zoned I-1 (Light Industry);
Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1 and Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 2 be zoned B-3 (General
Business); and
Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and W1/2 of Lot 7, Block 2 be zoned R-5 (Residen-
tial).
If such zoning is determined by the City to need a plan amendment, then the
City shall so direct the Planning Board to amend the Kalispell Comprehensive
Plan.
'A q w
2
3. WILL THE RECOMMENDED ZONE SECURE SAFETY FROM FIRE, PANIC AND OTHER
• DANGERS?
The zone will impose height, bulk and dimensional requirements which
are not presently in effect. This zone is consistant with the adja-
cent existing zone to the south.
4. WILL THE RECOMMENDED ZONE PROMOTE THE HEALTH AND GENERAL WELFARE?
The zone will recognize existing permitted uses.
5. WILL THE RECOMMENDED ZONE PROVIDE ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR?
The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to provide these amenities
through bulk and dimentional requirements.
6. WILL THE RECOMMENDED ZONE PREVENT OVERCROWDING OF LAND?
The requirements of the zone will impose limitations on the land
which exceed present codes, and is the same as the adjacent zone to
the south.
8. WILL THE RECOMMENDED ZONE FACILITATE THE ADEQUATE PROVISION OF TRANS-
PORTATION, WATER, SEWERAGE, SCHOOLS, PARKS AND OTHER PUBLIC IMPROVE-
MENTS?
• All facilities are in place
11
9. DOES THE RECOMMENDE➢ ZONE GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE CHARACTER OF THE
AREA?
The recommended zone recognizes the existing uses in and to the south
of the subject properties.
10. DOES THE RECOMMENDED ZONE GIVE CONSIDERATION TO PARTICULAR SUITABIL-
ITY OF THE PROPERTY FOR PARTICULAR USE?
The zone recognizes the existing uses in and to the south of the
subject properties.
11. IS THE ZONING RECOMMENDED WITH A VIEW TO CONSERVE THE VALUE OF
BUILDINGS?
Yes, all of the subject properties are residential uses.
12. WILL THE RECOMMENDED ZONE ENCOURAGE THE MOST APPROPRIATE USE OF LAND
THROUGHOUT THE MUNICIPALITY?
The zone recommended will provide the appropriate zone for uses which
have located there and is the same as the zoning to the south.
5
• 7. WILL THE NEW ZONE AVOID UNDUE CONCENTRATION OF POPULATION?
The nature of the zone is such that uses will deter concentrations of
population in the area.
8. WILL THE REQUESTED ZONE FACILITATE THE ADEQUATE PROVISION OF TRANS-
PORTATION, WATER, SEWERAGE, SCHOOLS, PARKS AND OTHER PUBLIC IMPROVE-
MENTS?
Access to the properties is by way of Second Street West, Meridian
Road to U.S. Highway #j2. Meridian Road and U.S. Highway #2 are on
the "Urban System" for funding purposes, all other public facilities
are in place.
9. DOES THE RECOMMENDED ZONE GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE CHARACTER OF THE
AREA?
The recommended zone recognizes existing land uses, both within and
adjacent to the properties as well as the historic use of the area.
V1 A .r
10. DOES THE RECOMMENDED ZONE GIVE CONSIDERATION TO PARTICULAR SUITABIL-
ITY OF THE PROPERTY FOR A PARTICULAR USE?
The recommended zone addresses the location of the area in terms of
historical use and development potentials.
• 11. IS THE ZONE RECOMMENDED WITH A VIEW TO CONSERVE THE VALUE OF
BUILDINGS?
As inventoried, three existing commercial buildings would be accom-
modated by the zone, two present residential structures would be non-
conforming but could be converted to commercial uses.
12. WILL THE RECOMMENDED ZONE ENCOURAGE THE MOST APPROPRIATE USE OF LAND
THROUGHOUT THE MUNICIPALITY?
The recommended zones will provide the most appropriate zoning for
uses which have located there for functional locational reasons.
Changes in the City's zoning patterns have created a need for addi-
tional industrial areas, and this recommendation will provide a
buffer between industrial and residential zones.
C- Recommendation "C": R-5 zoning for Lots 7, 8 9 10 11 12 and W1/2 of
Lot 7. Block 2.
1. IS THE RECOMMENDED ZONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?
This area of the Kalispell Comprehensive Plan is designated as
"urban" residential.
• 2. IS THE RECOMMENDED ZONE DESIGNED TO LESSEN CONGESTION IN THE STREETS?
No, the zone recognizes the existing traffic pattern to, from and
within the area.
4
11. IS THE ZONING RECOMMENDED WITH A VIEW TO CONSERVE THE VALUE OF
BUILDINGS?
As inventoried, this recommendation will conserve the value of three
existing structures and create one nonconforming structure (a resi-
dence).
12. WILL THE RECOMMENDED ZONE ENCOURAGE THE MOST APPROPRIATE USE OF LAND
THROUGHOUT THE MUNICIPALITY?
The recommended zone will provide the appropriate zoning for uses
which have been located there for functional locational reasons.
Changes within the City's zoning patterns have created a need for
additional areas within the City for I-1 zoning.
B - Recommendation "B": B-3 zoning for Lots 1-3, Block 1 and Lots 1-3, B1
1. IS THE RECOMMENDED ZONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?
The Kalispell Comprehensive Plan shows this area designated for
"Urban Residential," the properties to the west of the railroad are
designated "Industrial." Commercial use is an appropriate and com-
patible zone buffer between industrial and residential land uses.
2. IS THE RECOMMENDED ZONE DESIGNED TO LESSEN CONGESTION IN THE STREETS?
• No, the recommended zone recognizes the existing traffic pattern to,
from and within the area.
3. WILL THE RECOMMENDED ZONE SECURE SAFETY FROM FIRE, PANIC AND OTHER
DANGERS?
The new zone will impose height, bulk and dimensional requirements
which are not presently in effect. Following application of the
zone, all new structures will be required to comply with buffering
requirements for adjacent "R" or "RA" districts.
4. WILL THE RECOMMENDED ZONE PROMOTE THE HEALTh AND GENERAL WELFARE?
The zone will establish permitted land uses, protect the land values
of existing conforming uses and promote the improvement and use of
presently vacant buildings.
5. WILL THE RECOMMENDED ZONE PROVIDE ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR?
These considerations are elements of the zoning ordinance.
6. WILL THE RECOMMENDED ZONE PREVENT OVERCROWDING OF LAND?
The requirements of the zone will impose limitations on the land
• which exceed present codes. Although the new zone allows for more
intensive lot coverage than adjacent zones, it does impose require-
ments for buffering from adjacent "R" and "RA" zones.
3
2. IS THE RECOMMENDED ZONE DESIGNED TO LESSEN CONGESTION IN THE STREETS?
• No, the recommended zone recognizes the existing and historic traffic
pattern to, from and within the area.
3. WILL THE RECOMMENDED ZONE PROMOTE THE HEALTH AND GENERAL WELFARE?
The zone will establish permitted land uses, protect the land values
of existing uses and promote the development of vacant land.
4. WILL THE RECOMMENDED ZONE SECURE SAFETY FROM FIRE, PANIC AND OTHER
DANGERS?
The zone will impose height, bulk and dimensional requirements where
none exist at present. Following application of the ordinance, all
new structures in this zone would be required to comply with buffer-
ing requirements for adjacent "R" or "RA" districts.
5. WILL THE RECOMMENDED ZONE PROVIDE ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR?
The zoning ordinance Urovidas for adequate.light and air through bulk
and dimensional requirements.
6. WILL THE RECOMMENDED ZONE PREVENT OVERCROWDING OF LAND?
The requirements of the zone will impose limitations on the land
which exceed present codes. Although the new zone allows for more
intensive lot coverage than adjacent zones, it does impose require-
ments to buffer adjacent "R" districts.
7. WILL THE RECOMMENDED ZONE AVOID UNDUE CONCENTRATION OF POPULATION?
The nature of the zone is such that uses will deter concentrations of
population in the area.
8. WILL THE RECOMMENDED ZONE FACILITATE THE ADEQUATE PROVISION OF TRANS-
PORTATION, WATER, SEWERAGE, SCHOOLS, PARKS AND OTHER PUBLIC IMPROVE-
MENTS?
Access to the area is by way of Second Street West, Meridian Road to
U.S. Highway #2. Meridian Road and U.S. Highway #2 are on the "Urban
System" for funding purposes. All other public facilities are in
place.
9. DOES THE RECOMMENDED ZONE GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE CHARACTER OF THE
AREA?
The zone recognizes the historical and existing uses within and the
adjacent uses to the north and west of the subject properties.
10. DOES THE RECOMMENDED ZONE GIVE CONSIDERATION TO PARTICULAR SUITABIL-
ITY OF THE PROPERTY FOR A PARTICULAR USE?
The recommended zone addresses the location of the area in terms of
development potentials.
2
FLATHEAD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
• ZONING REPORT #KZ-84-01(A)
"MERIDIAN ADDITION" ZONING
A report for the Kalispell City Zoning Commission meeting June 12, 1984.
A proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the City of Kalispell.
BASIS FOR CONSIDERATION
Meridian Addition has been zoned No. 2 Residence District (old zoning ordi-
nance) since 1947. When the new ordinance was adopted in 1979, this addition
was not rezoned to comply due to a number of conflicting uses and differences
of opinion on how to most appropriately rezone this addition. The City Coun-
cil had suggested a re-evaluation and recommendation be made by the Zoning
Commission with the recommendations of the Flathead Regional Development
Office. (See attached letter from Mayor McDowell dated November 17, 1983,
Exhibit "A"). On April 10, 1984, the Kalispell City Zoning Commission made
a recommendation to the City Council. (See attached letter dated April 12,
1984, Exhibit "B"). The Kalispell City Council on June 4, 1984, reviewed the
recommendation and referred the recommendation to the Zoning Commission in
accordance with Article VI, Section 6.13(B) of the Zoning Ordinance. (See
attached letter from Acting Mayor Ruiz dated June 5, 1984, Exhibit "C").
•
The recommendations to be
evaluated
are as
follows:
-
"A", Lots 4 through
16, Block
1, Lots
4, 5, 6, E1/2 of Lot 7 and
13-14-15 Block 2, be
zoned I-1
Light
Industry;
"B", Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1 and Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 2 be zoned B-3
(General Business); and
"C", Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and W1/2 of Lot 7, Block 2 be zoned R-5
(Residential).
LAND USE CHARACTER OF THE AREA
Properties surrounding the Meridian Addition are used and zoned as follows:
SOUTH: Residential with a few home occupations: zoned R-5
EAST : Armory & Elementary School: zoned'P-1 & RA-2
NORTH: Residential and Christmas Tree Yard: not zoned
WEST : Idle lumber mill and railroad spur line; not zoned
EVALUATION
A - Recommendation "A": I-1 zoning for Lots 4 through 16 Block 1 Lots 4
5, 6, E1/2 of Lot 7, and 13-14-15 Block 2.
• 1. IS THE RECOMMENDED ZONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?
This area of the Kalispell Comprehensive Plan is designated for
"urban" residential development, and is adjacent to an area designat-
ed for "industrial."
�r 7
KALISPELL CITY ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS:
• We, the undersigned landowners within the Meridian Addition,
prefer the property on 2nd Street West be zoned as the
Kalispell City Zoning Commission originally recommended to the
City Council for public hearing on May 21, 1984.
E
Cl
This recommendation is as followst
Lots 4 through 16, Block 1, Lots 4,5,6, F1/2 of Lot 7 and
13-14-15. Block 2 be zoned I-1 (Light Industry);
Lots 1,2,3, Block 1 and Lots 1,2,3, Block 2 be zoned B-3
(General Business); and
Lots 8,9,10,11,12 and W112 of Lot 7, Block 2 be zoned R-5
(Residential).
MUM
Lot(s) 1
Alvin and Melba Arnoux
Lots) 4,5,6
$LOCK 1 (cont.)
Lots) 14
Marily O'Neil Bain for the Estate
of Lawrence E. O'Neil
Lot(s) 15,16
hit
Waynk and Elaine Moothart Charles H. O'Neil for Montana
Forest Products Limited Partnership
Lots) 7,13
_0A J
Jphn'Eenson for Kirk 'free Co.
Lot(s) 10,11,12
:- aB
jr Hanchett, for C.dra Proper-s, Inc. (Consolidated
Electrical Distributors)
Lot(s) 2,3,8.9
dzeeev J
Wallace Getz
Kalispell Welding
BLOCK 2
Lot(s) 2.3
�-Ilif
J es Aho
im's Locksmith and Sharpening
page two
• BLOCK 2 (cont.)
Lot(s) 4,5,6,E1/2 y
W d " A't
Wallace Getz 61
Lot(s) 13,14
Charles H. O'Neil for Montana
Forest Products Limited Partnership
Lots) 5
.`_ O-Zk��
Wynon;9M. O'Neil Trustee for
O'Neil Trust Agreement
Lot(s) 1
1
LarryO,Lee, Charles Vernon, Robert Stephens
Lot(s) W 1/2 7,8, E 1/2 9
Elmer and Irene Olson
Lot(S) 12_
Jeff and Janell Houston
CITY OF KALISPELL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Kalispell Zoning Commission has recommended
a change in zoning classification as requested by John M. (Jack) Heller as
follows:
A change from R-4 (Residential) to B-2 (Neighborhood Professional
Business) on property described as Lot 12, Block 235, Kalispell
Addition No. 6.
The property is located at 690 Sunset Boulevard.
The City Council of the City of Kalispell shall hold a public hearing begin-
ning at 7:30 p.m.. on Monday, August 6, 1984, in the Council Chambers in
Kalispell City Hall to consider the request and recommendation of the Kalispell
Zoning Commission.
Information pertaining to the request is on file in the office of the City
Clerk, Kalispell City Hall and is available for public review during regular
office hours.
Persons wishing to advocate or oppose said request may submit written comments
to the office of the City Clerk prior to 5:00 p.m, on the date of said hearing
isor present same in person to the Council at said hearing.
Marjorj'e Giermann, City Clerk
City of Kalispell, Montana
(Publish one time on July 20, 1984)
9
"
4:00 P. M.
August 15,:1984
ANNEXATION COMMITTEE
• The committee met in the Conference Room at City Hall.
Manning, Councilman Springer, Mayor McDowell, DPW Hammer
Daily Inter Lake.
Present were Chairman
and Roger Hopkins of the
C. Manning opened the meeting and commented briefly on a letter received from Ross
Plambeck of Community Development. This is a proposal for zone change which will
be required because of the impact of the mall. This will go back to the Zoning
Commission for an amendment to zoning plan.
Wholly Surrounded Lands
C. A. Neier was unable to attend the meeting. He will be advising the committee on
what will be required on this and has recommended that we supply information that we
are able to provide services. A cover letter to property owners will be coming from
the City Attorney's office.
C. Manning will get an inventory and a plan will be formulated.
BMB Addition
The Resolution of Intent was presented on August 6. At last night's Board Meeting
it was recommended that B3 zoning be used. A question of B5 was brought up relative
to a concern preparing hides for taxidermy; this is being discussed with Building
Official Petersen. C. Manning recommends that it be annexed as B3 for now. This
will go through FRDO.
Discussion of Federal Land Bank and PCA no longer being involved in this addition.
This information will be brought to the attention of the Council at the next meeting.
C. Manning explained that both entities did everything they were asked to do in
going through land use change and entire procedure and the City did not act upon it
within the time frame, so the properties were not annexed. PCA and the Federal Land
Bank then sent a letter to the City Attorney requesting withdrawal from annexation.
This was never responded to. They are reaffirming that they do not wish to annex.
C. Manning will discuss this with CA Neier.
Bob Monk Property
DPW Hammer has sent a letter to FRDO regarding his comments. The Planning Board and
Zoning Commission have not acted on the annexation request as yet.
C. Springer moved that a recommendation be made to Council adopting a Resolution of
Intent. Seconded by C. Manning. Motion carried.
Sign Ordinance
C. Manning reported that FRDO has recently done a sign ordinance for the City of
Whitefish which has been adopted. FRDO sent a copy to see if we are interested in
obtaining one.
C. Springer has a narrative on the history of sign ordinance but stated that his
concern is more for a noise ordinance. He stated that as soon as we pass a noice
ordinance, he will be interested in a sign ordinance.
It was felt that the need for such an ordinance should come from the people directly
effected rather than the City.
—1—
L
0
Annexation Committee Meeting
Budget Hearings
August 15, 1984
Discussion of the value received for the $20,000 paid annually for FRDO services, and
the request that the committee review the need for continuation of this expenditure.
C. Manning stated that he felt this is our only avenue of cooperation with the County.
The issue.was discussed. Mayor McDowell felt that Whitefish and Columbia Falls were
satisfied with FRDO's services. This is a covered item for the current budget, but
discussion at budget hearings indicated that the Council wanted something tangible
by January for future planning.
C. Manning has a copy of the Interlocal Agreement which itemizes FRDO's background
work, what they agree to do for the City, etc. He will be looking into this.
C. Springer suggests this as a subject of a meeting of the Council as a whole.
C. Manning agreed, and felt that a policy should be decided on the issue.
This brought up the topic of policy in general. There is no continuity and we have
a real need for a book on policy for anyone to address any issue. C. Springer pointed
out that it would take a summer intern or a particular person to accomplish this.
All agreed that we should have a policy on everything, all too often a decision is
shelved or forgotten.
C. Springer suggested, with reference to the FRDO question, that based on the Inter -
local Agreement C. Manning prepare a report. He stated that he would accept this re-
port as a report of the committee to present to the Council as a whole. C. Manning
will start working on the report.
Astle Resolution: Report from County Commissioners
C. Manning discussed with B.O. Petersen. The resolution was felt to be the solution
of the problem of initial intent. Building permit application forms will be redone
tailored to the proposal, in a simple, direct questionairre. People do not want to
wait 10 days, altering the forms would expedite applications. Peterson and C.A. Neier
will work on designing forms.
Meridian Rezoning
The proposed recommendation to Council and Commissioners of updating Comp Plan was
explained by C. Manning. At last night's meeting, the Zoning Commission basically
came up with existing land uses. Land use changes will go back to Council and Com-
missioners and a public hearing will be held for three zone changes. If land use
and zoning changes are done in a procedurally correct fashion and passed by 3/4
Council vote, it is hoped that the changes can be accomplished.
Institution of a policy handbook on all subjects was again discussed. We are deal-
ing with philosophy rather than policy in a lot of cases. C. Springer felt that
each area is defined by ordinance. Someone is needed to research ordinances for
policy and procedure; this person must have authority to write final draft.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00 P. M.
-2-